Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > Political Thought > Conservatism
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old July 19th, 2008 #21
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,632
Default

A great thread here; I've just finished the tour.

The disconnect between the first and second paragraphs of Fleming's post effectively reduces the entire writing to jabberwocky.

The gross error in stating: "The problem is the theoretical racial nationalism that flows out of the French Revolution" destroys any hope Fleming could have had that his piece would be coherent. As repeatedly observed here, the exact and precise opposite of "theoretical racial nationalism", which is in fact egalitarianism, is perhaps the singular product of the French Revolution.

Fleming's first paragraph offered at least the possibility of his train of thought going somewhere. The somewhere turns out to be face-first on the floor as he trips over his own feet.
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old July 20th, 2008 #22
Sándor Petőfi
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Posts: 5,325
Default

Quote:
But the stupid materialist reductionism ...
I think that sums up just how stupid Thomas Fleming is

Quote:
As a lapsed Christian turned neo-pagan, he was wrong about a great many things, ... Fortunately, he had a change of heart ...
and that tells us why.
 
Old July 20th, 2008 #23
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Stone View Post


These people get a lot of mileage out of the whole "multiethnic" thing. They compare the disparate cultures of Europe to the disparate races of Man as if they amount to the same thing, and they aren't the same thing. White people, of whatever culture, are a sub species of homo sapien and they are distinct, different, and superior to the other sub species of homo sapiens. We shouldn't let them get away with claiming that the difference between French and British are no different than that between whites and blacks.


Exactly.

When you hear the fevered cry "But America was founded as a nation of immigrants" by the pro-Invasion forces as justification for the reconquista, they totally ignore the irrefutable fact that it was founded as a nation of only one race of immigrants.

Europeans (us) simply are not the same as Africans/Asiatics/Amerinds/Semites (them).

We aren't the same culturally (Music/Art/Literature), we don't share the same world history, we don't form the same types of civilisations...However all that is a far, far second to the scientific (but ignored upon pain of being ostracized) fact that we are not the same biologically.

To ignore or deny race as a factor in any discussion of our society is to begin with an untenable position against any logical argument. That's why they employ emotion and throw around buzzwords like "racist" & "HATE".

They know they can't win using the facts:

According to the Government, blacks are about 16% of the population. That means black males are roughly 8%. Black males who are between the ages of say....15 and 60...15 being about the age when Da'quon does his first felony, and 60 being the age when hypertension from a life of eating fried chicken & Fritos strokes him out...About 5%.

At any given time, a significant number of that 5% of the population are already incarcerated. The remaining esteemed-up citizens are responsible for over 60% of the crime in this nation.

If you had an automobile model...Let's call it the Chevy Negro, that was 5% of the cars on the road, yet caused 60% of the accidents....Do you think it might be time for a recall? Not to mention the Ford Mestizo.

Ignore racial differences and you ignore the truth. And when you ignore OBVIOUS truth for too long, it has historically not bode well for anybody involved.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder

Last edited by Donnie in Ohio; July 20th, 2008 at 07:18 AM.
 
Old July 20th, 2008 #24
Wakena
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 281
Default

“Naturalism” was Herders creed. As it is with the Tao. These philosophies dwell in such beauty and such depth it is near impossible to argue.

The wayward opinions of the excellent and supra sensual Jean Jacques Rousseau and Herder, both whose names are rarely mentioned without a sneer, was this: That the meaning of “culture” is to restore, by means of our imaginative nature and power, a secret harmony with nature – For Rousseau – that which beasts, (animals, not niggers) birds and plants possess - that which civilization is always and relentlessly trying to eradicate – “Natures Truths” as opposed to “theoretical ones. “

There are striking vibrations of harmony between Rousseau’s vision of man and culture and those of Goethe, because through time, from the great Aryans on, White metaphysical thinkers have, indeed, arrived to the same conclusions. From the writings of OUR nature lovers, the authors of our PATH, our Tao - we learn that the beginning of all self development lies in a certain ‘magical’ rapport bringing indescribable happiness, between our solitary self and all that we behold from this green earth.

Such happiness is totally different then material happiness, or what is called ‘pleasure.’ It flows through us, stirred by mysterious memories of the forests, the ancient love of trees, it is roused by unexpected things, But when it comes - it is as Goethe described, “like happy children, who cry, Here I AM!” And as LouTsu proclaimed it is the truth that can’t be told. And Nietzsche echoes the same.

When our conscious attempts to prepare the ground – our environment – for such heavenly visitors for such a high experience, we KNOW we do not want to be around NIGGERS!


The hatred of these thinkers has nothing to do with “Nationalism” and everything to do with telling the white man he should never, ever, listen to himself and all that is stored there, within.
 
Old July 22nd, 2008 #25
Wakena
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 281
Default

Notice, the irrational hatred of Kant is tossed in for good measure. Who reads Kant?

I will attempt to summarize in my own words what ‘it’ is that I believe Kant shed light on.

