Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21st, 2006

Where paleo-theory meets paleo-practice, run for the hills!

When I was a graduate student back in the 70s, I had to write three papers on completely different topics to qualify for candidacy in my Ph.D. program. One paper focused on U.S. Oil Policy in the Middle East during the 1950s. The second dealt with trade union bargaining strategy pre- and post-WWI, and the third addressed how macroeconomic variables influenced U.S. national elections from 1820 to the present.

I submitted my papers to the Department Chair, who at that time was the head of the Political Philosophy Department, and thought nothing more of it until I received a call asking that I meet him for a private conference. I knew my research was solid, so visions of additional scholarships and awards danced through my head as I sat down across the desk from him. To this day I can still remember his exact words. “Mr. Jackson, departmental requirements call for three papers on completely different topics. You have written three papers on the same subject.”

I was thunderstruck; even more so when he explained his reasoning. Each paper dealt with the subject of “economics,” and one even used that word in its title. Therefore, I had chosen the same topic for each paper.

It was my first brush with theory meeting reality. According to him, the papers were inexorably linked through a common philosophical core. The fact that one dealt with State Department negotiations with Arab governments, the second with union-employer wage and benefit calculations, and the third with accelerated transfer payments to American citizens to gin up the economy prior to an election, was just incidental fluff. All three papers dealt with money, so all three papers were the same.

I hadn’t thought much about that incident until the last few months when I started writing for this website. I thought the focus of my essays would be on exposing Liberal doublethink and hypocrisy. Little did I know that I’d be spending a fair portion of my time debunking the same doublethink and hypocrisy on the other side of the political spectrum. I’m speaking of course about that so-called strain of “True Conservative” thought otherwise known as paleoconservatism.

Now please understand that not everyone who writes about paleoconservatism is a nut. We’ve been treated recently to a fine essay by Dan Phillips tracing the intellectual and philosophical roots of this movement, and some rational, reasoned commentary by other contributing authors to this website. My problem with their work is that it either hasn’t gone far enough in telling us all what paleoconservatism really is, or that when discussing paleo-racism, the definition of “discrimination” becomes so abstract that it applies to zoning laws as well as immigration policy.

This latter point returns us to the same issue I began this essay with. Without a philosophy to ground it, actions are random and meaningless. However, it is equally true that without linking the philosophical discussion about an issue to its real-world application, we end up with an incredibly distorted view of reality.

In this case paleoconservatism becomes a close cousin to the vile notions of Marxist ideology that paleos routinely rant against. Where Marx wants us to look at the utopian nature of a communist society and not how communism is actually practiced in the real world, paleos want to talk exclusively about the importance of kith and kin, allegiance to one’s “tribe,” and other abstract notions without addressing how these concepts actually play out in life today.

Marx died before he could complete his analysis of capitalist society and link the theory of communism to the actual practice of communist beliefs. Ralph Dahrendorf, in his seminal work Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, did that by taking Marx’s own words and pronouncements and tying them to real world activity. The Marxists screamed bloody murder that the Marxist-Communist utopian philosophy was being “distorted” by this process. It was not. It was being exposed for what it really was.

Which again brings us back to paleoconservative thought. When I first wrote about race, I said that we should judge a person by their actions and not the color of their skin. I thought I was attacking the Democratic Party for its race-based hypocrisy. It turns out I was attacking paleoconservatism. This isn’t my conclusion. It’s what I was told by the paleos who descended from the hills to condemn me for deliberately abandoning my white racial heritage. “True Conservatism,” I was told, demands that “Race does matter. So does loyalty to one’s family, ancestors, region, blood and soil, kin and kith.”

And how do we know this is true? Well, a couple of guys (Kirk and Weaver), who are really smart and can read Greek and Latin, know that Aristotle supported slavery (“Oh yea, Phillip, have you read Aristotle? Book I of his Politics is a complete justification for slavery. Well, you better avoid it. It probably will offend your PC sensibilities.”)¹ Throw in some anti-Enlightenment pronouncements and a few denunciations of Marx, and you’ve got the making of “True Conservative” thought as defined by the paleos.

