Authentic Conservatism

According to Thomas Fleming and Chronicles, it has nothing to do with the preservation of your race, nation or ethnic group. These malicious concepts “flow out of the French Revolution.” They are the obsessions of “young, marginalized, emasculate young males who will never grow into manhood.” Racial nationalism is our greatest national tragedy and must be “prevented from infecting our discourse.”

I don’t think I will ever understand “conservatism” in any of its formulations.  As many of you know, I have never liked the term. It is deceptive. In theory, a “conservative” is someone who defends the legitimacy of existing institutions, who dislikes social change, who wants to cultivate and preserve various traditions. It would seem to follow that an American conservative would incline towards defending America’s traditional racial mores. Instead, the entire conservative spectrum in the United States (from neocon to paleocon) remains committed to revolutionary anti-racism (an import from the Soviet Union).

Fleming’s reading of American history is strange. “Racial nationalism” was wholly an American product. Its origins can be traced back to the “rough and ready” seventeenth and eighteenth century settlers and frontiersmen who enslaved negroes and cleared the land of Indians. White racial consciousness in America was their legacy. In stark contrast, Revolutionary France abolished slavery, decreed equal rights for all free blacks and mullatoes in the colonies, and finally extended French citizenship to all men regardless of color. Ironically, those are exactly the policies that Thomas Fleming would prescribe for us today under the banner of “authentic conservatism.”

“Authentic Conservatism” does happen to include a number of points of mutual agreement. Here’s the red meat: the state of nature never existed, humans are naturally social beings, human nature is rooted in our genes, men and women have different natures, we have higher ethical obligations to our own kin than to strangers, social hierarchy is inevitable, the family is the primary social unit, “natural rights” and “human rights” don’t exist, rights are human constructs, morality isn’t a set of abstract principles, loyalty to a particular place is natural, the social order should not be undermined, secession can often be justified, etc. 

None of these observations are in anyway original. They are not exclusive to “conservatism” either. It is more or less a non-liberal checklist. White Nationalists believe all of these things and a whole lot more.

In Fleming’s world, kinship for some reason doesn’t extend that far above the family level. Likewise, authority dwindles to almost nothing beyond the village and province. It’s philosophically consistent, but hopelessly antiquated and impractical. I chalk this up to the usual paleo fetish with the pre-modern. They also have a tendency to talk up the Vatican and the Middle Ages in the most glowing terms. Very few would actually prefer to have lived back then if the choice were really available.

The most recent installment on “authentic conservatism” includes a section on race. Fleming concedes that race is real and important, most likely to appease his audience, but emphatically insists that it isn’t everything. We have other conflicting social obligations whether they be to our friends, family, culture, colleagues, ethnicity, religion, and so on. Race isn’t “the whole ball of wax” or the “card that trumps all other cards.” No one ever said it was. This is a reasonable position, but it conflicts with any number of dismissive statements Fleming has made elsewhere.

White Nationalists harp on about their racial identity because it is denied to them. In contemporary America, you are only faulted for being White. You can be a Texan, a Southerner, a Christian, a resident of Houston, or a conservative without suffering any sort of penalty. These identities aren’t perceived by our ruling class as posing any threat to the status quo. Making a fuss about them is nothing more than playing safe politics. In contrast, white racial consciousness is hopelessly taboo.

Racial nationalism is thoroughly demonized because it is the only route to our regeneration. A racially healthy society will quickly take measures to end other social ills. Most of these followed in quick succession after the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement. Reversing the damage to our racial identity that occurred in that era must be the first step in our recovery.

About Hunter Wallace 12379 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. This is probably why Taki ended comments – so cunts like Fleming could talk nonsense without being directly challenged. Okay, probably mostly because racialists showed more interest in his site than anyone else, but still…

    The internationalist movement, however, is almost as old. Although it is often described as an expression of disgust with war and religious intolerance—and there is an element of that—the international ideology is actually part of a more general tendency toward western self-loathing. When a French intellectual looked in the mirror in 1600, he saw a Frenchman and a Christian where he would have liked to see a Greek pagan.

    Something strikes me as odd about an explanation of nationalism or patriotism or internationalism that doesn’t begin with grounding the discussion in terms of sociobiology or human nature. All of these things are the bastard children of group identity/Social Identity Theory/tribalism.

    An example of this is the fact that Fleming doesn’t even mention that the European nobility showed stirrings of internationalism long before there was any ideology bearing the name. It’s impossible to miss, the fact that in medieval Europe the nobility were showing much the same globalist mindset they show today. Why does no one ever mention this? I’d be surprised if assays of the genetics of European nobility didn’t show them to be much closer to a (Euro) everyman than the populations they’ve traditionally ruled.

    The problem is the theoretical racial nationalism that flows out of the French Revolution. When I hear young “conservatives” prating about their race or nation, I have to remind myself they are young, marginalized, emasculate young males who will never grow into manhood. It is our greatest national tragedy.