The mind is a useful instrument. Mind ‘alone’ can not think, cannot will, cannot love. The mind is an excellent servant but a very bad master. Your car is a fine instrument for travel, but it is “you” that keeps it under control and guides it. So it is with your mind, according to Kant – exactly so. If your car is permitted to run wild, under full power, it will crash. It knows no better then to run on as it has been built to run. It cannot see and it cannot reason. As it is with your mind. It is merely your servant. We are commonly taught that it is the “mind” that reasons. Kant questioned this. It is not the mind that reasons, but acts with automatic precision. The mind is able to carry on deductive processes but not the inductive ones. The spirit alone has this power. Spirit is the mysterious light that works independently and rationally. And “knowledge” can only nurture the inner spirit, not the mind. In other words, A genius pianist is born, not created, and can be nurtured in his talents but a person with no musical talent cannot be molded into a genius composer…and so on.

We only have to observe, a little, the actions of people all over the world. Everywhere people do not act like ‘rational’ beings. They act how they are taught to act. It is the rare individual– it is the RARE individual - who does independent thinking, and when A MAN does this - it is because his SPIRIT has to some extent become emancipated from the domineering control of his mind.



Kants main idea remains valid and it takes us to the logical conclusions of things like: And a mathematician is born not created, and it is created by the mysterious, the unknown, the soul.

And it is when the Sprit becomes emancipated from the Mind that we become – OURSEVLES. And it is then that we realize are not in need of codified standards of thinking or speaking! The MAN who needs codified standards as they are laid down by another becomes the Pharisee. There is no personal wealth or spiritual virtue in obeying the virtues of the mob. There is no personal worth for a MAN to obey the standards of speaking, writing, thinking, acting as they are given to us by the Jew.


The total bankruptcy of academic thinking is clear.


For accolades and praise, to “publish” - to be Jew praised and Jew approved- so called writers, journalist and academics will drag the deepest and most profound European “mystical” thinkers into their gutter because it is easy for them to do. And they can drag them down to any level they want, to their dank basements filled with Holocaust fiction and pathological nightmares, into their dogmatic hell, where through the spectacles of contempt they will continue to perceive little or nothing. Much wisdom has been realized at its highest peaks and if they can not ascend the mountains of these great philosophers – they will never understand what it is that is revealed there.


We have been forced us to listen to such repulsive, ugly, dead words, so old, so decrepit, so totally grotesque, for so long and they do not even touch our hearts, enrich our souls they are not even alive or human, they do not thrill our beings.




This is so painful for me. there is no appreciation for the great eccentricities of our race, the depth of our souls. There is no love or appreciation for the wild spiritual aesthetic English or German – or French…….., the only true courtesans of individualism that the We really are. The German reality during Herders time is one of radical Pastors, Preaching. You can go all around the Earth as I have and it is very difficult to find one single white man who has not been beaten down and crushed by this ugly dogmatic world, one who is just free from the unthinking mob. Just one, whole, genuine, beautiful MAN living according to HIS nature and nobody else’s – (Well I found one – But now he lives according to my nature.) It is just sad to me that it is so rare, because it is what nature intended.
 
Old July 22nd, 2008 #26
Hugo Böse
Jeunesse Dorée
 
Hugo Böse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Four Seasons Jalalabad
Posts: 9,747
Default

Wakena
There is much passion in what you wrote there. Deep feelings and appreciation of beauty and wisdom are discouraged and suppressed in this despicable age we currently live in, one obvious reason for this is that strong feelings could make you become anothernaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
__________________
_______
Political correctness is an intellectual gulag.
 
Old July 23rd, 2008 #27
Wakena
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 281
Default

The portrait has been successfully painted that Germans were entrenched in this sort of perverse ‘philosophy’ that led them to the irrational.

This is a false portrait and it is a complete perversion of the German environment during the time between the insane wars and the rise of Hitler. Most were very poor and undereducated before Hitler came to power. Most of the youth knew nothing of Germany’s great minds. Germans were starving, begging and wallowing in a horrible condition after the first WW for which they were held accountable. The German institutions were entirely corrupted and taken over by parasitic, hateful Jews.



A proper look into this situation, one uncolored by pathological, total proven lies and Hate, it is easy to see the Germans were REACTIONARYS. And given the situation the reaction was obvious. And it was human and simple, not a web of complex philosophy: Germans for Germans and Germany for Germans. Germans were the people and the blood and soil, for thousands of years. They expelled the aliens, unfortunately most of them over to America to froth there, who were a parasitical destructive force, and tried to thwart the inevitable.

It was the German education minister Russ that said this in 1937:


"Those democrats that come here and shake their heads because we march so much need to be told something. They will reap from their democratic idea of liberty the destruction of their liberty. At the end of the road lays not order but chaos."


It is also wrongly assumed that Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche and tried to adopt some kind of irrational nihilism as a creed. But again, this is a false academic assumption, He was a reactionary to Nietzsche. Understanding Nietzsche in depth, and Spengler, it was Hitler that attempted to take the hammer to both and thwart what they both predicted -The unstoppable decline.