I’ll be the first to admit that I avoided classes in Race Does Matter 101, and Advanced Kith and Kinnism when I was at the university. Moreover, my personal preferences run toward the practice of politics rather than abstract political theory, so I wasn’t as familiar with the driving need to protect my white racial heritage as the paleos were. (Did I mention I was white? I never thought that was something I’d have to include in an essay before as pertinent information, but it just goes to show you the deficiencies in my formal education as more than one paleo has pointed out.)

So to make up for the shallowness of my studies, I asked the paleos themselves to tell me what paleoconservatism is. And this is the point of my essay today. No matter how lofty one’s abstract political principles are, they mean nothing until they are implemented in the real world. A lot of well-intentioned people got sucked into the Communist party in the 20s and 30s by listening to Communist rhetoric while ignoring Communist practices. An even greater number of kids in the 1960s and 70s bought into the abstract notions of modern day liberalism without examining how race-based decisions to “correct” other race-based decisions actually impacted peoples’ lives.

And today a number of conservatives reacting to the excesses of liberalism and phony-pragmatism find solace in the thought that we should return to our ancient roots. But as I asked one paleo and have yet to receive an answer, in a world where you can fly from the US to Europe in less than 6 hours, where people no longer marry other people who were born, raised and died within a mile of one another, does the notion of kith and kin, or “tribe” really mean anything like it did 2000 years ago, or is it just a convenient way to mask one’s real motives?

Motives — that’s the real reason we need to have this debate, not just to see who can make the best abstract argument to support their own utopian version of the truth. I believe that the practice of paleoconservatism has been used to justify the practice of racism, and I’ve used the paleocons' own words to illustrate this. Like a legion of little Dahrendorhfs, they fill in the missing pieces for all of us to see. Bear with me again for a couple of paragraphs as I show you who and what they are, as identified by their own words:

● “If you look at traditional philosophical conservatism (e.g. Weaver, Kirk, et al), there is much allowance for distinctions made on race, etc. Kirk, Weaver and [T.S.] Eliot all supported segregation – a very wise concept.”

● “Only a left-wing ideologue or utopianistic neoconservative would say that race is unimportant. Race is important, and so is a proud and strong defense [of] segregation. If God wanted one race, he would have made us all beige.”

● “I know I am of pure noble blood. I have DNA proof, and I have my genealogy back to the 14th Century Europe, tied to noble homes.”

● “Like Kirk and Weaver (the ‘fathers of American conservatism’), I think that race does matter. It is natural for races to want to keep to themselves. It has always been this way (think of mandatory ethnic segregation in Ancient Greece or Rome, or in Jerusalem, or in Medieval or Modern Europe). This is God’s plan.”

● “Regarding race and philosophers, [here are] quotes by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant:
– ‘strong smell of the Negro which cannot be avoided through any hygiene’
– ‘the Negro is strong, fleshy, agile, but under the rich supply of his motherland, lazy, indolent, and dallying’
– miscegenation ‘gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind’.”

● “Listen, folks. A great race war is coming. Each race will fight for its own survival. Each race will fight bravely. But in the end, only one race will survive.”

This is what the people who call themselves paleoconservatives believe. It isn’t a matter of opinion or personal preference to them; it is demanded by the very logic of paleoconservativism as its present-day advocates follow it. Remember, all of these thoughts (and there were many more I didn’t include in the summary above) were provided by paleos to explain to me, the ignorant fool “race traitor,” what paleoconservatism really was.

Later, I was taken to task for reproducing this collection of paleo-wisdom by one self-described paleo who claimed, “Your characterization is misleading. No paleo supports a ‘race war.’ Perhaps a white nationalist, but not a paleo.” This, by the way, was from the same guy who said one sentence later, “Perhaps unlike you, I do not support the complete annihilation of the white race.” Which I guess begs the question, doesn’t every benign philosophy speak about race in terms of “annihilation”?

Okay. So to those who think I’m being unfair to paleoconservatism, let’s take a little quiz. Below are four reader quotes from American Renaissance (the premiere paleo site paleos themselves pointed me to), and one quote from the Neo-Nazi website White Supremacy. Can you tell which one is from the overtly racist website?

