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

Old August 1st, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default WhINOs: White In Name Only

[White-in-name-only (WhINOs) push kosher racialists to support the jews' war on Islam.]

Why the Racial Right is Wrong about Iraq

By Ian Jobling • 7/25/08

The racial right, or the group of writers who seek to advance the interests of American whites, has almost without exception been hostile, often rabidly so, to the Iraq War. Writers like Paul Craig Roberts, Kevin MacDonald, Steven Sailer, Sam Francis, and Pat Buchanan have promulgated the theory the war was the product of Jewish power in America. Jewish neoconservatives and their Israeli friends, otherwise known as the “Israel Lobby,” persuaded the Bush administration to start a war that advanced Israeli interests but was detrimental to America’s own. This interpretation of the causes of the war has led to a wholesale rejection of the pro-war conservative position.

The racial right’s position on the war is, in my view, a mistake, not merely because it rests on extravagant and poorly supported assumptions about the extent of Jewish power, but also because it causes the racial right to side with its enemies. Since the worldview of the anti-war left is rooted in leukophobia, or fear and loathing of the white race, the racial right ought to be able to appreciate the value of pro-war conservative commentary, which manfully opposes leftist leukophobia. Such an appreciation does not necessarily entail endorsing the war—the debate about the legitimacy of the war is a complex one, with much to be said for both sides. Rather, my thesis is that we should value the perspective of pro-war conservatives because the enemy of our enemy is, to a certain extent at least, our friend.

The term “racial right” requires some explanation. By it I mean the group of writers stretching from Pat Buchanan to David Duke who have views that can be plausibly interpreted as pro-white. While Buchanan has never declared himself pro-white, he does defend whites against abuse and has made the survival of the white race an issue in his work. The relatively sane and respectable elements of the racial right—with the operative word here being relatively—publish their work on VDARE, so the racial right might also be termed the VDARE writers.

As I explained in Anti-American or Anti-White?, the viewpoint of the anti-war left is rooted in the assumption that whites are the only racist race and that all other peoples are noble savages who are being cruelly exploited by us. Leukophobes view the Iraq War as the latest episode in the Howard Zinn version of American history, according to which all our country’s involvements in the non-white world are motivated by greed and racism, and, consequently, are overwhelmingly detrimental to native populations. Leukophobes focus on the negative aspects of the war, such the Abu Ghraib scandal, and downplay the positive aspects, such as the successful staging of elections. The media blackout on positive news about the Iraq War continues today: after the war started turning our way with the initiation of the Surge last year, news agencies began withdrawing reporters from Iraq. The leukophobic anti-war left also has a seemingly uncontrollable need to label mainstream Republicans, who are in fact liberal on racial issues, “fascists” and “Nazis.”

In case my previous article did not convince you that the anti-war movement is leukophobic, consider Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, the most famous expression of anti-war sentiment. It is clear from his previous work that leukophobia is central to Moore’s worldview. Indeed, in 2001, he wrote a book called Stupid White Men blaming whites, especially wealthy, conservative white men, for the ills of the nation. For example, Moore states that the high incarceration rate of blacks and Hispanics is simply “ethnic cleansing” of non-whites by whites: “Our judges and lawyers are more like glorified garbage men, rounding up and disposing of society’s refuse—ethnic cleansing, American style.”1 Moore does not acknowledge the possibility that non-whites might be more likely to go to prison than whites because they commit a disproportionate share of crime.

The same attitude shapes Fahrenheit 9/11’s portrayal of the Iraq War, except this time Iraqis rather than blacks or Hispanics are the victims of the greed of rich white men. Moore promotes the theory that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started to increase the profits of oil corporations. The greed of wealthy, stupid, white corporate men, symbolized by George W. Bush, causes America to commit wanton slaughter against a country that had done nothing to deserve it. In one scene of the movie, a happy scene of children playing in the streets and weddings in Baghdad is interrupted by bombs raining down from the sky.