And it is precisely here that lends to a deeper meditation. Because the deepest philosophical question of our age is indeed, not the evils of so called “nationalism” but what Nietzsche concluded – Is the decline, the fall into mad and inconsolable savagery with horrifying half bred humans in our midst, the total savage underclass of humans that are taking over the entire earth and are no better then a royal edition to animals, - inevitable, as Spengler also asserted? The mad war that ushered in the insane tyranny of the Judeo-Christian democracy with endless “holocaust” survivors crawling out of the woodwork to extort everyone on the planet, bankrupting the entire planet with endless swindles and the unleashed savage nigger to bless us with the joys of the darkest Africa in every European country and colony –A reality, I am sure, that is more horrible then what Spengler or Nietzsche or even Hitler could have fathomed, An America that resembles the freak show on the island of Dr. Moreau, a place of horrific satanic social experiments that have created the most monstrous creatures that are considered progress by insane people…… but here we are. Because of the Death of God, are we dying? It is not our minds that have become weak, if you are to believe we actually did make it to the moon ( I doubt it). That is one great achievement, but it is our sprit that is dead. And when our spirit is dead, we die. And eventually even technological achievements will be impossible, for they will serve no purpose. Purpose for whom, the ungrateful, hateful, despotic Nigger constantly justifying his own depravity? The materialistic, endless greed of the Jew?

And if we accept this as inevitable, then what?
 
Old August 6th, 2008 #28
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

#
7MAP

“The only cement holding Americans together is the mass culture that is destroying the American character, the national government that has turned a nation of citizens into a mass of mere taxpayers, and, since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, a series of threats (many of them largely imaginary) to American security—Libya, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. As Irving Kristol has said on a number of occasions, if Communism did not exist, it would have to be invented, because only the threat of Communism kept Americans united. With the loss of the Communist enemy, it has been necessary to discover—or invent—an endless parade of Hitler-imitators bent on global domination.”

Dr. Fleming, do you see a return to local control, as the founders envisioned, as the the only real solution? An out of control central government appears to be the source of all our problems.
#
on 06 Aug 2008 at 9:37 am8O'Raifeartaigh

It is impossible for millions of Mexicans to assimilate to Euro-American society. It is impossible because it is such a low probability event to the point of it being a waste of time to discuss. Race has everything to do with it. Even if one takes the view that race,culture and language is a contingent relationship, with very high probability , a racial identity will be deeply embedded among Mexicans living in the US. The numbers will favor this.

This is the crucial part of the analysis TJF leaves out. Culture and language are very important. However, for the most part, culture and language are deeply entrenched within a racial group. To point out that there cultural diferences within the Euro-American community doesn’t undermine this point.

The racial transformation of America is the fundamental issue. When it is complete, European Americans, over time, will be a very small minority in the nation curently called America. When the racial transformation of the US complete, there won’t be a Euro-American population to culturally rehabilitate.

I don’t have the warm spot in my heart for Mexicans that TJF has. I see them as invaders and should be dealt with as invaders are usually dealt with. So the big question is this:If European Americans-enough of them-ever come to their senses and find it unacceptable that Mexico has taken over several large American states, I would expect European Americans to do what is normal and justifed response to the Mexican invasion:throw the invaders out. This is defintely within the realm of very real possibilities.When both the Republicans and Democrats can no longer deliver the goods to a large number of European Americans, there will no longer be any incentive for European Americans to participate in their own annihilation within the borders of the United States.

I expect the Mexicans to resist. The racial transformation of the United States is the fundmantal issue. It will change everything permanently. Mexicans are actively participating-biologically and politically-within the borders of the United States in the racial dispossession of the majority Eruopean American population. It is for this reason that a do not have a warm spot in my heart for the Mexicans.

Mexicans- through migration and breeding- are waging an agressive and unrelenting race war against the European-American majority. This is obvious. There is no point in being PC about this.
#
on 06 Aug 2008 at 9:48 am9TJF

A return to local control would be a necessary though not sufficient step toward recreating some form of decent republican life. On the other hand, much good would also be done if our elite class became a genuine aristocracy as opposed to merely a vulgar and self-destructive oligarchy.

The problem, it seems to me, has two major components: 1) an overcentralized system that drains the energy out of everyday life and small communities, and 2) a decadent, stupid, suicidal culture that his shared by lords and peasants alike. Our decadence makes any move toward decentralization very difficult if not impossible and the stranglehold of the system– both government and cultural institutions-makes a cultural/moral recovery difficult.