1. “Just as the skunk cannot escape the stench of his own body and takes it with him wherever he goes, the Mexican cannot escape the stench of his own culture and takes it with him wherever he goes.”

2. Do you think that when most ‘Americans’ are actually Mexicans, Asians, or Africans, that the country will remain the same?

3. “Personally, I would love to walk into Axworthy’s office and surrender one of my ‘priliges’: My fist right into his face!”

4. “The Black Insurgent types will always whine and gripe. Without EVER having the mentality to come to grips with their own problem —”

5. “White race-traitor elites are selling out our futures, non-whites hate us, the only people white working folks can rely on are themselves and other like minded whites.”

Quote #2 is from the overtly “White Supremacy” group. All the rest are the product of a paleoconservative thought process.

Even with this, the paleos still protested that I’m being unfair to them by suggesting that they advocate racist policies. Again, drawing ONLY from what paleos themselves have told me about paleoconservatism, we find a couple of interesting comments from the intellectual founders of the one, the only, “True Conservatism,” which is to say paleoconservatism. The capital letters are mine; otherwise the citation from the paleo is unchanged.

● Russell Kirk: “The White community is ENTITLED [to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically], because, for the time being, IT IS THE ADVANCED RACE. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but IT IS A FACT that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

● Richard M. Weaver: “Some of the means, for example the Ku Klux Klan, were irregular, but essentially it was the political genius of Jefferson, of Washington, of Madison, and of Pinckney expressing itself in times of trouble and oppression.”

So according to the paleos, Kirk and Weaver are “correct” about segregation because white skin color is a clear-cut sign of racial superiority; (a determination made, coincidently, by white-skinned people based on the criteria established by white-skinned people.) Moreover, the KKK is just Thomas Jefferson in a hood. The only problem with the KKK is that some of their methods were “irregular” (not “wrong”). What, then, one might ask, was the “regular” way to lynch a man simply because he had the wrong color skin?

These are intellectually and morally bankrupt positions. These paleo icons tell us we can’t be seen as a human being. You must be black, white, brown, Asian, “Persian”, etc. Why? Because each classification is assigned a value by them to elevate their own self-worth.

But again the paleos protest that I haven’t interpreted them properly. They are not racists, despite their own words on this subject, because — and I’m not making this up — because I’m using the wrong word to discuss their odious beliefs in white racial superiority. Therefore, the odious beliefs do not exist. Racism is a neo-Marxist term, according to the paleos. Since Marxism is a discredited philosophy, anything a Marxist says (including the specific words he uses) is illegitimate. If the word is illegitimate, the concept is illegitimate. If the concept is illegitimate, the action doesn’t exist!

Or to put it in other terms, Mrs. Smith goes free because the indictment said she shot her husband with a “gun,” and it was really a “pistol.” Since the wrong word was used, the indictment must be dismissed. Old man Smith is still just as dead, but magically Mrs. Smith no longer did it.

Again, if you think I making any of this stuff up, the comment sections to my previous articles are preserved, as well as the comments to Dan Phillips’s article "What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care." Have a look for yourself.

If the word “racism” itself is the problem, I offered to substitute “gullywomp” for it instead so we can focus on the actions that are being advocated or perpetuated, and not on the etymology of the word. But that just resulted in another charge that I am a (pick one — I’ve been called all of these because of my position here: Liberal with a large “L”, liberal with a small “l”, Left-Wing, Moderate, Libertarian, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, neo-con, “race traitor,” “hates white people/his own kind with every breath he takes,” comes from an “inferior blood line,” and my opinions are the product of being “gang raped in prison.” I’m still trying to figure that one out!)

And finally, saving the best for last from “Sir Anthony,” a self-proclaimed “segregationist” who posts on both American Renaissance and the Vanguard News Network, (which has as its slogan "No Jews, Just Right"), we find his words in a piece entitled “Experts Agree: Ni**ers Greater Problem Than Racism:”

Phillip “Low Brow” Jackson is not only quite boorish but untamed as well. He exemplifies all the baser elements of Man in his lowest form: uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, coarse, and crude. You should pity him more than deplore him. He is the lewd metaphor for what is wrong with our higher education. His expressions are not only foul and dull, but he, in his loutish and grody manner, demonstrates that the cloddish nature of a knave has no limit. http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index.php?s=phillip+ellis+jackson

We are known for the company we keep and the enemies we make. As you can see, I am blessed on both counts.