The Bush administration also exploits America’s racism in order to drum up support for the war in the movie. The Iraq invasion is preceded by a number of bogus terror warnings whose sole purpose is to stir up irrational fear of Muslims. Moore captures white small-town Americans saying things like, “When I look at certain people, I wonder, ‘Oh my goodness! Do you think they could be a terrorist?’ ”

Moore cements his case that America is a racist state by portraying blacks as a disfranchised population cruelly exploited by the war machine. One scene shows military recruiters at a mall patronized heavily by blacks, implying the Army looks on blacks as cannon-fodder.

One reason why that some Americans defend the Iraq War so intensely is that pro-war conservatives molded a narrative of the war that challenged these invidious leukophobic slanders. For conservatives, the war was a continuation of the heroic American legacy of defending and enlarging the realm of freedom. In selling the Iraq War, Bush appealed just as much to this sense of heroic history as to the threat of Iraqi nuclear weapons. As he said in an address delivered shortly before the war:

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before—in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

Pro-war conservative writers also tried to discredit the leukophobic interpretation of the war through an appeal to this heroic narrative. As commentator Victor Davis Hanson wrote:

For all the propaganda of al Jazeera, the wounded pride of the Arab street, or the vitriol of the Western Left, years from now the truth will remain that our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize, but were willing to die for others’ freedom when few others would. Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky can change that, because it is not opinion, but truth.

In constructing this narrative of America as liberator, conservatives appealed to whites’ instinctive loyalty to Western values, such as individualism, pluralism, and the rule of law. That the war had a special appeal for whites is demonstrated by polls, which have found whites were far more likely to favor the war than non-whites were.

The conservative narrative of the war has a lot to recommend it. Iraq under Saddam was indeed a brutal, kleptocratic, and unfree dictatorship. America did not act like a domineering imperial power when it got into Iraq, instead spending blood and treasure to establish a democratic government and to build necessary infrastructure for the new state. Far from being the brutal, callous invader of leftist folklore, the US military was, generally speaking, respectful and humane to a fault, even putting US troops’ lives in danger to assure the minimum of civilian casualties.

Of course, the pro-war conservatives never made their appeal to and defense of white racial identity explicit. Indeed, these conservatives view racial liberalism, with its suicidal excesses of tolerance, as one reason to take pride in America. However, the racial right could have come in to fix the message of mainstream conservatives and brought the confused and cryptic racial pride of war supporters into the clear light of day. Pro-white intellectuals could have explained that whites’ love for Western values is probably rooted in their distinctive biology and that the values of non-whites are very different. If it had done so, the racial right would have strengthened its message by grafting it onto the powerful pride in America drummed up by mainstream conservatives.

However, instead of linking national with racial pride, racial right writers had nothing but scorn and ridicule for pro-war conservative commentators, all of whom were supposed to be either masterminds of Jewish treason or their fellow-travelers. Pat Buchanan denounced Jewish neoconservatives for having started the war because they were more concerned with Israel’s interests than America’s:

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords… We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

This view of the cause of the war is a matter of orthodoxy among the racial right. Steven Sailer, Sam Francis, Kevin MacDonald and many others promulgated the “Israel Lobby” theory of the war’s origins at VDARE and in other forums. Jared Taylor even blamed the war in Afghanistan, a straightforward war of retaliation, on Israel, and in March 2003 he was fervently hoping that Saddam Hussein would defeat American troops.

Perhaps the most obnoxious products of the anti-war right are the wild-eyed diatribes of Paul Craig Roberts, who seems to be trying to do his best to outdo Michael Moore in anti-war hysteria. In a column published last year, Roberts, using unsourced and exaggerated statistics about the number of war casualties, accused America of waging “genocide” against Iraqis and, along with Israel, of committing acts of “terrorism” in the Middle East. Such ranting is standard fare for Roberts, who began a column published earlier this year as follows:

It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.

It’s a disgrace that VDARE goes on publishing this psychotic.