    Spoken like a true liberal. Liberals can give up anything except the iron law of establishment politics: whites shall not organize.

  2. Fleming: “Human beings are not born as rootless individuals but as members of a network of relationships rooted in genetic kinship and marriage.” That implies racial links.

    I don’t think Fleming’s arguments against racial nationalism very clear. I agree with him that much of WN is an immature, nihilistic worldview. Yet he seems to be saying more than that.

  3. But to a true nationalist or racialist, a son who marries a girl from the wrong race or nation becomes an outcast and his children not members of the family. That is what it means to put ideology above life. Naturally, a sane man wants his grandchildren to look like, act like, and think like his grandparents, but we do not always get everything we want. The question is: What are our priorities. To someone who truly believes in kinship, that is a higher priority than race or nationalism.

    He’s refusing to see reality. He can’t distinguish facts on the ground from facts in his head. I.e., he doesn’t see the war, doesn’t want to see it. He’s basically just said, “a man dedicated to killing his enemies is putting ideology above life,” to a group of men at war.

    I can’t really condemn such cowardice and/or ignorance, but I can’t say anything good about it either.

  4. To put a finer point on it, when you’re in an ethnic cold war, where your enemies are seeking the dissolution of your race, refusing on principle to distance yourself from traitors (I don’t like that term and don’t use it, but this is shorthand/analogy) is surrender.

    He’s advocating surrender. He’s denying the morality of survival.

  5. Fleming spends most of his time talking about harmless subjects like Christianity or classical philosophy. No one ever loses their job on account of quoting Cicero or Aristotle. He only rocks the boat where he has been given permission by the Left, say, in deploring the cultural degeneracy that invariably comes with liberalism.

  6. I think you can definitely be faulted by some for being Southern (especially with an accent), and being a Christian (by homosexuals and Jews).

    Fleming is an odd case. His credo makes sense, and one of his fundamentals is kinship, genetics. He even advocates for discrimination for your group. Yet, he then proceeds to say that if a non-white marries into the family, well, we can’t have everything we want. That “life” is more important than principles.

    Fleming seems very passive, a guy who won’t fight for what he believes in. Talks a big game, maybe tells racist jokes in private, but when face to face with blacks he smiles and panders to them submissively. Well, he’s certainly representative of most whites in that regard.

    He thinks Jews are inherently a part of our civilization. No doubt a result of his mainstream Christianity.

  7. 1.) Svigor: Fleming should understand that race is an extension of kinship ties. So is nation, at least traditionally. Also, he was writing about sociobiology and human nature years ago, so he certainly knows the topic.

    2.) Was Bismark a young, marginalized, emasculate young male who never grew into manhood? General Franco? Chiang Kai-shek? Robert E. Lee?

    3.) The only thing that really bugs me here is Fleming tells people to read “Madison Jones’ brilliant novel, A Cry of Absence.” This is the tragic tale of a Tennessee town where ” a young black man is chained to a tree and stoned to death.” Am I really supposed to read this?

  8. Proz, your insolent desire to overgeneralize strikes again. Fleming kis not perfect, but if you think “he only rocks the boat where he has been given permission by the Left,” you haven’t read him. Even when you are lucid, your narcissistic insanity always lurks in the background.

  9. The Huckster caught some flak in the presidential elections last year for being a regional candidate. He was still a mainstream player though. Huckabee has his own tv show on Fox News now.

    You can play Sweet Home Alabama on your guitar at political rallies. You can get on stage before a national audience and deny evolution. You can talk endlessly about how you’re a pious Christian. You can even defend South Carolina’s use of the Confederate flag.

    You can’t say that Whites should organize as a race. You can’t say that Jews are wrecking our civilization.

  10. brilliant novel […] tragic tale of a Tennessee town where ” a young black man is chained to a tree and stoned to death.”

    Nah, I’ll stick to the headlines, wherein blacks carjack, gang-rape, torture, mutilate and murder innocent young white couples.

  11. Prozium is right, obviously. The only thing the man with the gun to his head can’t talk about is the gun, or who’s holding it. Everything else is “negotiable.”

    But at the moment, the only thing that matters are the gun and the man holding it.

  12. Prozium: You don’t remember when Fleming was giddier about his Darwinism. He used to talk up Dawkins and sociobiology and all that. You can see it in “The Politics of Human Nature.” About ten years ago, he started back-pedaling on race. Now he seems to have all but repudiated Sam Francis.

    Question: Say Thomas Fleming changed his views and said “OK, fine, I agree that Whites should organize as a race.” Assuming everything else about him stays the same, would you still have a problem with him?

    Disclaimer: I am not endorsing Fleming.

  13. Talking about Jews is definitely the biggest taboo, I’d even say over race. Even some racists get more play if they just don’t talk about Jews, like Jared Taylor.