So what does all this tell us? Is every paleo a racist? Of course not. But paleoconservatism does seem to attract more than its share of white racists the same way Looney Liberalism attracts racists of another kind. If we can all recognize the hypocritical use of racism by liberals against conservatives, why is it so hard to see that so-called “True Conservatives” can play games with the same word too?

Of course, I could be over-reacting to the practical application of paleoconservative thought as defined by paleoconservatives. But then again, I go back to little messages like this. “Unlike you, I am a real conservative. I’d never support a ‘color-blind society.’ Obviously you have been brainwashed by crackpot Leftists. Not only does race matter, but I think that whites should promote their own racial interests. All other races do it, but whites think that it is wrong for themselves to do it.”

This, by the way, came from the guy who felt compelled to tell me that he had a DNA test to prove his centuries-old pure noble blood. (Note: In Arkansas, we call that marrying your cousin.) And to further underscore the point, I was treated to the logic of the “one drop” rule to identify those with impure Negroid blood, because a good paleoconservative needs to know in which sheath his ancestors parked the old sword, so to speak, to maintain the integrity of his tribe.

According to recent DNA studies (see U. Penn Genetics Survey), about 95% of “white Americans” are of pure European blood. Probably about 5% would have one African ancestor out of about 256 ancestors. True, many blacks and whites had babies together, but there was the “one drop rule” and these kids would have been considered black, and never would have “crossed the racial line,” which is why you only have about 5% of whites with African blood. About 45% of blacks have white blood.

Now I ask you, how many of you stay up at night worrying about whether you need to invoke the “one drop” rule to maintain your True Conservative credentials? Those raising their hands please proceed to the Paleocon Processing Line for DNA verification. The rest of us will hold our nose as you pass, and go about the rest of our lives unburdened by such a need.

This is why it matters to understand what people actually believe (and therefore how they behave based on those beliefs) in their daily lives, instead of focusing on the abstract concepts that trace one line of thought back to something Aristotle said, and another to what Locke commented on.

Racism is racism whether it’s practiced by the Left or the Right, or called a word that was invented by Neo-Marxists or by Joe Blow living down the street. It’s the actions that matter, not the origin of the word.

I can still have loyalty to my country, my family and my friends without interjecting race into that calculation. It’s sad if the first thing you apparently see when you look at another person is the color of their skin, followed by a DNA test to establish the purity of your familial line.

No one believes that we’ll completely eradicate racism any more than we’ll completely eradicate stupidity. But knowing that we’ll never reach zero-stupidity is not a reason to embrace and practice it as a deliberate way of life.

Endnotes

1. These so-called “Real Conservatives” aren’t interested in the hallowed past when they quote Plato and Aristotle. Do they also support infanticide, believe that women are inferior beings who lack the rights men do, seek to impose governmental restrictions on the right to bear children, want to abolish all private property, and advocate bringing back the practice of slavery — not just racial segregation? Maybe they do, but they’re not promoting these same “principled” ideas publicly, even though these ideas flow from the same classical source.

They are simply looking for a good-sounding excuse to justify their segregationist bigotry. Aristotle supposedly provides the philosophical foundation for justifying slavery. But when you actually read his works, you see that support for “natural” slavery is not based on skin color, but on other human factors. It was a culturally-based application of logic to a “natural order” that believed in multiple gods, thought the earth was flat, that soil, wind, fire and water were the four basic elements, and arose in a time where people lived and died within miles of where they were born (apart from military expeditions), which also explains the focus of classical theorists on family ties and bloodlines. Supporting slavery wasn’t a principle as much as it was a judgment about certain aspects of the human condition based on various assumptions that, by the very nature of Aristotelian logic, would be overturned when mankind’s understanding of nature grew more sophisticated.

The process of logic and reasoning taught by these classical scholars is still the basis today for much of the way we scientifically evaluate information. But the conclusions arising from this process are only as good as the information upon which it is based. Modern day racists ignore the scientific method that today would factor in a wealth of more sophisticated variables, and rely only on 2000 year old “conclusions.” The modern day white supremacists pay homage to Aristotle’s conclusions, not the process he taught us to help decide an issue.

