Goodness, you have three days to come up with a sizzlin’ response, and the best you can do is dodge the question?

I can tolerate your nastiness, but your lack of motivation is a real letdown.

Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself again — you say you don’t believe in Open Borders. The Southern Poverty Law Center has pronounced that it is racist to prevent immigrants from coming into the country. Like you, Mo Dees can read minds, and knows that racism is the real motivator behind all border-security efforts.

So–explain why your opposition to the floodtide of illegals is ok, but conservatives’ opposition is not.

Huh? I remember being asked if I supported open borders. I said I did not. I also remember saying that there were many paleo positions that were potentially supportable — as long as the decisions weren’t entirely race-based (i.e. designed to create a whites-only America).

So I have absolutely no friggin’ idea what you’re talking about here, and I assume you don’t either. You should ask your imaginary friend to clarify the issue for you, since he’s already told you that the discussion has moved to the Paleo Bilge article as I noted above.

If you take the trouble to read what Mr. Stix said, rather than zeroing in on only those words that you can twist to confirm your preconceptions, you’ll see that he was using the word “superior” to mean “of greater loyalty to and importance to” rather than in the eugenics sense of “objectively more advanced.” For example, I will sacrifice for my wife and daughter when I would not do so for other men’s wives and daughters — n0t because they’re smarter, more beautiful, richer, or whatever, but because of my special love for them. The Sanger/eugenics crowd are talking objective superiority — the way Hitler expected German athletes to excel over all other athletes in the 1936 Olympics — and I have made it clear than I reject eugenics.

Yet, multicults such as the Southern Poverty Law Center twist the natural affection for one’s own into alleged race hatred — which it is not. We would expect more intellectual honesty from someone who claims to be a “conservative” than from an unprincipled hustler like Mo Dees.

And speaking of the SPLC, it condemns all efforts to protect the borders as “racist.” Here’s what they have to say about people such as Mr. Jackson, who also opposes Open Borders:

“Behind the recent upswing in anti-immigration activism are an array of groups, including the 10 listed here. Most of these groups regularly work together, and their leaders frequently hold cross-memberships in several organizations at once. Some of the groups have clear ties to openly racist organizations, and even some of those that don’t still espouse thinly disguised bigotry.”

See what kind of people you associate with, Mr. Jackson?

As for the quick and dirty summary of paleoconservatism that nevadamistermom would like to see, no one has done a better job than Russell Kirk with his Ten Principles of conservatism. These include:

“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.”

The entire list is fleshed out at :
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

The whole point is that genuine conservatism is not a bumper-sticker ideology dreamed up by philosophers, but the political, social, and economic practices of an historical people. That’s why it’s so difficult to summarize.

Loyalty to one’s own community and desiring to preserve it are natural human tendencies. The empire and the commune seek to disrupt the natural social order and reconstruct the world through force and intimidation. Of course, they use the most benign-sounding justifications for doing so, such as ending capitalist exploitation, or racism, or whatever pejorative term they can use to discredit traditional society.

No traditional society can endure with open borders, which is why paleoconservatives oppose multiculturalism — and the very reason the Trotskyite Neocons and leftists support it, and why they condemn all who resist it as “racist.”

So, Mr. Jackson, we’re demanding intellectual honesty as well as consistency from you. Please explain why paleoconservatives’ opposition to Open Borders is racist, and yours is not. I’ll take bets on whether you’re up to it.

- “I’m not selling anything…I’m offering you a business opportunity.”

- “It’s much too complicated to be reduced to yes/no. We need to talk in-depth.”

- “You make selling sound like a bad thing…”

- “This is the AMERICAN WAY…let me explain”

Look, I think that I probably agree with paleos on 80%+ of their worldview. But let’s be honest. Views about race are hardly incidental or minor or of academic interest only. If I’m interested in truly understanding the differences between paleos and neos and any other conservative camp, I really need to get some kind of concise statement about what paleos actually believe…from their own mouth…about race. But this has proven to be harder than getting Slick Willie to admit he had sex with “that woman.”

Like Mountain Man, I’m asking for a simple answer to a simple question. Perhaps a paragraph or two…but not an essay. Pretend it’s a voters pamphlet and you’ve got 150 words to state your case.