    Talking about Christianity is fine, as long as it’s pro-Israel and multi-racial. If you divert from that, such as Robert West of the BNP, then your Christianity has no merit!

    Being a Southerner isn’t a problem as long as you don’t support the Old South or the flag, and acknowledge how evil slavery and segregation was. I recall Huckabee doing just that on one of his shows.

  14. Prozium,

    Conservatism, as I defined it elsewhere, has always meant the conservation of the national identity throughout the process of change by a steady concern for the whole of the nation’s life. Even modern “conservatives” think they are doing just that — preserving the national identity — but because they are blind to racial differences, they are not doing so in practice. Since race replacement actually undermines the national identity, and hastens the process of change, conservatism is inherently nationalistic and racialist.

    This is the meaning of “conservatism” that we have to inject into the popular mind — its historical meaning.

    In virtually all political discussions, the terminology in use has a popular as well as a scientific or technical meaning. This is just as much true of of the word “conservatism” as it is of communism, liberalism, socialism, racism, and egalitarianism.. In religious discussions the two meanings are called EXOTERIC and ESOTERIC.

    It is because the popular, or exoteric, connotation of Conservatism in its modern sense, owing to the influence of American right-liberalism, has become the common connotation, that modern Conservatism (i.e. right-liberalism) has proven unsatisfactory — it is not due to any shortcomings of the Conservative worldview in its esoteric, scientific, and traditional sense.

    Aside from the odd misfit and social deviant, humans are inherently conservative. Why? Because humans have learned through millions of years of evolution and social experience that a stable environment is preferable, for it ensures present and future security, trans-generational continuity, and it allows for freedom of action as well as an easy command of material resources and circumstances. It is the revolutionist, the innovator, the misfit, and the lunatic that disturb peace of mind by bringing in unaccustomed life patterns. Conservatives oppose needless or deleterious innovations, whether sociological or mechanical, and above all they seek the conservation of the national identity.

  15. Fleming: “Human beings are not born as rootless individuals but as members of a network of relationships rooted in genetic kinship and marriage.” That implies racial links.

    I don’t think Fleming’s arguments against racial nationalism very clear. I agree with him that much of WN is an immature, nihilistic worldview. Yet he seems to be saying more than that.

    Like I said several times before, T Fleming is a TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNIST, who says whatever is necessary to keep himself from straying too far off the plantation —

    …in other words, he’s a ‘Herb’ who deep down wishes for respectability and social accoldades from his “betters”!

    I guarentee you all if our forces won the day and our racial position was hegemonic, Fleming would go on to claim he was really ‘on our side’ the ‘whole time’, just that he had to say things ‘a little differently’ to ‘reach a wider audience’.

    And what is sad is that most suckers would probably believe him.

    No, after the childish things he said about the good and brave men who care for their race and posterity, Thomas Fleming should ALWAYS be looked at with the greatest suspicion,

    …and be as marginalized as he wishes for US when We take our country and civilization back!!!

  16. Thomas Fleming: the obsessions of an “old, marginalized, emasculate old males who will never grow into manhood.”

    This is what motivates his snide, supplicating you know what. A complete NARCISSIST!

    Titus 1:14
    “Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”

    Romans 2:8
    “But to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.”

  17. Kulaks Never Learn,

    I must admit that I really love your commenting handle, in spite of the fact that I don’t know what it means. So, could you please tell me what “Kulaks Never Learn” actually means.

  18. Thank you Notuswind!

    “Kulaks” referred to the White ‘gentiles’ of the former soviet union who were called this gratuitous, hateful term by jewish bolshevists wishing to demean the intelligent, productive element of Russian and Ukrainian society, denigrating and encouraging further Genocide toward them by instilling envious hatred in the degenerates and malcontents of soviet society to spy on, snitch and steal from them since they were somehow ‘exploiters’ and ‘class enemies’.

    Just like today with jews instilling envy and hatred amongst minorities and other social malcontents towards the intelligent, middle class White Majority.

    “Whites As Kulaks”

    Definition of ‘Kulak’
    “Grigory Zinoviev (real name Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky Apfelbaum), a well-known Soviet politician, said in 1924, “We are fond of describing any peasant who has enough to eat as a kulak.””

  19. “Just like today with jews instilling envy and hatred amongst minorities and other social malcontents towards the intelligent, middle class White Majority.”


    Learn YOUR history folks!

    Your very LIFE depends on it!!!

    “Kulaks: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity”

    American Thinker Blog: Was the Starvation of the Kulaks Genocide?

    Jew Watch – Jewish Genocidal Murders of Others – Christians in the USSR

  20. Thanks for the information, Kulaks Never Learn – especially the last link. I said it before and I’ll say it again: Hitler’s greatest mistake was that he did not perpetrate the Holocaust.

  21. Your welcome guys!

    Keep up the good work, and keep raising awareness amongst fellow ‘White Kulaks’!!!

Comments are closed.