Labels: Neocons & Paleocons, Race & Ethnicity, Multiculturalism

Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
Visit their website at: http://www.scifi-jackson.com/

Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson on IntellectualConservative.com

Responses to "Paleo Bilge"

POSTSCRIPT:

These shining words of wisdom came in after I submitted my essay, in answer to the repeated question posed to a self-identified paleo: “Do paleos consider white people superior to other races?”

This was the answer from one prominent paleo contributor to this website: “While I do not presume to speak on paleos’ behalf, THEY WOULD BE FOOLS NOT TO CONSIDER THE WHITE RACE SUPERIOR. Blacks consider the black race superior; Asians consider the Asian race superior; whites consider their own race superior. Public pronunciamentos and private euphemisms notwithstanding, I have never met a white leftist or neo-conservative who in private conversation did not imply that he took WHITE RACIAL SUPERIORITY for granted.”

You should note that the emphasis is mine, but the words are EXACTLY what that person wrote. This gentleman objected the fact that I drew attention to his words in order to contrast them with a benign characterization of these same comments by a fellow paleo, who said that all he really pointed out was that “ALL PEOPLES PREFER THEIR OWN. He wasn’t speaking for these other peoples, he was only observing human behavior.”

So remove the capitalizations and re-read the paragraph above, and see if visions of people simply “preferring their own” is the first thing that comes into your mind.

And you wonder why we can’t have an honest conversation with these people?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2006
Thanks for a good "expose" Dr. Phil. Like you, I prefer to just say I'm a conservative rather than tacking a prefix of some kind onto the front (paleo, neo, ultra, moderate, christian, libertarian, etc.).

Knowing that this view of race is central to true paleo thought makes avoidance of that prefix all the more important to me.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 21, 2006
Excellent!

Comment by rightwingprof | December 21, 2006
I see that “intellectual” Philip Ellis Jackson has advanced from endlessly recycling his copied-and-pasted comment rants, in order to rapidly hijack other writers’ comment threads, to now routinely “writing” alleged columns which are themselves largely the same copy-and-paste rants. Using that method, Jackson can compete for the title of the Web’s most prolific writer of unreadable political rants.
The content of Jackson’s character, or lack thereof, is to identify paleoconservatism with Nazism, and endlessly repeat his demand that anyone who identifies himself or whom Jackson identifies as a paleoconservative, and who resists Jackson, prove his anti-racist bona fides.
A tip to the uninitiated: One need read only one recycled “column” or comment on what Jackson calls “paleoconservatism” “white supremacism,” etc., to know everything he has to say on the subject. I developed the foregoing reading method after weeks of subjecting myself to Jackson. That exercise probably shaved 10 points off my IQ, but some people have to step up and do their bit for the common good, now and then.
Of course, it is a free country, and you are welcome to read the dozens of copy-and-paste versions of Jackson’s rant, but I warn you: After hours of such a pastime, you will find you have wasted precious time that you can never regain, and you will be irritable, exhausted, and disinclined to read serious work on the same subject.
Look at the bilge you have just subjected yourself to (I skimmed it, which for purposes of comprehending Jackson is fully sufficient.) Where are the discussions of paleoconservative principles and history, or the links to other sources? There are none. Jackson has never studied paleoconservatism, yet he represents himself as its debunker.
If you have not yet subjected yourself to the full Jackson Treatment, which is a form of abuse proscribed by the Geneva Conventions, I suggest you read a real intellectual treatment of paleoconservatism by Dan Phillips, a man who actually is an intellectual conservative. However, I warn you: Jackson hijacked Phillips’ comment thread, so reading the comments there poses the real and present danger of wasted time and migraines.

Comment by Nicholas Stix | December 21, 2006
Nick:

I did not credit you specifically with the white supremacist comments that you made in comment #1 above, but since you've now joined the discussion, you'll get the "full Jackson Treatment". Which is to say, when you say something as egregiously and patently absurd as what you and other paleos have repeatedly stated, I won’t let you run away from your words and pretend that you never made the statements.

