“And that’s the Saga of the Jena Six. It belongs right up there with the Rev. Al’s other classics: Tawana Brawley and the Duke rape case.” Thanks to Republican Pat for putting it all in perspective. And then, in the comments, Tom Fleming demonstrates the irrelevance of paleoconservatism when he writes, “I wish people would find some other site to peddle their childish twaddle about ‘the survival of the white race.’” A commenter who bemoans that “The acceptance of miscegenation is promoting genocide” is called a “dimwit” by Fleming, who believes that “Complaining about anti-white racism among blacks is…stupid [and] infantile,” that is until his loved ones are assaulted. In this, Fleming is quite representative of conservatives, who simply don’t care about the dangers faced by their people until something bad happens to them personally. Two very fine words to describe this are stupid and infantile. By the way, Fleming’s friend Sam Francis concerned himself with little else than “the survival of the white race,” and Fleming has never called Francis’s life work “childless twaddle.” Next, Clyde Wilson chimes in to prove the utter irrelevance of Rainbow Confederates. He writes, “Only a slight acquaintance with history and some common sense should show anyone that there is not and never has been a ‘Negro problem.’ What has to be faced is the root cause: the Yankee Problem.” He continues: “And what ‘white nationalists’ have offered any solution to our current condition? None that involves culture, religion, or tradition. Only control of state force by a different group.” A commenter named John Brompton writes my thoughts exactly: “[Tom Fleming’s] attitudes, typified by his embarrassing rants here, are the principal reason I cancelled my Chronicles subscription. I simply can’t abide these smug pseudo-intellectuals looking down their fat, gravy-stained noses at ordinary whites who are increasingly frustrated at their marginalisation and dispossession… To put it crudely, over the years I have concluded that TJF and his ilk are self-righteous, out-of-touch eggheads who enjoy nothing better than ridiculing white racial activists in order to make themselves feel more important. ‘They’re all tiresome liars’ — apart from the degreed genius TJF, of course.” More than that, they are running scared from the SPLC. For courage today in the face of the SPLC and other Judaic bullies, the last place to turn is to the eggheads at Chronicles Magazine. The best place to turn is to James Edwards and the cast of the Political Cesspool. They enjoy extending the middle finger of Christian charity to Morris Disease and his thugs. Another commenter asks Fleming, “Why does it bother you…when White Husbands and Fathers ‘whine’ about having to train their H-1B visa replacement from India who will go on to to join his fellow ‘Hindu’ Americans and politically organize around their racial/ethnic interests? Are we to organize politically around the reading of the classics?” But Fleming has at least one ally in an Irish-Algonquin who “frequently gets drunk and scalps himself,” and thinks all this racial talk is a lot of hooey because he has no referent for it in his own life.
Fleming and the Chronicles writers have tried to avoid the “racism” tar brush by focusing on localism at the expense of the broader needs of our race. And they have become, as I said, irrelevant. Mestizos and Asians and God-knows-what are flooding into their home base of Rockford, Illinois. The newcomers certainly care nothing for Confederate nostalgia, so Scott Richert and some others try to pull in local subscribers by writing about big box stores going up on the main drag and land theft (i.e., eminent domain). Meanwhile, Fleming runs off to Europe every chance he gets because - naturally - the White past comforts him more than the present jungle surrounding his home. And like any self-destructive “conservative,” he spews venom at “racists,” who are the only people trying to save his sorry ###. This is why many of us lost interest in Chronicles when Sam Francis died.
Someone recently posted on another forum that Fleming’s magazine only had about 500 subscribers remaining. Back in 2000, James Lubinskas said:
The tone of Chronicles began to change in 1997-98, as Fleming started attacking the white consciousness he once espoused, even as his colleague Francis pressed ahead with appeals for white solidarity in a darkening America. Another fractious meeting of the John Randolph Club in 1997 led to more dropouts from the movement including classicist Christian Kopff who saw a degree of hypocrisy in Fleming’s support for Southern secession and his criticism of white identity politics. The magazine started shifting its focus to the war in the Balkans (they back the Serbs), religious issues and support for extreme localism. Some of the more prominent writers started complaining about the direction Fleming was taking Chronicles. Circulation dropped and now stands at around 5,000, which is down from a high of almost 20,000 in the early nineties.
