Thank you very much Laurel. If you don’t mind I will ask a few more follow-up questions.
I found the two essays very informative. Are there any documents which summarize the history of Kinism?
To my knowledge we have not keep a history of Kinism as such. Perhaps John Marshall might know of one, but I do not.
Kinists enthusiastically support the Second Amendment understood as an individual Right and a necessity to restrain the rapacious, autonomous bureaucracies that run roughshod over liberty, security, privacy, and property.
What does ‘Right’ mean in this context? Does Kinism have a standard response to ‘human rights’ ?
As far as I personally am concerned, all humans stand condemned before God, are dead in their sins, and are worthy only of damnation. This includes me. The only human “right” is that of damnation, which we have all abundantly earned.
Praise God! He chooses to move in the hearts of some people and save them according to his love of them, because of no merit of their own, but by His own kingship, grace, and continuing plan for humanity. Since we have no idea of whom God has chosen, we continue to present the gospel to all out of gratitude for His saving us.
In the context of secular “rights,” such as the Second Amendment right, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution covers it, at least in my mind. But as to the idea of a standard response to “Human Rights,” I believe you will find we have some differences.
Following Spengler and Carlyle, we accept the notion of a plurality of civilizations, each of which naturally possess its own paradigms and typologies, as opposed to the inherently imperialist conception of a singular “civilization” to which all peoples must conform.
I believe there is a typo in this sentence.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, we will get it fixed.
The father is the designated head of the household, and, though he is wise to take into account the views and wisdom of his wife, ultimately he is responsible for the success or failure of the family, including generations in the future. So in this kind of issue, Father is the first line of authority. After that would be the authorities of the church(es) the young people belong to. Secular political/governmental authorities should have little to no say, at least that is my personal opinion.
Is this equally true for those who come from non-Christian families?
I come from a non-Christian family, but am sure that my father would have a great deal of influence in my choice of a spouse. (In fact, he has had...) For young folks who are non-Christian themselves and go against family advice in choice of a spouse, they certainly, as secular individuals, can make those choices. Yet no one can escape the natural consequences of their choices. Actions always have consequences, and folks tend to forget that in the flush of young love. Later, when they perhaps are no longer living with the other partner, are trying to raise the children of that union on their own, when their parents are perhaps alienated from them due to the choices they’ve made, they still have to live with the consequences of their actions. I have great sympathy for them, their children, and their parents. But that does not change their situations.
P.S. I’ve written about one of the many mixed-race students I’ve known over the years at my personal blog, Natural Consequences. Mixed-up Mixed Race. It summarizes a lot of what I see in the progeny of mixed-race marriages.
I have witnessed the same thing on multiple occasions.
Again, thank you!
You are very welcome. Hope I’ve been able to be of service!
Fleming writes recently in reply to how northern Europe (incl the west and center in this discussion) can be saved:
the only two choices seem to me to lie in 1) conversion of European Protestants to the Catholic Church or 2) Medievalizing Protestant Churches as some Calvinists are trying to do.
I believe he is talking about the whole Federal Vision thing, which is a melding of salvation by faith with salvation by works. Some churches call FV heresy, a Catholicising of the presbyterian church.
Doug Wilson, the originator of the Federal Vision concept as far as I know, has had a lot of controversy swirl around him and his church in Moscow. Idaho for a number of years now.
His and his wife’s books on family life, however, tend to be rather inspiring and practical.
Take what one can from a mixed bag of good and bad, I guess.
That’s a shame overall - not what I was hoping for…
Frank,
I could be wrong about what was meant by “medievalizing,” but in this context, I think that’s what he’s referring to. More research is in order, for sure. You are a good researcher, so...hint, hint…
The kinist critiques (SWB and CWNY) on Fleming were excellent. Auster’s aren’t, Auster misunderstands Fleming’s position while the Kinists were perfectly accurate, and there’s no point stirring up extra fighting among closely related views.
I’m all for attacking Fleming where he’s wrong, and I didn’t like the Spanish translation. Bleh, I’ll critique Auster’s critiques shortly I guess.
Auster presumes Fleming has given up on America by publishing a Spanish article, but Fleming is preparing to publish an article in Italian now too. The Spanish article was a mistake, but haven’t Fleming and Chronicles always opposed immigration?
Chronicles and Fleming both have fought against immigration for years. The magazine is weak on race, Fleming can be disrespectful and has been reckless with his attacks on racialists and Francis in particular, the magazine is too damn Catholic when its natural audience is Reformed, and its interest in Serbia and Southern Europe is misplaced when it ought to be in Western and Central Europe whence our ancestors came. But Chronicles has a similar objective to kinists.