In criticizing the racial right, I do not mean to imply that all this group’s ideas about the war were harmful or useless. The racial right made many valid criticisms of the conduct of the war and the policies behind it. For example, Steven Sailer made the crucial point that it was wrong for the Bush administration to dismiss skepticism about Iraqis’ capacity for democracy as the product of irrational racism. Sailer was right to insist on the possibility that Arabs are innately unsuited to democracy and to chide the Bush administration for ignoring it.

I don’t know exactly how to explain the racial right’s demonization of pro-war conservatism. Simple anti-Semitism, epitomized by David Duke, is no doubt part of the explanation. However, there are much saner heads among racial right writers, so other motives must be sought. One motive was rage against Pres. Bush’s racial liberalism, which created a powerful prejudice among the racial right against everything his administration did. However, I think the deeper problem is that the racial right is out of touch with the values of the constituency that it wants to represent. The racial right is so reflexively hostile to liberalism that any enthusiasm about advancing democracy, freedom, and human rights incurs their wrath. This antipathy is probably disastrous for the racial right as liberalism is rooted in the Western values that are the essence of white racial identity.

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...ead.php?t=7124
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #2
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

Now we are hearing all this pap about how the surge is working. The insurgents just could be laying low for while. They know we aren't going to be able to stay there forever.

Did you hear about the US embassy being built there? Nicknamed the George Bush Palace, it is 3 times the sized of a traditional embassy and is like the Taj Mahal. That will probably be the first thing that goes up in flames once we leave Iraq.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

What joker Jobling writes - you could take his name off and substitute Krauthammer and get the same arguments.
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #4
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

I don't know of any "real" conservatives that support the Iraq War. I think some of that mentality is the belief that "God" is behind the United States, and might makes right.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old August 2nd, 2008 #5
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Wow, that one is too neoconnish even for our own edenlink:

Quote:
Mr. Jobling,

did you also support the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? After all, according to Western propaganda, this campaign was conducted to instill “democracy” and “human rights” in the Serbs’ collective psyche. No matter that thousands of innocent Europeans died in the process…

By Constantin von Hoffmeister on 7/27/08 at 1:44 am
I guess it's like pregnancy: it's hard to be a little philo-Semitic.
 
Old August 7th, 2008 #6
Wolfgang Noosetight
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 142
Wolfgang Noosetight
Default

Rim-Jobling is fooling no one. Fighting and dying and spending trillions of dollars on Jew wars for Jew interests is not in our interest.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #7
Mark
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,219
Default

Ian Jobling left AmRen because Jared wasn't philo-Semitic enough, he states this proudly on his website. Curious behavior for someone who supposedly isn't a Jew.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #8
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark View Post
Ian Jobling left AmRen because Jared wasn't philosemitic enough, he stated this proudly on his website previously.
Their split could be a sham. That is, ammunition for Jared's supporters (such as SF) to argue that he's a subtle weapon against the Jew. In reality Jared is a very subtle Jewish weapon against whites.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
Their split could be a sham. That is, ammunition for Jared's supporters (such as SF) to argue that he's a subtle weapon against the Jew. In reality Jared is a very subtle Jewish weapon against whites.
Yes - that is the first thing to suspect, that Jobling's leaving is an attempt to make Polished Taylor look like a WN rather than the kosherite he is.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #10
Sándor Petőfi
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Posts: 5,325
Default