And so in Fleming’s comments he’s calling colleagues such as Francis, Bimelow, and Taylor “childish” and telling us that they spout “twaddle”. Interesting. Buchanan, while he couches his racialism in terms like “American”, it’s a transparent code he uses. The entire immigration debate is conducted in code -not that it’s fooling the liberals. Now, you have those who have poisoned consciences on the subject of race, and others who are using code. Chronicles is in a different game altogether: the game of how to keep a small circulation “paleoconservative” publication afloat in a sea of Sean Hannitys.
You see, it’s really as simple as “follow the money”. Chronicles and the organization that supports it (Rockford?) was at a crossroads a number of years ago and could either go in the direction of arrant racialism and lose its “prestige” along with its establishment money channels, or it could repudiate its former “racism” and maintain the former. The path it chose is obvious.
Also, there is something about Catholicism (both Fleming and Buchanan are Roman Catholic) that seems to deter/retard the development of an “outward” racial dogma. To be sure, their writing is pregnant with racial implications, and it would be child’s play to demonstrate this, since, after all, all this talk about the “values” and “culture” that has to be protected correlates highly with a certain genetic population.
The writer at SWB is correct. Paleoconservatism is largely irrelevant, as is Fleming. He can go to all the Establishment cocktail parties he wants, but he influences few any longer. The “movement conservatives,” in due course, will split along the fault line of race. The group that acknowledges the importance of race will be marginalized by the loyal opposition media and the establishment conservatives, and the “far right”, where Kinism stands, will gain some converts. And that’s exactly why we’re here. To gain converts from among Evangelical movement conservatives as they tire of the farce that is “conservatism”.
[ Edited: 23 February 2008 06:55 PM by W.M. Godfrey ]
Well, I hope something can be saved from Paleoconservatism. The CofCC, the Charles Martel Society, American Renaissance and The National Policy Institute are still around doing some valuable work.
Yes, those groups are all doing good work. However, I don’t really consider them “paleoconservative,” but rather explicitly racialist. Paleoconservatism is almost defined these days by its squeamishness on the topic of race.
One big problem for politically correct paleoconservatives is Samuel Francis and he played a leadership role in both the CofCC and Chronicles. Francis, Williamson, Buchanan and Brimelow have all said things Fleming should attack as “white identity politics” if he going to be consistent. Fleming and Chronicles have been left in the dust. At least in the wikipedia article the PC Paleoconservative seem to be losing the fight: “Most paleo(conservative)s do not support racial integration. Almost all support limiting immigration and maintaining a sense of ethnic identity. Most paleos are opposed to miscegenation multicultural integration. Some are white separatists.”
But therein lies the conflict. The children of darkness have given up their religion of the heart for the religion of the mind.
—-
I now see this to be most correct:
the Kinist vs. the universalist
- for Fleming is a universalist. He attempted to produce a moderate third way between what he terms “ideological nationalism” and internationalism, and wound up creating a form of internationalism. I suspect this is simply as with the rest of the universalists: a reaction against WWII… Fleming writes:
These cross-cutting relationships, which in primitive societies can include marriage, have the important effect of uniting and pacifying tribal and ethnic divisions that might otherwise cause perpetual strife and violence.
I suspect then that Fleming would favour the ending of all national myths with a little racial mixing, so as to ensure all are treated humanely, none as subhuman. However, the true middle ground is Christian kinism, with dual morality on the one side and universalism on the other. Fleming has failed in his attempt at moderation and simply taken to a form of one of the two extremes.
This quote is taken from this most recent article. I’ve learned a great deal from Fleming, and I suspect he serves as a sort of entry level kinist who familiarises those who are looking for a mainstream, acceptable right wing thinking with the right arguments and thoughts. I suspect some readers go on to become libertarians, and others kinists, but few, at least among those who are not of bastard races, become as Fleming. So, I suspect he does little damage, and likely helps.
Nevertheless, I now I see that Fleming is truly a liberal. I hadn’t believed it until now, before now I wasn’t sure what to think of him - I’d suspect he was simply playing political correctness and seeking to remain under the radar. However, I am indebted to him for all I’ve learned over the years, and I’m sure he’s a well-intending man of honour.
For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power. Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things.
-Plato. Critias
By mixing their divine blood, the nature of the Atlantians became corrupted.
That sounds fairly racist to me. I’m fairly certain I could gather together hundreds of similar references from ancient cultures throughout the world. “Ideological nationalism” is no a modern construct.
And when they were quite finished the earth as being their mother delivered them, and now as if their land were their mother and their nurse they ought to take thought for her and defend her against any attack and regard the other citizens as their brothers and children of the self-same earth.
Yes, Blood and Soil Nationalism is nothing new; the Greeks understood it a thousand years before the time of Christ.