So complain all you want, but I’m simply repeating your own words and those of other paleos. I too would be embarrassed to see these words endlessly resurrected if I was associated with them, so I can understand your anguish. Thankfully, I am not associated with your beliefs, so I can’t share your actual pain.

My advice for the future is if you don’t want to be held up to public ridicule for what you believe, or to be called a white supremacist for saying that only a fool would not consider the white race superior, I suggest that you avoid making these statements in the first place. It’s a simple time-tested method that works every time.

Oh, and it’s clear that you can't afford to lose that extra 10 points off your IQ. So please seek immediate help. As one white man to another, we need to keep our race pure and strong.

And you wonder why no one takes what you think seriously?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2006
Nick,

I don't see Jackson debunking all of paleo thought. I see him isolating a single tenet and justifiably exposing it for what it is: a worldview that assumes racial superiority.

The rest of paleo views might indeed be quite palatable, but I'm not quite sure what you expect here. If the entire buffet is gourmet-quality food, but laced with just a dash of arsenic, are we supposed to eat it anyway?

If you are unhappy with Jackson's portrayal of what paleos believe on this topic, then perhaps you can enlighten us instead of hurling spears at Jackson. Let's hear it straight from a paleo's mouth.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 21, 2006
Nevadamistermom:

Right on target!

If paleoconservatism is not founded upon the belief in racial superiority, my first question would be how can anyone who says he is a strong defender of paleoconservatism make a statement that “While I do not presume to speak on paleos’ behalf, they would be fools not to consider the white race superior.” If Mr. Stix would like to, as they say, revise and extend his original comment to repudiate this sentiment and say instead that “every race prefers its own”, that would at least be a start. (But no weasel words about repudiating the “fool” comment. It’s either correct, or a mistake to say it.)

This, however, then leads to another excellent question. Apart from someone’s opinion on this subject (and you know what they say about opinions and other body parts — everyone has one), exactly what empirical evidence is there to support the notion that all blacks prefer “their own”, all Asians prefer “their own”, and all whites prefer “their own”? Either they do, or they don’t. Where’s the evidence that races do not want to mix.

Which leads to another question: How do you know what “race” you are unless you have a DNA test? Do you only go back 3 generations or so and forget about what great-great-great- grandpa did on shore leave during one of those military expeditions? Do you employ the “one drop rule” to verify your racial purity? And if “race matters” as the paleos have repeatedly told us, if you want to be a paleo but you have some unpleasant Negroid blood in your veins, can you get a dispensation to join the whites-only party, or do you have to start your own?

Which leads to another question I asked in my essay above. Since paleos talk constantly about the importance of kith, kin and tribe, in a world where you can fly from the US to Europe in less than 6 hours, where people no longer marry other people who were born, raised and died within a mile of one another, does the notion of kith and kin, or “tribe” really mean anything like it did 2000 years ago? Exactly why do I have to form a political association with the segregationist Sir Anthony other than because some of my ancestors were from England, instead of with a guy down the street from me who shares my values even though his ancestors came from China?

So as great as it sounds to talk about “tradition” and “preserving the culture” and allegiance to one’s “tribe”, exactly HOW do these notions play out in the year 2006 (soon to be 2007) so that I don’t end up being forced into some bunker in the wilds of Montana because they are the only ones who meet my tribal definition and are racially pure enough for me to form a political association?

THAT is an essay I’d love to read — assuming it actually addresses these points instead of simply quoting Kirk and Russell and other about the wisdom of the KKK and the inherent superiority of the white culture.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Phil,

IC offered me the opportunity to submit a reply to your comments on my last article. At first I declined. I see this internecine “You’re a racist!” “You’re a liberal!” sort of exchange as being entirely unhelpful. But I think I am now going to take them up on it. If I write a thoughtful reply that explains paleo beliefs including what those beliefs do and do not entail about race, it will very likely not satisfy you, but can we then give it a rest? I hope so. I think this whole thing sullies the word paleo in a very unfair way, but it is not as easy as simply issuing a blanket denial or repudiation of “racism” because we reject the modern PC connotation of the word. It is not the word per say that we reject, so changing the word is not the issue. It is the content or modern meaning of the word that we reject. The world is not a simple place, an idea that highly informs paleoconservatism, and every issue can not be reduced to simplistic formulations or blanket denials of loaded terms.