“You call me and Mr. Stix ‘white supremacists” when neither of us said anything of the sort.”

** Here’s Nick Stix’s actual words: “While I do not presume to speak on paleos’ behalf, THEY WOULD BE FOOLS NOT TO CONSIDER THE WHITE RACE SUPERIOR ….” Yep. No sign of white racial supremacy here.

“I explicitly told Mr. Man that I did not subscribe to the Margaret Sanger/eugenics philosophy. Once again, you prove my point about how ideologically hidebound you are.”

** Great! That’s mighty white of you to think this way. Maybe you should have a little talk with Nick and set him straight too — when you’re not telling him how much you support his views, however.

“I am curious if you support Open Borders, since you appear to believe in radical egalitarianism. Do you? ”

** Nope. [And this didn't require 7 exchanges and 2000 words about forced busing or other extraneous issues to this point]

“And if not, why not?”

** I avoid all forms of rampant stupidity, from this to paleo-racism. I’ve outlined my position in “Paleo Bilge,” which is where I will now confine all my future comments.

[And you wonder why no one takes your comments seriously?]

You call me and Mr. Stix “white supremacists” when neither of us said anything of the sort. I explicitly told Mr. Man that I did not subscribe to the Margaret Sanger/eugenics philosophy. Once again, you prove my point about how ideologically hidebound you are.

I am curious if you support Open Borders, since you appear to believe in radical egalitarianism. Do you? And if not, why not?

We must have gone to different churches. Mine didn’t ask people to submit a DNA test to prove their racial heritage before embracing them in the folds of Christianity.

You and other white supremacists like Nick Stx do indeed have your work cut out for you to convince people that racial distinction is the foundation conservatism. This is a fortunate situation for all of us.

Also, my apologies to Nick Stix for drawing attention to his words by capitalizing them. They are the same exact words he used, just highlighted to contrast with the way Mike Tuggle characterized them.

If I was Mr. Stix, I’d be extremely embarrassed too at having these words highlighted. Note that he isn’t contesting what he said, just the fact that his words were emphasized. Another shining example of paleo logic at work. Racism doesn’t exist because it’s the wrong word. White Supremicist comments aren’t accurate if they are capitalized, although otherwise unchanged.

You can’t make this kind of stuff up.

Appealing to facts and reason is a waste of time with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Man. Like all ideologues, they try to make the world conform to their preconceived ideas, and no argument will change them. As I said early on, those who use the Marxist term “racist” to smear all those who uphold tradition do so to silence arguments they cannot answer. You point out the obvious fact that members of a particular group prefer their own group, and you’re branded as a racist. Face it — any dissent from the multicult agenda earns excommunication.

Just as I predicted, they have found us guilty of “racism,” the charge that no one, at least in the minds of the multicults, can escape once it’s been made. Such is the mindset of ideology.

I point out that conservatism means the upholding of cultural tradition, as first enunciated by Edmund Burke, and Mr. Man accuses me of “creative redefining of terms.” I seriously wonder if he’s even heard of Burke. He then states he does not think “traditional cultures have any particular feature that obligates me to preserve them.” Yet he turns around and says, “constitutionally limited government, liberty exercised in a biblically moral context, and free market capitalism” define conservatism. Astounding.

Is he aware that it was Western civilization that gave rise to those practices? Each of those three criteria have a long history, from the Christian faith, its theology, the rule of law, private property, social bond individualism — all cultural practices that came over to America with British colonization.

The standards of freedom and individual liberty that conservatism upholds did not come from coffee house philosophers, but from generations of practice, which we summarize as tradition. You cannot say you love the fruit but hate the tree that produced them. If you think that culture and politics are separate things, try turning Zimbabwe and Haiti into Jeffersonian republics.

Ideology is dead. Culture and demographics are vital. You cannot ignore, much less reject, the foundations that gave rise to the values that conservatives defend.

We understand that, Mr. Stix, but we must resign ourselves to the fact that political correctness has infected society so deeply that even those who style themselves as conservatives can stand with the multicult globalists and cultural Marxists, who know that socialism cannot win unless Western civilization and its values are subverted. It looks as if Mr. Gramsci’s disciples have done their job, and have duped many to accept the very philosophy of universalism that will ultimately undermine Western civilization. You and I have our work cut out for us.