While he does not need to defend himself to me, there are others who may still claim that Dr. Fleming is a white racialist. Here he gives sufficient evidence that he does not hold those views:

The first problem in posing questions in terms of White People is that Whiteness is an abstraction. For example, many South Italians are comparatively dark, while Swedes are achingly White, but, although I have several Swedish and Swedish American friends, I am more comfortable in the company of Sicilians. There are African and partly-African Americans who are more “White” in the sense of being civilized and Christian than 95% of the Whites in Rockford. The second is that Whiteness tends to be a negative category, that is, it is defined in terms of not being black or brown rather than in terms of being something good. At this point in my life I am not much interested in making alliances with Meth freaks, child molesters, school shooters, neoconservatives, or wife swappers, simply because they have white skin and blue eyes. The Church is open to all human beings and so is the possibility of being civilized, while racialist and nationalist ideologies are not only close-minded but they are part of Jacobin leftism. If we could just go back to the good things our ancestors had, train our minds and cultivate a good life, we would not have to worry so much about skin tone or hair texture. White people per se did not create our civilization. Greeks, Romans, Germans, and Celts and the nations of Europe they spawned did.

In his article he once again reiterates his belief that "nothing can be done on the national level to save this country from its people and the leaders they elect," so "the best you can do is to mind your own business in some place that has not yet been overrun." He ends with this thought, "Life can be good if you forget about changing the world and concentrate on brightening the corner where you are." My gloss: instead of being a busybody or an advocate (or a politician in the National Government!), one can practice the virtues (especially of charity) with respect to God and one's neighbors and do one's best to preserve some semblance of civilization and community.

Dr. Fleming does not advocate moving to another country, though he himself has considered that option:

I do not recommend any course of action to anyone. A Catholic Englishman in Tudor England could either 1) betray his and his ancestors’ religion and comply with the tyrants’ decrees, 2) stand up boldly for his faith and be martyred, 3) live in the shadows as an alien in his own land, or 4) go some place where he could practice his religion in peace. The choices one makes will depend on a man’s character and circumstances but also on his age.

There are two sets of traditions, the local (by which I include provincial and national) and the universal–though they are hardly that. One set makes us Charlestonians and Southerners, but another makes us Christian and heirs to classical antiquity. In anything like a decent country, one should be able to balance the two traditions, the two sets of loyalties. Some times it is more difficult. Our is a pagan country that makes it increasingly difficult to lead a Christian while carrying out our duty of loyalty to divinely appointed authority. To speak personally, I think I can be comparatively happy in remaining an American but spending a good part of the year away from my increasingly unlovely homeland. Others will make other choices. I do not at all envy the fate of emigrés and exiles, however comfortably fixed they are, but my fellow countrymen seem Hell-bent on living like swine on a commercial pig farm, getting fat on chemical slops, oblivious to the fate their masters have planned for them. But even if I had the answer, I doubt that I would state it. Some mistakes we have to make for ourselves.

He even refers to this song by The Clash:


I would like to meet him one day, just to listen to him talk.