In the meantime, did you read the article on anti-racism by Jim Kalb that I posted a link to? What did you think of it? I firmly believe that in today’s PC dominated climate that dogmatic anti-racism is a much worse problem than is racism.

Also, paleos would like the term racism to be defined only as hate. (Actually we would like it thrown out entirely.) You clearly reject that definition. Please define racism for me then? What do you think it means? Is their any benign racism? (Rooting for a “Great White Hope” in boxing for example?” On the contrary, would a Black person be wrong for hoping Vince Young does well in the NFL because he “wants to see a Brother succeed.”) Or is all racism unmitigated evil?

There is something I believe you are missing that has to do with how we fundamentally define right and left. Please read this below. You reject the label neocon, but your argumentation, rhetoric, and thought processes are entirely neo. You are not alone. Most modern conservative activists accept neo formulations uncritically. That is why we paleos have such an uphill battle.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/ryn2.html

Read the above and see if you can see yourself. I know that in the heat of the moment I can be very guilty of the “I’m a real conservative and you are not” line of argument which is often inflammatory, argumentative, and not helpful. But I honestly believe there is some truth to that. All the ideas that inform neoconservatism (that America is a “proposition nation,” that there is an easily discernable “natural law” that should govern all men at all times, that America is more an embodiment of a set of abstract principles [liberty, equality, democracy] than it is a particular nation of a particular people, that America is wholly unique in all the history of the world somehow immune from the forces that have shaped all of human history before and since, that America is “exceptional,” etc.) are fundamentally of the left. In fact, as the article points out, they are down right Jacobin.

I would really like “Right Wing” Prof to elaborate on this. Just exactly what is he to the right of? John Kerry?

I am not trying to be argumentative when I say this, but to accuse paleos of being Utopians and similar to Marx is getting it exactly backward. It is modern neoconservatism (and unfortunately mainstream conservatism) that has adopted a universalist ideology that is Utopian and like Marx’s dogma seeks to overcome human nature in the name of an abstract ideal.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 22, 2006
A more civil version….

What Phil Jackson writes makes no sense at all. It reads like a bunch of non sequitur cut and pastes.

His argument is along the lines:

P1: All bipeds have beliefs
P2: Some bipeds think X

C: Therefore, X defines the essence of all bipeds

This is complete nonsense. Seriously, the whole essay reads like a bunch of non sequitur cut and pastes.

Am I the only one who thinks this?

If you really want to know what paleoconservatives think, then actually read their flagship magazines:

Chronicles Magazine

and

The American Conservative

DW

Comment by DonnaWilson | December 22, 2006
Phil,

I have read through all the original articles and replies. I think that some of the people you quote were actually playing you. They were trying to provoke or get a rise out of you. I don't say that just as a way to disavow their statements. I also think they may be somewhere yuking it up at your expense.

Sir Anthony with the hyper British word usage? That guy was playing a role. He used every conceivable stereotyped British word. Even the British don't talk that British. And the “I have DNA proof of my pure noble blood” guy, I am pretty sure was yanking your chain as well. I am not a DNA testing expert, but such a thing really isn’t possible, at least no like that. You can use DNA to demonstrate a sort of degree of relatedness or you can show a common ancestry, but you couldn’t establish “pure noble blood” whatever that means. You couldn’t have “pure” noble blood unless you were entirely inbred. Half the native British Islanders probably have some “noble blood” if you go back far enough. See what I mean? I’m talking off the top of my head, so if someone knows something more about DNA testing and can clarify it a little more that would help.

I have no idea what their motives would be other than trying to raise your blood pressure, but if something was said just to provoke you, then it is not fair to hold that out as how paleos think. Most paleos I know would be more interested in trying to find a Confederate ancestor than a “noble” ancestor.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 22, 2006
Mr. Phillips,

That would be excellent. I enjoyed your first article and am looking forward to the second. I have deliberately avoided the term "racisist" because I realize it is usually equated with hatred…even though the etymology probably doesn't support this.