It seems to me that the only practical steps that can be taken at this point would consist of A) a national or even international movement of serious people, who B) organize themselves locally and regionally into cells, not for direct action against government but to revivify private life and cultural traditions. In a way, some of this goes on through larger religious groups and even with various strands and movements in “the arts”–music education, for example. But for what interests us or some of us on this site, we need the equivalent of a national or international network of local and laergely autonomous John Randolph Clubs, where people would meet to clarify issues, talk about books, and discuss how to apply the big ideas to small local issues. The point would not be activism or even education per se but the creation of small-scale little communities of decent civilized people. Any way, it is a thought I have been toying with the past few days. Perhaps I have seen Frank Capra’s Meet John Doe once too often.
#
on 06 Aug 2008 at 9:56 am10TJF

It is hilarious that someone named O’Raifeartaigh should worry about race, when most of the higher branches of the great white race regard the Irish as white Negroes. I say this, conscious of “the Irish blood that’s in me.” Like most racists, our Irish friend is both ignorant and untruthful. Untruthful, because I was quite explicit on the racial/ethnic question, which I discussed at length, and ignorant in attributing motives to people he does not know or understand. No one would accuse Chilton Williamson, for example, of being weak on the immigration issue but like me Mr. Williamson loves Mexico and admires the many civilized Mexicans he has met. And, like most racists and other leftists–yes, racism and nationalism are leftist movement at bottom–our Mick friend knows–they always know–the real arguments another man is or should be making. What a trivial universe these tedious little bigots would create in their own image!

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=683#comments

[Fleming is always insulting and touchy when responding to 'racists.']
 
Old August 10th, 2008 #29
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[latest from Flemio]

Ronduck’s comment is one more bit of evidence–as if we needed any–that self-described conservatives and nationalists have lost all regard for truth, to say nothing of manners. In the past 30 years I have repeatedly discussed the crime and welfare rates of different ethnic groups and nothing in this article could be taken out of context by an honest person to construe it as a rejection of my long-held and frankly described position. On the other hand, it is simply not true that white Americans are the pillars of virtue that white nationalists celebrate. We do not have to go into statistics on drug use and divorce and abortion, it is enough to live in the world and observe how degraded our people have become in the past several decades. Indeed, one has only to read Ronduck to realize the American education has taught its victims to despise logic and evidence and to blurt out the first feeling that passes through their glands. If Ronduck wishes to take part in further discussions, he should understand that decent people simply not not make up ideas and attribute them to others. There appears to be something in the white nationalist creed that stupifies the intelligence and moral responsibility of the believers.
#
on 10 Aug 2008 at 1:56 pm14Frank

Dr. Fleming,

this is a good response, and I think it shows character that you refrained from attacking one of your recent critics who’s perhaps vulnerable himself, I’m not referring to a racialist.

It seems counterproductive for people who have many common interests to attack each other. Cui bono?
#
on 10 Aug 2008 at 2:12 pm15Frank

However, one point is that some of the criticism, such as that from Ronduck, is nothing more than a misunderstanding. Perhaps you could win them over in friendlier way. Or, perhaps you should focus on the issues and let people do as they will - either way, I appreciate your continued writing.
#
on 10 Aug 2008 at 3:09 pm16TJF

I wonder. Let us suppose this were a real rather than a virtual conversation. Person A says he advocates something–let us say, monarchy or pacifism or vegetarianism. Person B says, “but I think, without bothering to ask or look into it, that I can read into what you say some meaning that is entirely foreign to your point of view and actually contradicts what you claim to be saying.” Let us further say that this takes place in a barroom on Saturday night about 11:45 either in Dublin or Dothan, Alabama. Person A, breaking the whiskey bottle off on the bar as jagged as he can make it, asks, “Are you calling me a liar?” Perhaps Frank the Celt recalls an attempt of Braxton Bragg, after proving himself either incompetent or cowardly, to give Bedford Forrest an order: “General, if you ever presume to give me an order, I shall slap your jaw and force you to resent it.” <br?

There is a limited amount of time at our disposal to have these conversations. My view is to encourage those who can be encouraged and to expel those who cannot. I have nothing whatsoever against people who disagree with me or condemn my opinions. What I refuse to tolerate are those who either from malice or insanity persist in misrepresenting what I have said and want to force me to defend opinions I have never held. It would be far better to shut down writebacks than to extend carte blanche to time-wasters.

On the point at issue, I have argued time after time that, for example, the European American rate of violent crime, once abstracted out of the statistics–harder and harder to do seeing that the government jiggers figures by including “Hispanics” as white when it suits their purposes–is comparable to some of the frisker countries of Northern Europe, Scotland and Norway, for example, while crime rates in Mexican cities are several times higher than those even in the worst US cities, but even Mexico pales in comparison to what is reported of South Africa, to say nothing of what really happens in that truly terrifying country. 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. I would say the same thing about capitalists and Marxists and feminists and environmentalists and all the other “ists” who make the world a one or two dimensional place.

This site is open to anyone who wants to grapple honestly with the truth in a civil manner, but among the rules of civility is that one man, in a polite conversation, is never permitted to accuse another man of lying and to deny–in the face of all evidence–that a man means what he says is no different from calling him a liar. 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.” Our condition in this country is so desperate that we cannot afford even polite lies much less lies that contradict the rules of civility.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=702#comments
 
Old August 10th, 2008 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

it is simply not true that white Americans are the pillars of virtue that white nationalists celebrate

Yeah, there's a WN argument: whites are pillars of virtue. Must have seen that 3-400 times today. What WN do say is that race must be the foundation of a society, otherwise it will fall apart. WN don't call whites pinnacles of virtues, they more often call them lemmings and sell-outs and liberal cultists. WN know that whites deserve some blame for what has happened, but that jews deserve more. They know that pallids like Fleming refrain from discussing the jew's role in directing White demise out of pure animal fear combined with economic incentive - fear of being labeled a hater by the communists and pedophiles of the SPLC.