Quote:
This antipathy is probably disastrous for the racial right as liberalism is rooted in the Western values that are the essence of white racial identity.
No, it isn't. Liberalism is rooted in the humanist fantasies which found their way into Europe through the philosophy of Zeno and the religion of Paul. Both Stoicism and Christianity are of Semitic origin.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #11
Mike Jahn
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,526
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Crowe View Post
I don't know of any "real" conservatives that support the Iraq War. I think some of that mentality is the belief that "God" is behind the United States, and might makes right.
Define "real" Conservative...
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #12
Mike Jahn
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,526
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sándor Petőfi View Post
No, it isn't. Liberalism is rooted in the humanist fantasies which found their way into Europe through the philosophy of Zeno and the religion of Paul. Both Stoicism and Christianity are of Semitic origin.
Revilo Oliver wrote about Stoicism being "Semitic" but I never knew if he meant Arabic or Jewish. However, I do know that Zeno the founder of Stoicism was a flaming homosexual.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #13
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jahn View Post
Define "real" Conservative...
Paleoconservatives.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #14
Mike Jahn
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,526
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Crowe View Post
Paleoconservatives.
What percentage of the American population today would call themselves "Paleoconservatives"? I often see that term but meet none of them out in the non-internet world. On television the only ones I'm aware of are Scarborough and Buchanan.
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #15
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jahn View Post
What percentage of the American population today would call themselves "Paleoconservatives"? I often see that term but meet none of them out in the non-internet world. On television the only ones I'm aware of are Scarborough and Buchanan.
It's pretty small. Neocons dominate the Republican Party and FoxNews programs the lemmings. Buchanan is a paleo but I'm not sure Scarborough is (though I haven't listened to him much).

Paleos tend to be against US financing Israel but not necessarily anti-jew, and might have some jewish aquaintances. They tend to embrace racial realism but with a lower case "r".
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Old August 8th, 2008 #16
Jett Rink
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Squaresville
Posts: 7,502
Default

Conservativism is not an Ideology.

Last edited by Jett Rink; August 8th, 2008 at 10:17 PM.
 
Old August 9th, 2008 #17
Sándor Petőfi
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Posts: 5,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jahn View Post
Revilo Oliver wrote about Stoicism being "Semitic" but I never knew if he meant Arabic or Jewish. However, I do know that Zeno the founder of Stoicism was a flaming homosexual.
Phoenician. Phoenicians excercised great economic power in the ancient world, which had led them by the late second century to comprising one third of the Roman senate and puutting a Phoenician, Severus, in the imperial seat. Severus, if you will remember, slaughtered countless aristocrats and purged the senate, and his son Caracalla, whose mother was a Syrian, declared all free inhabitants of the Empire Roman citizens in 212 A.D.. And that was that.


Caracalla

All the monuments of the ancients and all histories have handed down to us the tradition that the race of the Phoenicians is the most treacherous of all races. The Poeni, who are descended from them, have proved by many rebellions of the Carthaginians, and very many broken and violated treaties, that they have in no respect degenerated from them.

Cicero

Last edited by Sándor Petőfi; August 9th, 2008 at 03:02 AM.
 
Old August 9th, 2008 #18
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jahn View Post
On television the only ones I'm aware of are Scarborough and Buchanan.
Scarborough is definitely not a paleocon. He supported the Iraq war, turned sour on it briefly but is now back on board with the supposed success of the surge. He recently predicted that history will redeem Bush's vision for the Middle East. I guess that's for the Jewish historians to say.
 
Old August 9th, 2008 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Scarborough's a shifty-eyed wind-sniffer.
 
Old August 20th, 2008 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[WHINO jew Auster on Fleming's running Spanish translations of Chronicles articles]

Chronicles makes it official: it no longer believes in America

(August 8: In an exchange of comments at the Chronicles website, discussed here, Thomas Fleming has confirmed what I said about him in the below entry.)

For many years I've been saying that Chronicles, A Magazine of American Culture, the magazine that gave birth to paleoconservatism, has become so disenchanted with America as to be fairly described as anti-American. There were several components to this. One, Chronicles doesn't just regard the excessive federal power that has developed over the last 70 years as illegitimate; it regards the war to save the Union in 1861-1865 as illegitimate, meaning that it regards America as it has existed since 1865 as illegitimate. Two, Chronicles hates contemporary, left-leaning America so much that it hates America as such; chilling proof is Chronicles' editor Thomas Fleming's article on the 9/11 attack. Three, Chronicles' orientation, as Paul Gottfried has recently pointed out, has become specifically Catholic rather than American.