Frank - 10 June 2008 08:52 PM
By mixing their divine blood, the nature of the Atlantians became corrupted. That sounds fairly racist to me. I’m fairly certain I could gather together hundreds of similar references from ancient cultures throughout the world. “Ideological nationalism” is no a modern construct.
“Ideological nationalism” is supposedly a new fangled creation of modernism.
Previously man didn’t value membership in his biological race as much, is the claim. He knew he was a member of a kin group, but he didn’t have as materialist a view of it: translation, aliens could marry in and fully become a part of the race.
It’s malarky, but it seems many great thinkers believe it right now. Amalgamation occurred, but it was due to human weakness.
Philosophy is definitely an area that most people seem to get worse at the more they study it. Man is born with kinist instincts. He goes to college to be brainwashed.
Now Fleming attacks Samuel Francis, just when you think someone cannot go any lower… It amusing the Thomas Fleming had Samuel Francis write the article on race relations for the “What is Paleoconservatism?” symposium a few years back.
Fleming also pushes the idea of Southerners as Celts; Yankees as Anglo-Saxons nonsense. The Scot-Irish and Scots played a large role in the History of the South but there were lots of them in PA, NY and other parts of the North too where they also played a large role. And ruling class of the South was mainly Anglo-Saxon. And last of all attacking the Yankee as evil is foolishness that does none of us any good. Fleming tells us to love the African but hate people of our own blood because they live North of the Mason-Dixon line, that make little sense to me. Fleming is a fool, an Idiot, and a liar.
More silliness from the paleocons here, who will write until the cows come home to parse the fine meaning of words. Throughout this piece, Fleming tries to score points against his benighted brethren by calling them bigots, racists, xenophobes, and anti-Semites. Hey, I resemble that remark! At comment 62, he writes, “When I hear young ‘conservatives’ prating about their race or nation, I have to remind myself they are young, marginalized, emasculate young males who will never grow into manhood. It is our greatest national tragedy. Nonetheless, as much as one might pity them – and I do – they have to be prevented from infecting our discourse.” Yes, our people would be groveling before their conquerors if not for the high-falutin’ discourse of egghead professors. Fleming’s charm is matched only by the incoherence of Clyde Wilson, who chimes in with this: “’White separatism’ is not separatism at all, or even a form of nationalism. but merely an imaginary, substitute form of militant American nationalism.” Fleming adds: “But to a true nationalist or racialist, a son who marries a girl from the wrong race or nation becomes an outcast and his children not members of the family. That is what it means to put ideology above life. Naturally, a sane man wants his grandchildren to look like, act like, and think like his grandparents, but we do not always get everything we want. The question is: What are our priorities. To someone who truly believes in kinship, that is a higher priority than race or nationalism.” He goes on to say that racialism is “stupid materialist reductionism” on the order of “the cowardly liberal fusionists of National Review.” After someone named Frank tries to inject some common sense into the debate, Fleming retorts (in comment 94) that “a priori racialist assumptions” are irrational and objectionable, “just as I object to communist or premillenialist assumptions being put on the table as truths.” He then says that “white racial consciousness” is insane. Frank replies, “It’s perplexing that you continue to identify racial identity with hate.” Then Fleming ends by saying that his friend Sam Francis was wrong to be a racial nationalist, for pessimism is our only hope. I’m trying to remember why I no longer subscribe to Chronicles.
Also, there is something about Catholicism (both Fleming and Buchanan are Roman Catholic) that seems to deter/retard the development of an “outward” racial dogma. To be sure, their writing is pregnant with racial implications, and it would be child’s play to demonstrate this, since, after all, all this talk about the “values” and “culture” that has to be protected correlates highly with a certain genetic population.
A wayfarer in these parts, I apologize if I inconvenience any by this line of inquiry, but what is the necessity of referring to ‘race’ specifically? If what we want to preserve is our independent culture, even if race is a prerequisite for this, why not focus on cultural aspect? Alain de Benoist, who writes in praise of ‘difference,’ says essentially the same thing.
Also, there is something about Catholicism (both Fleming and Buchanan are Roman Catholic) that seems to deter/retard the development of an “outward” racial dogma. To be sure, their writing is pregnant with racial implications, and it would be child’s play to demonstrate this, since, after all, all this talk about the “values” and “culture” that has to be protected correlates highly with a certain genetic population.