If Ronduck wishes to take part in further discussions, he should understand that decent people simply not not make up ideas and attribute them to others.

Then you, Flemio, are not a decent person. Strawmen are your stock in trade when it comes to countering WN. Whose arguments you DARE not address head on. Even though you know they are correct.

There appears to be something in the white nationalist creed that stupifies the intelligence and moral responsibility of the believers.

That explains why you close any thread in which a reader points out what you're afraid to tell your dupes. The Internet has shown your kind up for what they are. It's funny, in a perverse way. A Pierce or an Oliver has logic and gravitas. A Fleming has smears and strawmen.

What I refuse to tolerate are those who either from malice or insanity persist in misrepresenting what I have said and want to force me to defend opinions I have never held.

Classic example of a coward accusing others of what he's guilty of himself. How do you tell? Fleming never quotes his WN; they are simply strawmen of his own creation, which he then lights on fire, in a very mature way. WN quote Fleming's words and explain why he's wrong. THEN they call him what he is - a liberal and a coward who, correctly, sees in WN a more accurate and attractive philosophy than what he and his have to offer.

How many weeks ago was it that I defended Ian Smith?

This clown is forever deriding others for being uneducated compared to glorious him, yet the dumbest WN knows Smith sold out his race and his country.

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.

The pinnacle of human interest? Who has ever claimed that? The point is that race is essential to understanding politics and civilization, and that those who claim to defend civilization while downplaying race, which you do, no matter how much you pretend otherwise, are frauds or cowards.

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.

Hey, and we have nothing against you except your dishonesty, irrationality and cowardice.

This site is open to anyone who wants to grapple honestly with the truth in a civil manner,

Not true. Chronicles suppresses criticism of jews. It also suppresses criticism of its suppression. Fleming is insistent here as ever that civil discourse is allowed at his place precisely because it is not. He has learned well from the jews he accompanied down South to wreak a 'civil rights' revolution that would destroy everyday life for the whites he feels no kinship towards.


but among the rules of civility is that one man, in a polite conversation, is never permitted to accuse another man of lying and to deny–in the face of all evidence–that a man means what he says is no different from calling him a liar.


You've called your opponents liars in nearly every post in which you've mentioned WN, as documented on this thread. Not once do you ever name these imaginary WN you're responding to, let alone quote and refute them. In other words, even where you can control the floor, you lack the courage to cite and fight. White nationalists do not.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 10th, 2008 at 11:07 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2008 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sándor Petőfi View Post
I think that sums up just how stupid Thomas Fleming is



and that tells us why.
What do you mean?

I'm slowly but surely working out a way to pin these catlickers down and eat their innards.

Is the man who says, "Man is more than his parts" truly an expansionist, as he thinks? Or is he a reductionist? Because in saying man is more than what he appears to be, he loses interest in precisely that - real man, as encountered, sniffed, weighed and measured, tagged and categorized. The spiritualist is the real reductionist. In saying matter matters not, and spirit is all (Catholics stop just short of Christian Science creed: man is not material, he is spiritual), the Catholics show themselves the true reductionists. A real ham sandwich beats an imaginary god any day of the week and double on Sunday. It wasn't a Catholic who sat down and actually bothered to figure out our DNA, it was an atheist.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 10th, 2008 at 09:42 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2008 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

One thing Flemio does that successful academics rarely do is fall back on his credentials. He, you see, has done the hard work. While you were reading Stoddard, Pierce, Oliver, et al, and he was rereading Beowulf in the original pig-English, he somehow learned everything there is to know x 2 about white nationalism. He adverts to his credentials and maturity nearly every post - because he has no arguments. Pulling rank is for weaklings. Show don't tell, Tommy boy.
 
Old August 10th, 2008 #33
Mark
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,219
Default

So Phlegming says an Irishman can't preserve his heritage because some other ethnic group or person insulted him? Well there you have it, we have to let all the third worlders in and intermarry with them because there are ethnic and personal conflicts among whites. Phlegming is a silly little man.
 
Old August 13th, 2008 #34
Revisionist
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Race nationalism did not flow out of the French Revolution. The French Revolution was the opposite of that, at least as I understand it.
Fleming is one of these guys who strikes Tory poses when confronted with populism...Buckley did the same thing when commenting on Wallace's constituency.

I believe the Paleo party line to be that Nationalism of any sort is the stuff of dangerous, agitated masses who can no longer be reigned in by the good judgment of aristocractic classes amidst deteriorating social circumstances. These types essentially parrot Edmund Burke while neglecting to draw relevant historical parallels. Playing Tory in 2008 might be classier than playing Hollywood Nazi, but its just as irrelevant to the current dilemma.
 
Old August 13th, 2008 #35
Revisionist
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myles View Post
Thomas Fleming referring to anyone as "emasculate" is quite possibly the most nauseating morsel of hypocrisy ever regurgitated.