Auster declares that Fleming is not a conservative, but who the Hell is Auster? Auster never mentions race in either of his two articles. Why? Because he’s no kinist. Auster is no real conservative: What kind of real conservative praises Lincoln, defends the War of Northern Aggression “because it’s American”, and elsewhere defends War in Iraq? Yet he invokes Francis whom he surely dislikes as much as Fleming for Francis’s views on race. Auster’s some sort of culturalist, likely more PC on race than even Fleming. Auster defends the American state while Fleming is relatively more oriented around the American people.
But this is how Chronicles has always been, at least as long as I’ve read it. Auster goes so far as saying Fleming should step down, and I can’t help but ask - what does Auster have to gain from this? What game is he playing? For all Fleming’s faults, is he really an enemy?
Political Cesspool, CWNY, SWB, etc. - these sites have a case for attacking Fleming. Auster’s a liberal “culturalist”, of a worse sort than Fleming.
---
Oh, and the 800lb. gorilla: Auster’s a Christian Jew. Were he to explicitly defend the Jewish people and explicitly defend the white races, then I’d like him better. But he doesn’t. He (perhaps deceitfully?) tries to separate culture from race. That’s all well and good if on TV where the rules are different, but Auster is not Buchanan. Auster is running a blog whose chief audience seems to be same as Dr. Francis’s, and they can take an honest discussion of race.
Note: he refers to me as “Frank the Celt” - now how could I stay angry at someone like that? Though admittedly I was angry like the rest of us at his failure to take a stand on race.
---
To the extent that we here at the magazine have the resources to do anything, it is to educate some younger Americans into what they have been deprived of and to expose the logic that makes them victims.
And he allows discussion of race and, unsurprisingly, many racialists seem to pop up around Las Cronicas.
When I call these people liars, I mean one of two things. Either they say what they know to be false or they recklessly make statements and charges as if they had knowledge when in fact they have none. Of the latter, Johnson would say, “He lies,” and of the former, “Sir, he lies and knows he lies.”
How many weeks ago was it that I defended Ian Smith? One does not have to be a race-idealist–that is one who raises racial questions to the pinnacle of human interest–to understand the racial dimension of what is going on. I have said over and over that while I think that racialists exaggerate the importance of race, I have nothing against them per se but only against the dishonesty, irrationality, and boorishness of some but by no means all of them.
Some of the more foolish attacks have reminded me that we should spend some time and scan in much of our writing on immigration. When my good friend Peter Brimelow was writing only about business, we were being attacked by the neoconservatives for our strong stand against illegal and mass-legal immigration. We have not changed our position.
Indicating some of the complaints we had, myself included, against Fleming were simply misstatements by him.
Quite apart from the question of whether there is or are God or gods, we have–to the extent we have a civilization of any kind–a Christian civilization. To attack it is to join the enemy.
This is in reply to my mentioning Asatru. In my view, any defenders of whites ought to be worked with where possible, and then sought to be converted. Fleming apparently disagrees and views them as too dangerous.
As a traditionalist, I found this to be very wise. However, there is much I do no like about the Catholic Church, primarily the Pope and its universal nature:
Yes, although religion is only part of the explanation, non-believing Catholics tend to live better than non-believing Protestants. In turning religion–which is a matter of behavior and custom–into ideology–a question of ideas about faith, grace, etc.–Protestants stripped Christianity of much of its power to inform, reform, and transform society. Obviously, they did not intend to do this, but it happened.
Let me illustrate the difference between Catholic-Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism by the microcosmic examples of men who drift away from religion in their early 20’s–a very common phenomenon. When a Protestant ceases to practice his religion, he often–not always but often–finds himself rejecting the ideas–is there a God? Did He create the universe and send his son to die and be reborn for us? He will not come back unless he receives a shock that makes him doubt the anti-Christian ideology he has absorbed from the world around him. The Catholic or Orthodox male will also drift away, probably in equal or greater numbers, but since for him religion is not simply what he believes in but a way of life involving weddings and funerals and baptisms and house blessings and saints’ days and a million other things in which his womenfolk are involved, he can never get entirely away. Indeed, I have known many Orthodox men who go to church for a few minutes in the beginning, slip away to drink and smoke with their friends, and then return at the end. As they get older, however, and less preoccupied with success or women, they begin to stay a bit longer and by the time they are 70, they may be pillars of the Church. Among Italian Catholics, it is sort of a joke that the ushers tend to hang out in the narthex–important business, naturally. The point is that while they may not believe much of anything, they remain connected by an umbilical cord that brings them nourishment and solace.
And finally, we obviously disagree with this
Whining does not get you anywhere nor does shouting “radical” slogans at the top of your lungs. To the extent that we here at the magazine have the resources to do anything, it is to educate some younger Americans into what they have been deprived of and to expose the logic that makes them victims. Any call to direct action, when the overwhelming majority of the population is opposed, is tantamount to terrorism.