Ok, that's the background for what I'm about to tell you. Is your seat belt fastened?

At the Chronicles website, we find this:

Ninatos Bestias ("Beastie Boys")
by Thomas Fleming
The following is the first in a series of translations of Chronicles articles into Spanish, as part of our outreach to the Spanish-speaking world. (TJF)

What follows is a 3,400 word article by Thomas Fleming in Spanish. In Chronicles. You know. The magazine where Samuel Francis used to write his monthly column about the Middle American Radicals.

The deliberate, symbolic meaning of translating an entire Chronicles article into Spanish, as part of "outreach" to the Spanish speaking world (tens of millions of members of which now reside in the U.S.), is unmistakable. Chronicles has given up on the defense of America as a historically and culturally distinctive nation, and is adjusting itself to, and invoking, the increasing presence and influence of the Spanish language and culture in America. It is analogous to the supposedly anti-Muslim immigration Jean-Marie Le Pen's accommodation with the Muslims.

During the 2000 presidential campaign I castigated candidate George W. Bush for saying in a speech in Miami:

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change--some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

And now Chronicles, the home of paleoconservatism, has joined Bush.

And people think I'm crazy for persistently pointing out that various prominent conservatives aren't real conservatives!

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

It's just another in a series of white flags. Fleming has a couple of articles on their site entitled "Poor Mexico, Poor America," here and here, in which he basically runs down American culture.

Chilton Williamson has had a long-running fiction series in the print version about a family of Mexican immigrants, Republicans all, one of whom improbably joins the Minutemen. It seems that being against Mexican immigration is too close to anti-Catholicism.

Contrast with Vanishing American's (yes, she's back) efforts to remember and describe American culture.

A reader writes:

Can you figure out what the article is about? If they've gone Catholic, they probably see the Hispanics as allies. But many Hispanics have become evangelical Protestants. Still, it serves to undermine America and I guess that's what Chronicles wants, damn them.

Stephen T. writes:

This infatuation with Spanish seems as much an effort to appear up-to-date or somehow media-hip, than a real necessity for communication. I've got a question for the editors of Chronicle: Are you kidding yourselves? How many Spanish-only speakers do they believe have the slightest intention of reading a publication billed as "A Magazine of American Culture"? It's hysterical! Is there any immigrant group to this country which has shown more indifference to American culture and U.S. current events than those from Mexico and other Hispanic countries? Chronicle's achingly obvious Anglo naivete and lack of street-level exposure to Hispanic culture, particularly Mestizo Mexican, is tragi-comic. If Mexicans aren't reading Chronicle it's NOT because it's written in the wrong language.

When news of some national crisis or turning point in war makes headlines in American papers, it's always interesting to contrast the same-day headline in La Opinion, the large, L.A.-based Spanish newspaper. Typically, the in-depth story about our country won't even make page one, but is supplanted instead by a raft of revealingly short articles, most of which prominently display the word "immigracion" or "amnestia" in the lead, or detail internal Mexican politics. They are obviously aimed at a mass market which La Opinion publishers themselves consider uninterested in, if not totally oblivious to, issues vital to the United States.

Yet, it's the same market which the publishers of Chronicles obviously believe represents some sort of vast untapped readership for a magazine about American culture.

LA replies:

Amusing reflections, but I don't agree with your premise. I don't think this is at all directed at Spanish speaking readers or is a move to position Chronicles in the media. It is intended as an announcement that Chronicles accepts and endorses the Hispanicization of the U.S.

Bruce B. writes:

"It is intended as an announcement that Chronicles accepts and endorses the Hispanicization of the U.S."

I wasn't thrilled when I saw it either but slow down, Larry. I don't think that's the case. Chronicles has maintained the position that Hispanic immigration to the U.S. is (culturally, morally, spiritually) bad for Hispanics because there's little for them to assimilate to besides lowest common denominator culture. And can anyone argue with THAT. The translation of articles allows them to share traditional conservatism with Hispanics. Some may not come here as a result and some may return. In any event, they're gonna keep coming whether Chronicles translates their articles or not.