Agreed. Maybe if we all start playing Don Quixote in tricorn Tory hats and enjoying the benefits of gentlemanly, country club life we can all be ''real men'' like Thomas Fleming.
 
Old December 12th, 2008 #36
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[More from Flemio]

27TJF

Dr. Wilson has almost outdone himself. Before his important observations become clouded over by well-meaning but occasionally misleading responses, I would like to, as it were, clean off the glass a bit. First off, it is absurd now and ever after to speak of a “white community.” The fact that most of us have more in common with most members of our own race does not make whiteness the basis for a community. Indeed, an antebellum plantation formed a sort of community with rich and poor, white and black. I don’t think white Frenchmen and White Germans made much of a community between 1870 and 1945, except in those places where they were neighbors, and although I live among white northern Europeans, I do not necessarily feel myself a member of their community.

Second, I don’t know what degree of Latinity the current Regius Professor of Greek (not Classics) at Oxford has, but I would not be so sure about his incompetence. I know that many of his predecessors of not so long ago–Murray, Dodds, and Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones were good Hellenists, at least, and far better than the Renaissance humanists. Third, if Diane Ravitch and Checker Finn are conservatives or on the right, where does that put Russell Kirk and Thomas Molnar. I did not think that someone could praise leftwing neoconservatives on this website as rightwingers.

Let’s stay away from the Frankfurt School or, if you wish, actually study their writings. There is altogether too much conspiratorial boozhwah on the Internet. Believe me, they are an indication of the problem, but the problem antedates them by many centuries. Yes, they were Jews, and like most Jewish intellectuals they did not have an original neuron in their brains but simply warmed over the arguments given them by anti-Christian gentiles. It is also probably unfair to call Paul Goodman a leftist. He was an original, despite all his lies and posing, and someone still worth reading.
 
Old December 12th, 2008 #37
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[from the Goat]

30Clyde Wilson

As you say, Dr. Fleming, “whiteness” does not provide anything sufficient to live for or to die for. People can be rallied by religion, kinship, culture—they cannot be rallied by a physical characteristic. The ills of the West, as you suggest, are all in ourselves, not caused by others, though others may take advantage of them.

[I guess Wilson doesn't consider blacks, browns and yellows people.]
 
Old December 12th, 2008 #38
Mike Jahn
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,526
Blog Entries: 3
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[More from Flemio]

27TJF

Dr. Wilson has almost outdone himself. Before his important observations become clouded over by well-meaning but occasionally misleading responses, I would like to, as it were, clean off the glass a bit. First off, it is absurd now and ever after to speak of a “white community.” The fact that most of us have more in common with most members of our own race does not make whiteness the basis for a community. Indeed, an antebellum plantation formed a sort of community with rich and poor, white and black. I don’t think white Frenchmen and White Germans made much of a community between 1870 and 1945, except in those places where they were neighbors, and although I live among white northern Europeans, I do not necessarily feel myself a member of their community.

Second, I don’t know what degree of Latinity the current Regius Professor of Greek (not Classics) at Oxford has, but I would not be so sure about his incompetence. I know that many of his predecessors of not so long ago–Murray, Dodds, and Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones were good Hellenists, at least, and far better than the Renaissance humanists. Third, if Diane Ravitch and Checker Finn are conservatives or on the right, where does that put Russell Kirk and Thomas Molnar. I did not think that someone could praise leftwing neoconservatives on this website as rightwingers.

Let’s stay away from the Frankfurt School or, if you wish, actually study their writings. There is altogether too much conspiratorial boozhwah on the Internet. Believe me, they are an indication of the problem, but the problem antedates them by many centuries. Yes, they were Jews, and like most Jewish intellectuals they did not have an original neuron in their brains but simply warmed over the arguments given them by anti-Christian gentiles. It is also probably unfair to call Paul Goodman a leftist. He was an original, despite all his lies and posing, and someone still worth reading.
I found a picture of Fleming at a recent paleo-con ball (there were interesting chaps in attendance and a rather lovely time was had by all)

Last edited by Mike Jahn; December 26th, 2008 at 01:00 AM.
 
Old December 14th, 2008 #39
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

31Leon T. Haller

I do not normally read blog comments, except from sites’ professional writers. I skim the threads looking for such authorial commentary. Doing that just now I noticed TJF @27, and Clyde Wilson responding to him @30. TJF makes the following observation:

“First off, it is absurd now and ever after to speak of a “white community.” The fact that most of us have more in common with most members of our own race does not make whiteness the basis for a community.”

Dr. Wilson responds to this observation thusly:

“As you say, Dr. Fleming, “whiteness” does not provide anything sufficient to live for or to die for. People can be rallied by religion, kinship, culture—they cannot be rallied by a physical characteristic.”

