Talk:Lawrence Dennis

Crotalus horridus censoring the fact that Dennis calls his proposed system "fascism"
"Dennis called his system "fascism," but this was confusing to his readers and, later, injurious to his own career and reputation."  Calling someone a "fascist" was not an epithet back then as it was now. A fascist economic system was perceived by many as reputable alternative. RJII 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Everytime I note in the article that he calls his system "fascism" someone comes along and censors that. Why is that? That he called it fascism is a very notable point. RJII 21:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As the original author . ..
The additional statement thereof, apart from being redundant, has the effect of creating confusion as to wether Dennis was describing the emergence of a system he was in favor of. His enemies insisted that he was, while avoiding the fact that in actual fact he was agitiating against that which those smearing him as a fascist were in fact themselves promoting.

Jacrosse 23:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He was promoting the same type of economic system that was found in the fascist regimes (but without the militarism) --an economy planned by a merged state business complex (aka fascist political economy). He called his system just what it was --"fascism." RJII 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's unclear what his actual views on said system were, and that's why I acknowledge the dispute that exists. Jacrosse 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unclear? It's just unclear to you or anyone else who hasn't read the material. RJII 18:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't know much about the topic, but this article seems very slanted to the right. Any attempt to call him a fascist, which it seems he basically by definition was, is called a "smear campaign," while central and equal weight is given to Thomas DiLorenzo and Justin Raimondo, neither of whom I have heard of, but both seem right wing from their articles, particularly Raimondo. Meanwhile, Dennis is said to be a progressive anti-New Deal leader with Charles Beard, whose article says he was pro New Deal, merely anti-FDR's foreign policy. Finally, it seems to me that more emphasis should be placed on his racial identity, considering that as a leading fascist thinker his hidden half-black parentage would have been a major and conflicting part of his identity. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've done something about some of the points you mention, particularly the extremely contentious bit about the "smear campaign", but don't know enough about progressivism and the New Deal myself to edit that bit. Any initiative from informed editors on this would certainly be appreciated. -- TinaSparkle 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I;ve removed the part where it claims that the judge in Dennis' trial 'mysteriously' died - he ahd a heart attack. StuartDouglas 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The worked Dennis did for Today's Challenge was to show how the New Deal policies were alike to National Socialist economics. Dennis was an elitist, maybe somewhat technocratic, and he seems somewhat out of place with the mass based, populist Coughlins and Smiths, although he did mingle with them at times. --LC 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

mddemarest
Objectively, the article on Dennis is badly done: stuff missing (Dennis' trips to Germany, his presence at the 1938 Olympics in the NSDAP party boxes, his letters home to his wife, full of glowing talk of Hilter and the Reich, his deliberate and persistent disruptions of the 1944 sedition trial, his taking-of-money from Viereck and Auhagen, his requests for money directed to various Nazi propaganda organizations, etc.), stuff misleading (I am not aware of any actual relationship between Dennis and Charles Beard, who were of two very different views on fascism as a legitimate political ideology and the war in Europe), stuff that's silly (Justin Raimundo as a citation). The question is whether the original author committed this piece deliberately or inadvertently. If deliberately, I'd say the omissions alone warrant the removal of the piece as an attempt to and probable active (as in financially remunerated) Nazi collaborator. If inadvertent, I'd say it should be redone because it's just plain bad.

Lawrence is the most prominent intellectual fascist/fascist intellectual the US has ever produced. He repudiated his positions of the 1930s and early 40s before the end of his life (as did his colleague George Sylvester Viereck) and his work is challenging and thoughtful. Lawrence is a fascist, probably a Nazi collaborator, and an important US intellectual. That's all consistent, in my view.

Marc Demarest 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So improve it, then.Verklempt 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)"

...whitewash the reputation of an indicted seditionist 

Yeah, we all know that if the US Government indicts someone that proves they're guilty.Falange (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV removed
I've removed the NPOV template, please use or better yet  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 04:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes made
I took this statement out as it seems rather questionable: "Dennis, along with Charles A. Beard, led the progressive opposition to the New Deal." There were many people who led the progressive opposition to the New Deal: Beard, Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, maybe on a more simplistic level Huey Long... It's doubtful that Dennis should be counted among them and he certainly wasn't one of only two leaders along with Beard (and the views of Beard and Dennis held very little in common to begin with.) 71.176.164.142 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

African American?
It says in the opening line that he is "African American" then a few lines later that he was mixed race. He also appears to be at least a significant majority white. Starting the article with "African American" to describe someone who has a slight degree of African ancestry among primarily other ancestry is very confusing and unnecessary. How about just "American" (and keep the section saying he was mixed)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.60.87 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Dennis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120071606/http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol1no1/ks-dennis.html to http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol1no1/ks-dennis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

1936 not after the GD
If he published his first pro- fascism book in 1936: That was not after, but rather still in the thick of the Great Depression, which ended only with W W 2. Also, if his skin tone was so light, that even his family thought he was "white", the idea that he "passed" for white to me seems to be pure and old- fashioned white- racist "one drop of black blood" speak.--2001:9E8:567A:D100:B9E4:1E55:F938:69E6 (talk) (user Ralfdetlef) 22:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Quote from one Alec Marsh
Under the heading "Later life" the final sentence states "Alec Marsh suggests that, 'Dennis will find his place in the disenchanted anti-liberal black company of Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and George Schuyler'." Alec Marsh appears to be non-notable, and the source cited is a very minor literary journal called "Callaloo", with low impact ( https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/16100154748 ). And given that the quote doesn't really seem to add much to the readers' understanding of the subject matter, I don't think that it rises to the level of being sufficiently noteworthy or substantive for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bricology (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)