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

Old March 28th, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Pusillanimous Paleocons: Cowardice Exhibited by Thomas Fleming and Clyde Wilson

In this thread I will demonstrate the way in which so-called paleoconservatives syncopate their writing. By that term, borrowed from music, where it means the removal of the expected beat and its placement where unexpected, I will show that conservatives, due to the character defect of cowardice, vent their blame not on the party most responsible for the condition they bemoan, but on a third party whose response, the conservative knows, is highly unlikely to entail the social, financial and even physical, consequences that blaming the truly guilty party would.

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate to those who might otherwise be taken in by these erudite cowards that their heroes are unworthy of respect; that their opposition to existing state of things is a pose; and finally that supporting them, subsidizing them with money, respect and attention, will lead, quite inevitably, to nothing but more of the same it has always produced: unresisted racial-cultural decline.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 28th, 2009 at 12:59 PM.
 
Old March 28th, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default


The opposition to homosexual marriage generally relies on religious arguments drawn from the Scriptures or from the traditions of the various churches and sects that drummed up money and votes against same-sex marriage. I hate to pour cold water on good intentions, but religious arguments are of no great validity in a country without a national religion. Many Protestant sects–Obama’s pseudo-Christian United Church of “Christ,” for example–endorse Gay Marriage, and of the groups that oppose it, e.g. Mormons and Catholics, they agree on so little else, beginning with every item of the Nicene Creed, their united opposition amounts to nothing more significant than a single-issue tactical alliance whose members are united only in what they reject and not what they affirm.

Such incoherence, I would suggest, not only cannot be made the basis for a practical long-range strategy but also confuses the simple and weakens their convictions. If Christians can join forces with Mormons, why not Muslims (as some self-declared conservatives do)? Why not Voodoo practitioners or Moloch-worshippers, who want more live babies to sacrifice in their abominable ceremonies.


You have to read a lot of Fleming to appreciate just how pathetic the bolded part is. Big Tom is heroically calling out Mormons as non-Christians. He doesn't care who hears him. What a man. He's calling Mormons non-Christians, and by God, he doesn't care who's listening. The Mormons, of course, won't fire back at him in any punitive way. He knows this, so he feels safe in playing the big man and calling them out. You will never in a thousand years catch him doing the same to the jews. In the case jews are to blame, Slinky Tom and his Goat buddy Wilson will always -- always -- blame...whites. "We" allowed this to happen. "We" did this to ourselves. You say, but, but, my people were innocent peasants, farmers who came here from the old country. They weren't any part of the elite. They sure didn't vote for, expect, or want any of what America has become. No matter, we ordinary whites are to blame.

Never, ever, ever once will an elite conservative, a Ph.D. like Fleming or Wilson, blame the jews, even when these messrs are well aware that the jews say exactly the same things about their own motives as the White nationalists do. Even when jews admit that they hate White Christians and work to undermine the Christian White majority throughout the west, by immigration and social policy, never once will these conservative cowards blame them. Why? Because they are cowards. The cowards Clyde Wilson and Thomas Fleming know that there are very serious consequences to holding the jews responsible for their anti-White behavior. They would lose income and respect. Best, they think, where the jews are guilty, to keep your trap shut. Or blame whites. Yeah, that's the meal ticket. Blame your white audience. I can mislead the groveling conservatards who read me, thinks Fleming. It is safe. Where else are they going to go? All I have to do is refrain from blaming the real power destroying this country, the jews, and double up in my defaming anyone who exposes my punch-pulling. The White nationalists say what I fear to. I must attack them in order to preserve my position. I know! I will prevent them from making comments on my site. But I will allow any irrational jews to lie and malinger, and whatever length he feels appropriate. In this way I will preserve my position and all its emoluments; few will be the wiser.

Let it be megaphoned from the moutaintops: Tom Fleming is a coward who fears to take on the real opponent. His hatred of White nationalism and race-realism is nothing more than his hatred of what he sees in the mirror - a weakling.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 28th, 2009 at 11:33 AM.
 
Old March 28th, 2009 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Fleming background]

Let me begin by confessing that I was brought up to hate Richard Nixon. My parents were both Democrats, and my father’s leftist friends hated Nixon for his prosecution of Alger Hiss. “If that man ever gets to be president,” my father warned on the day Nixon visited Superior Wisconsin some time during Eisenhower’s second term, “it will be time to leave this country.” Even Joe McCarthy had told my father (who liked McCarthy when he spent an evening as his drinking buddy) loathed Nixon, I was told.

As a graduate student at the university known familiarly as “Commie Hill,” I was exposed to few conservatives and still fewer admirers of Nixon. Nonetheless, as the Water Gate fiasco unfolded, I was genuinely shocked that a sitting president trying to steer the country through very troubled waters could be hounded from office by disgruntled Democrats in Congress, whose party had suffered a humiliating defeat in the election of 1972 and by a gaggle of reporters egged on by disaffected federal bureaucrats who resented President Nixon’s attempt to make them subordinate to law and constitution. No, I did not admire Nixon’s domestic policies and I was developing deep suspicions of his Machiavellian foreign policy guru, Henry Kissinger. But then I had not liked Lyndon Johnson either, and, as I looked back at the 20th century, I found myself agreeing with H.L. Mencken, who, when asked who had been the last good President (since he appeared to detest every President from Roosevelt I to Roosevelt II), answered, “Grover Cleveland, God help us.” I have since changed my opinion on Cleveland and would probably say Franklin Pierce, God help us.

If I recall correctly, William Pierce, Ph.D., figured out early on that the jew Felt was Deep Throat. One form of cowardice is fear to 'stand with a man when he is right' per Lincoln. The conservatives affect to oppose the liberals, but they use their terms and frames without complaint. If the judeo-left says William Pierce is beyond the pale, that's good enough for liberal-con cowards like Wilson and Fleming, knowing Pierce is right, and having no a priori reason to think refrain from using his knowledge, though they do.

What Mr. Felt’s motives were in betraying his President, I shall never know. He says that he, like many FBI agents, was appalled by the President’s abuse of power and misuse of the FBI. If that is so, why did he not protest similar abuses committed by Kennedy and Johnson? And why did he not refuse to implement an order to perform apparently illegal surveillance on antiwar groups—an operation that earned him a conviction for which he had to be pardoned by Ronald Reagan?

I do not know that we should believe anything that Mr. Felt says. After all, he categorically denied, in a memoir published in 1979, that he ever “leaked information to Woodward and Bernstein or to anyone else.” If he was lying about the fact in 1979, why believe that he is not lying about the motive today?

Whatever his motives, Felt’s action was a despicable example of disloyalty. If he felt so strongly about the political misuse of the FBI—which had been going on throughout the Bureau’s history—he might have resigned and publicly denounced Hoover and all his works. Instead, he chose to play the spy and the informer, chose to act politically, betraying his President and his country at a perilous time in our history. As an old man, Felt is grasping for a little bit of the limelight he has earned.


Fleming is arguing in bad faith. He knows that Felt is a jew. He knows that Felt acted as many of his race do. But he dare not draw attention to Felt's jewy nature. That might get him into trouble. This is the difference between an honorable man such as William Pierce and a knave such as Thomas Fleming.

[Pierce figuring out jew Felt is Deep Throat back in 1974!]
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPag...y_In_1974.html

The honest man goes with the evidence, and fears not to credit its source. The coward measures his words against their reception. He might steal from the men he grovels before say are beyond the pale, but he dare not cite them. Cowardice explains conservative punch pulling every single time.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 PM.
Page generated in 0.07248 seconds.