This caused me to perk up a bit, and cursorily examine the other “civilian comments”. I seem to be the only person who used the words “white” and “community” in the same sentence, so assume that TJF’s comment was directed to me. Interestingly, although I am an open racial nationalist, my purpose in the sentence @1 was not to argue about the merits or existence of “white community”, but simply to wonder how these coddled generations of what Prof. Wilson called “the traditional American population” (and to whom is the good professor referring by that choice of phrasing - descendants of African slaves, and Amerindians on their reservations)? would respond if hard times, such as earlier generations had experienced, were to return. But as the matter has been broached …

I suppose I must first make a minor clarification, by emphasizing the ‘racial’ over the ‘nationalist’. There are a lot of paleocon straw men that have been built and demolished over that word ‘nationalism’, often irrelevantly. Most of us (but not all, of course) who are called “white nationalists” are not really classical European nationalists, let alone Nazis (the latter ideology is often implicitly imputed to us, that we might be the more easily and safely ignored or else ‘discredited’ without serious engagement with our ideas). We are simply men who believe 1) that whites qua whites, at least in the world at this time, have communal or collective interests which require political defense, and 2) that a politics devoted to protecting white racial group interests is more important at the present time than any other rightist politics; that is, that racial concerns are part of any legitimately ‘conservative’ movement, and ought to be uppermost in the overall hierarchy of the Right’s agenda. Personally, I prefer the term ‘racial conservative’ to describe my position, but though that is technically most accurate, in discussions like this it could also be misleading.

#
on 12 Dec 2008 at 5:58 am
32Leon T. Haller

To continue:

Indeed, what is conservatism? More precisely, what is conservatism, especially today, when the failures and hypocrisy of racial integration + ‘diversification’ through immigration are increasingly evident to intelligent whites, at least conservative ones, if not racial conservatism?

To repeat, racial conservatism is NOT the same thing as racial nationalism (though I advocate both, the former philosophically, the latter strategically), nor does racial conservatism conflict with other aspects of the broader conservative ‘mind’ or agenda. Indeed, a NON-racial conservatism is ultimately unintelligible, or perhaps is, at best, a cover for some variant of biblical fundamentalism.

For what does it mean to be conservative? Sam Francis somewhere expressed it best: Conservatism is the defense and preservation of a particular people, and its historic institutions and culture (within boundaries, I would add, of some ultimate metaphysics, which in our case is supplied by Christian natural law).

But what is the foundational aspect of particularity? It is biological differentiation. Preservation of cultural and historical particularity thus begins with maintenance of the 1) blood purity, and 2) numerical (and later political) hegemony, of (in America and the West) the white race.

That the West begins with a racial foundation does not imply that only race matters, or that some mindless white tribalism is the appropriate political strategy for conservatives. It means only this: the West is white, has a moral right to maintain itself as white, and will not survive as a civilization if whites do not first maintain the purity of their collective genome, and second, their numerical preponderance within their historic polities.

Conservatism begins with race, though no racial conservative argues that it ends with it. But we are nearing a time when the literal genomic perpetuity of our people is in doubt. Therefore, the true conservative being alive to the vagaries of history, we put first things first. We start the renewal of our civilization at the base, which means attending to race first.

Furthermore, on a broader note, it must be said here that the attempt (apparently the intention of CHRONICLES) to create some non-racialist, anti-neocon conservatism that is neither simple libertarianism, nor Christian reconstructionism, is not merely intellectually doomed to incoherence, but politically futile.

As I have been arguing for years, conservatives can rally to either Religion or Race. Those are the ‘ultimates’. Men are roused by hopes of heaven, and by the call of blood.

It is true that libertarians also oppose much of the Left’s agenda, but they have their own historically and intellectually well-developed ideology. Those self-styled conservatives who primarily oppose Big Government or wish to preserve capitalism are really libertarians (perhaps culturally conservative ones in some cases). Libertarianism is philosophically incapable of defending conservative particularities.

And so is Christian conservatism. Those conservatives who primarily oppose the Left’s hostility to pre-1960s traditional (Christian) moral and socio-sexual values are really either (Protestant) Christian reconstructionists, or else some archaic type of papal supremacists (if they are intellectually coherent that is, carrying their assumptions to their logical conclusions). The ‘moral values’ crowd has no arguments, within its own Christian ideology, against racial integration (at least if uncoerced). From a conservative perspective, the politicized Christians are at least a bit better than libertarians insofar as they do oppose Muslim immigration, if out of religious and not ethnocultural supremacism. Remember: the Church is a universal institution. It offers nothing in the way of defending cultural particularities (though, I argue, it does not disallow conservatism, either).

Unfortunately for the Christians, they are pretty much ‘maxed out’ today. Christian fundamentalist ideology (of whatever sect) appeals to certain mental types, and repulses others. While I expect such Christians to be with us always (for the indefinitely forseeable future anyway), and indeed, to grow more prominent over time, at least among whites (insofar as they are the family-centered people having the most children, and most people are not critical thinkers, but derive their core beliefs from their parents, esp when those beliefs are strong and foundational, as is the case here), there is a limit to political Christianity’s appeal. Most Americans who are convertible to theologically conservative doctrines have already made that leap.