(a repeat of the original quote I know, but this is a new comment on it) However, we do have similar aims, believing politics is less important, and less potent, than founding kinist communities and restoring a Christian, European culture.
---
But this does not make Dr. Fleming an enemy. I guess people will think what they will. I for one continue to learn from the cantankerous scholar. Auster’s on a crusade to drive Fleming out, and I don’t see why anyone would care what Auster says.
Note: he refers to me as “Frank the Celt” - now how could I stay angry at someone like that? Though admittedly I was angry like the rest of us at his failure to take a stand on race.
Hard to hate folks who call you by cute names, I guess.
(a repeat of the original quote I know, but this is a new comment on it) However, we do have similar aims, believing politics is less important, and less potent, than founding kinist communities and restoring a Christian, European culture.
I am not terribly familiar with Fleming and Auster...these days I have to limit my reading, just don’t have time to read every magazine or blog. But I couldn’t agree more with your last statement, that rebuilding a Christian, European culture and Kinist communities is very very important.
I was something of a Southern nationalist, and a very racially oriented one, before finding Chronicles, but that’s really the community I’ve followed from ignoramus to kinist ignoramus.
So, perhaps it’s understandable in light of that he’s something of my teacher, though I’ve only read his magazine and books and, more recently his blog, never met him in person out of concern I’d get pulled into some sort of activist role.
For the longest time, several years, Chronicles coming in the mail was a big deal for me, like ah maybe a new TV show for some I guess. I’d pick it up, hop on my reading chair, and read it cover to cover that night, and then I’d go to the library and search out books mentioned in it so I could learn to follow along.
That’s perhaps immature for a then 20-22 year old to do, but bleh that was what my world revolved around for a couple of years. And then following that it was still a big deal. Up till last year, when I was 25, I was still a big fan of Chronicles, though the magic worn off about last year I guess. I still have a sense of loyalty, though I no longer see Fleming as highly as I once did…
I might have otherwise been attracted to the original Original Dissent more, but I never could figure how to post there. All I could ever do was post in the welcome forum and pm the mod, heh… I didn’t get active there until about a year and a half ago.
I am not opposed to Obama as president because he is part African. Just being from Illinois is enough for me.
I’d defended him from James Edwards at SWB, but the comment he just made at Chronicles is pretty damning.
I’m not out to attack Chronicles and am a subscriber, but I am interested in the truth and cannot in good conscience let this slip by.
In case the James Edward link goes bad, I’d defended Wilson’s comment:
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.
I’d suspected he meant Southerners would have no trouble mastering the black underclass without the Yankees.
SWB wrote:
Clytemnestra Wilson and Uncle Tom Fleming are “the granddaddy of the Rainbow Confederates” and “the pompous pseudo-intellectual who runs the show” at Chronicles, respectively. This is an excellent post from James on how these two gasbags dance gingerly around miscegenation, which is the most effective tool of the Left in the war against Christendom.
And, I don’t see how this can be disputed with regard to Dr. Wilson taking into account that Dr. Wilson has no problem with a black president.
---
In Britain the Celtic secessionist parties are often left wing and pro-mass immigration, so long as it isn’t English. The left’s strategy appears to be divide and conquer, and to capture and control the anti-English sentiment, lest it boil into something pro-Celtic. The Rainbow Confederates, whether intentional or not, are having this same effect.
Cicero wrote:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.
I am not saying these two are clearly traitors; but if Dr. Wilson sees nothing wrong with Obama being black, then he might as well be one.
If he’s simply selling out and playing the PC game, what good does he accomplish with it? It’s maddening that he defends slavery, appears to love the South, and yet makes such statements. They both appear to be nice guys and both teach a great many valuable lessons, but stances like this will destroy the South.
White nationalism could of course potentially absorb the South, thus destroying it, but race is what we are. To defend the Southern people is not necessarily to join in a greater white nation. And, for a Southron, preserving the South for white Southerners is more important than serving the interests of America - with regard to issues of survival that is, not economic exploitation or power conflicts.
The thing that seems odd to me about the “Rainbow Confederate” types is they tell us to love the “Negro” and to hate people of our blood who live north of Mason-Dixon line. That makes no sense to me. I might point out Lincoln has a Southern hillbillie from Kentucky. And a lot of Southerners fought for the Federals during the war and a lot of “Yankees” opposed the war. I have problems with the whole Southern Nationalism thing anyway and one of my ancestors rode with Forest till the better end. Old New England comes closer to my ideal of a society than most places, including much of the old South. The cultural decline of New England was disaster for America.