At least read a translation of the article and the full texts of the articles Gintas links before jumping to such a radical conclusion.

LA replies:

I wouldn't be surprised if the article has some negative things about immigration, which Fleming could point to and use to deny that the translation means what I say it means. The significance of the Spanish translation is in its symbolic impact. Chronicles probably has close to zero Hispanic-American readers and would appeal to zero readers who only speak Spanish. So there's no practical reason for them to do this. Its intention is purely symbolic. And what is it symbolizing? I've given my interpretation of it.

LA continues:

I missed this. Bruce B. wrote:

Chronicles has maintained the position that Hispanic immigration to the U.S. is (culturally, morally, spiritually) bad for Hispanics because there's little for them to assimilate to besides lowest common denominator culture.

1. Are Hispanics going to be listening to Chronicles' advice about whether they should immigrate to the U.S.? Of course not. So what is the point of Chronicles' saying this? (For answer, see point two.)

2. If that's Chronicles' main argument on immigration, that Hispanics shouldn't come here because there is so little culture here to speak of for them to assimiliate into, it shows once again that their main interest is in the badness of America, not in saving America from the Hispanic immigration that is going to continue notwithstanding Chronicles' hostility to America.

And by the way, I argued in Huddled Cliches that the great moral-cultural qualities that Mexicans supposedly bring with them and that will improve our moral-cultural qualities will be lost as soon as they assimilate into our anomic culture; and if they don't assimilate into our culture but remain separate, their supposedly great qualities will not help us in any case. The point of my criticism of the present American culture was, we have to save ourselves, not think that importing some alien group is going to save us. But where do we see any sign in Fleming that he even cares about saving America?

John Hagan writes:

Thomas Fleming has always been a chaotic, iconoclastic imbecile. When Chronicles mattered back in the early '90s, reading Fleming was always an exercise in futility. I subscribed to Chronicles for years and I remember getting angry letters in the mail from Fleming ranting and raving about how cheap we subscribers were for taking advantage of Chronicles' own magazine discounts. Those were not the kind of letters that would endear his reader base to the magazine. Sam Francis carried that magazine on his back. When Francis passed away it was inevitable that Chronicles would fade away, with Fleming running wild over there.

Chronicles was only a serious conservative magazine because of the intellectual power of Sam Francis. Sam did some of his best writing in that magazine. And though there have been other worthwhile projects at Chronicles over the years, the looming, malignant shadow of Fleming has slowly sucked the life out of it. It's even worse than National Review now, and that's saying something.

Paul T. writes from Canada:

My impression is that Thomas Fleming has for a long time now been looking for a country he can believe in, with Serbia and Italy the leading contenders. I recall seeing a piece he wrote a couple of years back in which he said that unchecked Mexican migration would spell the end of America, and he didn't sound happy about that; but he also compared Americans, as people, unfavorably with Mexicans. All that aside, I find him annoying because of his unremitting anger and his frequent obscurity. I should add that on the one occasion when I met him he was pleasant and courteous.

Dan R., who sent me the Chronicles articles, writes:

I wasn't sure if I was losing my mind as I read it. While I don't agree with all the particulars in your attack on Fleming, I've decided that I've donated to them for the last time. Thanks for a great post...and I'm happy to see a good reader response as well.

LA writes:

I've changed the title of this entry from saying that Chronicles is "anti-American" to saying it "no longer believes in America." The "anti-American" charge is a grave one and should not be used without a full case backing it up, which I do not present in this entry, though I have pointed out anti-American sentiments in Chronicles elsewhere, for example, my commentary on Fleming's article on the 9/11 attack. For this article, it's enough to say that Chronicles has given up on defending America as a distinct culture, which, of course, was its founding mission and the defining idea of paleoconservatism.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011144.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.
Page generated in 0.18531 seconds.