Whether the CHRONICLES crowd likes it or not, the future of the Right will increasingly be racialist. That is where the ‘growth potential’ is. There exists an enormous gulf between the pronouncements of the occupationist regime, and the lived reality of whites. There is also an enlarging political gulf. In the recent election, EVERY minority group, including Jews, voted overwhelmingly for Obama: Asians nearly 2-1, Hispanics more than 2-1, blacks 95%. Non-Jewish whites, however, voted 57-43% for McCain. Given first, that whites are Prof. Wilson’s “traditional American population”, and so the least ethnocentric group, for historical as well as universal biological reasons (ie having built the country, and therefore it having been ours for so long, we are the least ‘minority conscious’ group, the insiders not outsiders); second, the charisma of Obama; third, the ineptitude and unattractivenes of McCain; fourth, the deep public dislike of Bush; and finally, fifth, the huge financial implosion in the final stretch of the campaign, it is extremely significant that a clear majority of whites STILL voted anti-Obama (I think it obvious that there was more anti-Obama than pro-McCain sentiment among GOP voters).

As the objective political (and later economic) position of whites continues to erode, while minorities in league with the regime still persecute and blame whites for their own problems, does anyone really think that white communalism/nationalism is NOT going to assume a greater prominence? White nationalism speaks to issues of real injustice, and it offers real solutions (ie, let’s organize politically to protect ourselves, our property, and our country), based on a simple but, contra Wilson, REAL, non-ideological quality (yes, skin color - come visit LA sometime, and talk to white conservatives here, or maybe just ordinary whites, about their ‘identity’ or sense of self and its relation to the allegedly insignificant “physical characteristic” of race).

Finally, I’ve said this for years, but I’ll say it again: we racialists are eventually going to take over the conservative movement (I hope by marginalizing the extreme Christians, those hard edged fundamentalists whose bleak, rule-bound vision of social existence is unattractive even to many conservative Christians). We will have to be cagey about it, muting the ‘white pride’ types and emphasizing the perfectly real and legitimate facts of white victimhood (as Jared Taylor has done vis a vis unnecessary neo-Nazis). But that it will get done is inevitable, as long as existing demographic and political trends continue.

34Leon T. Haller

A last matter: even if whites did not historically have ‘whiteness’ as their primary social or cultural identity, that in no way necessarily negates the possibility that such an identity could develop in the future - or is developing now. No cultural identity is permanent (though some are extraordinarily long-lived). And modern identities grew out of earlier ones. What of it? Identity formation is always a reciprocal process, involving interactions between physical characteristics and external environments. Look at black Americans. Black America is certainly a nation, one which grew out of an amalgamation and homogenization of earlier, more disparate African tribal identifications, which were gradually eroded within the common historical crucible of slavery and the American historical experience. And there is now a growing global “black identity” (and yes, a growing white identity). Drs. Fleming and Wilson are simply empirically wrong in the statements of theirs I quoted above.

#
39Jared Taylor

I see that Leon T. Haller’s deeply insightful comments on the future of conservatism have prompted no reply. This is hardly unusual. Very, very few people are capable of even beginning to answer a carefully stated view of the significance of race.

For so long as they can get away with it, silence–or invective–will always be the preferred tactic of the defenders of orthodoxy when orthodoxy comes under serious attack. Why come to grips publicly with opponents whom you know you cannot defeat?

The trouble for leaders of any serious conservative movement is that racial consciousness is growing steadily among their followers. Most refrain from thrusting it rudely in the faces of respected figures who prefer to pretend race does not really matter, but race counts for far too much for it to be ignored for ever.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if “Leon T. Haller” could communicate with me at JarTaylor @aol.com

Jared Taylor

#
on 12 Dec 2008 at 5:57 pm
40Joseph Salemi

To all concerned in this discussion:

There certainly IS a “white community,” if only as a healthy reaction to the persistent and venomous attacks of those who hate it.

Sure, Europeans and Americans of European descent are a mixed lot, with all types of genetic strains in them. But trying to deny that there is a major and identifiable group known as “white people” is bizarre.

If the idea of “white” people is a sort of hypostatized abstraction, unconnected to a particular culture or kinship group or nation, so what? The plain fact is that we are being attacked and demonized, and in a very serious way.

A great many conservatives (and that includes many otherwise intelligent paleocons) need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Thank you, Leon T. Haller, whoever you are.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=818#comments
 
Old December 14th, 2008 #40
Mark
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,219
Default

“As you say, Dr. Fleming, “whiteness” does not provide anything sufficient to live for or to die for. People can be rallied by religion, kinship, culture—they cannot be rallied by a physical characteristic.”

If you correctly associate whiteness with your white family and all of your ancestors, the founding stock of America and European countries, then it is sufficient to live and die for. If you correctly associate whiteness with creating the original cultures of America and Europe, then it is sufficient to live and die for. If you correctly associate whiteness with all the good things in Christianity, then it is sufficient to live and die for.

The problem is, Jews and other anti-whites have disassociated whiteness, race, from these things and we went along with it. It's like we're living with multiple personality disorder, our sense of identity is fractured. We just need to bring it all together again.
 
Reply

Tags
vnn

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 AM.
Page generated in 0.26928 seconds.