A wayfarer in these parts, I apologize if I inconvenience any by this line of inquiry, but what is the necessity of referring to ‘race’ specifically? If what we want to preserve is our independent culture, even if race is a prerequisite for this, why not focus on cultural aspect? Alain de Benoist, who writes in praise of ‘difference,’ says essentially the same thing.
And yes, I am also a Catholic.
It’s a matter of ancestral traditions. Those descended from a people are more likely to honor and preserve that people’s traditions, as well as their land, people, works, etc. Those descended, partially or fully, from alien stock are more likely to look to their own roots… and less likely to honor another’s. We know whom we are, especially with the help of genetic tests and obvious outward physical differences. Genetic behavioral differences come into play, e.g. between blacks and whites, but I think this facet readily understood and over emphasised at the loss of equally important issues of identity.
From Kipling’s “The Stranger” :
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control —
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
I’ll let John Marshall or another respond further, but I wanted to address the identity facet of the issue.
CWNY’s Of the Same Blood is worth reading too. We each need a place to belong, a people to care for.
It’s a matter of ancestral traditions. Those descended from a people are more likely to honor and preserve that people’s traditions, as well as their land, people, works, etc. Those descended, partially or fully, from alien stock are more likely to look to their own roots… and less likely to honor another’s. We know whom we are, especially with the help of genetic tests and obvious outward physical differences. Genetic behavioral differences come into play, e.g. between blacks and whites, but I think this facet readily understood and over emphasised at the loss of equally important issues of identity.
From Kipling’s “The Stranger” :
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control —
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
I’ll let John Marshall or another respond further, but I wanted to address the identity facet of the issue.
I agree entirely. The reason I raise the issue is as much tact as purpose. The focus on ‘race’ in America brings many instinctively back to the Civil War and the institution of slavery. Persons may be sympathetic with what CWNY and Kipling say regarding blood-relations without supporting the importation of Africans to the United States and related institutions.
Kipling’s “Song of the English”:
Fair is our lot — O goodly is our heritage!
(Humble ye, my people, and be fearful in your mirth!)
For the Lord our God Most High
He hath made the deep as dry,
He hath smote for us a pathway to the ends of all the Earth!
Yea, though we sinned — and our rulers went from righteousness —
Deep in all dishonour though we stained our garments’ hem.
Oh be ye not dismayed,
Though we stumbled and we strayed,
We were led by evil counsellors — the Lord shall deal with them!
Hold ye the Faith — the Faith our Fathers sealèd us;
Whoring not with visions — overwise and overstale.
Except ye pay the Lord
Single heart and single sword,
Of your children in their bondage shall He ask them treble-tale!
Keep ye the Law — be swift in all obedience —
Clear the land of evil, drive the road and bridge the ford.
Make ye sure to each his own
That he reap where he hath sown;
By the peace among Our peoples let men know we serve the Lord!
This is more compelling to me than warnings against the stranger, although I agree both are necessary.
Salter explains, “Some ethnies are
so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those
distinct genes.”
Salter shows that interracial immigration is most damaging to ethnic
genetic interests: “It requires only 1.1 African immigrants to depress
the European genetic interest by the equivalent of one child (or
vice versa). But it takes 59.9 Danish immigrants to have the same
effect on the English population, or 27 Polish immigrants on Germans,
or 42 English immigrants on Irish (and all vice versa).” Regarding
America, “Americans of European and African descent have lost, and
are losing, the equivalent of millions of children due to post-1965 immigration.”
Salter’s defense of self-sacrifice for one’s people gives a rational
foundation for racial activism. A person who foregoes having children
of his own to serve the larger interests of his race—one who lives or dies
for his race—may serve his genetic interests better than someone who
leaves a large family but works against the interests of his race as a
whole.
Furthermore, many people who already have children are intimidated
from open racial activism because they fear for their children. But
Salter shows that our genetic interests are broader than our immediate
families. Thus, from a genetic standpoint, “It would appear to be more
adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration
of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same
risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning.”
Salter also gives hope to those who are unable to have children of
their own: people who are unlucky in love, people unable to have
children because of a physical defect like sterility or a psychological
aberration like homosexuality, women who ran out their biological
clocks pursuing lifestyles that stymie motherhood, and so forth. Such
people can still salvage their genetic interests by devoting themselves
to the good of their people.
Now, the emboldened is too rational. Obviously we’d choose our own children first… but otherwise this is a worthy argument. Nearly the same argument is found in Kevin MacDonald’s latest book.
Note: Polignano (the reviewer) adds his own opinions later into the essay. These I do not find valuable.