The term I used is "racial superiority" which I believe is more consistent with the paleo posture. Each reader can decide whether this translates to racial "hate" or not once they have read what you have to say.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 22, 2006
Dan:

To respond to the questions and issues you raised (see my ***):

1. I see this internecine “You’re a racist!” “You’re a liberal!” sort of exchange as being entirely unhelpful.

*** If the issue is reduced to mere name calling, you are correct. However, the issues I raised — using the paleos own words to describe paleoconservatism in action — are substantive, and should not be swept under the rug. If the so-called defenders of “True Conservatism” believe that racial purity, segregation, and white racial superiority are integral parts of paleoconservatism, these odious beliefs need to be exposed. As good conservatives, we should not be afraid to air our dirty laundry in public if that leads to positive change. Liberals make excuses for their racists. If we hide or make excuses for ours, we become no different than theirs.

2. If I write a thoughtful reply that explains paleo beliefs including what those beliefs do and do not entail about race, it will very likely not satisfy you, but can we then give it a rest?

** Once again I would respectfully point out that the issues isn’t whether paleos embrace “tradition”, oppose “big government”, or draw inspiration from Classical Theorist A instead of Classical Theorist B. It’s how this belief system translates itself into public policy. It matters whether “tradition”, as an action-word, means respect for Judeo-Christian values, or respect for Plato and Aristotle’s so-called immutable belief in racial segregation. It depends on whether “Judeo-Christian” means that God created all men equal, or as one paleo put it, it is “Gods plan” to keep the races segregated. These are not inconsequential points.

3. I think this whole thing sullies the word paleo in a very unfair way, but it is not as easy as simply issuing a blanket denial or repudiation of “racism” because we reject the modern PC connotation of the word. It is not the word per say that we reject, so changing the word is not the issue. It is the content or modern meaning of the word that we reject. The world is not a simple place, an idea that highly informs paleoconservatism, and every issue can not be reduced to simplistic formulations or blanket denials of loaded terms.

*** Which is why I said to forget about the word “racism”, and substitute “gillywomp” for the SAME EXACT ACTIONS if you continue to perseverate on that word. The fact that liberals use the word unfairly to tar conservatives with PC-related violations doesn’t give paleos a free ride. Either take back ownership of the word and apply it legitimately to them (as I’ve done in my Looney Liberal Chronicles), or create a new word for liberal racism (I suggested “gullywart”). But don’t side step the entire issue by saying that we can’t really talk about paleo racist beliefs and/or actions because we’re using the wrong word, so we need to ignore the actions themselves!

4. In the meantime, did you read the article on anti-racism by Jim Kalb that I posted a link to? What did you think of it? I firmly believe that in today’s PC dominated climate that dogmatic anti-racism is a much worse problem than is racism.

*** I’m happy to concede that PC-liberal racism is more of a problem today than paleo-conservative racism. Having done that, let’s now talk about paleo racism! Just because Hitler was worse than Stalin (or vice versa) doesn’t mean we give the other guy a free pass! I despise liberal hypocrisy, of which pseudo-racist charges against all conservatives is a shining example. I’ve stated that ad nausium in my own essays. But that doesn’t excuse or obviate paleos who think that the white race is superior because of kith and kin philosophical arguments, with “tribes” and Aristotle thrown in for good measure. I don’t excuse the actions of a paleo because he’s a so-called conservative, and condemn the actions of a liberal because he is a liberal. I look at the ACTIONS themselves.

5. Also, paleos would like the term racism to be defined only as hate. (Actually we would like it thrown out entirely.) You clearly reject that definition.

*** As I said once in an earlier essay — And I’d like my farts to smell like perfume. But they don’t. So let’s deal with the foul stench (whatever we call it), instead of pretending it doesn’t exist because we’ve given it the wrong name.

6. Please define racism for me then? What do you think it means?

*** A person can think anything he wants, and I don’t care. I’m only concerned about how these thoughts translate themselves into policy. Paleo philosophy means nothing as long as it is an abstract set of principles. Liberals say the family is important, traditions are important, government should act sparingly and wisely, etc. It’s how these principles are put into practice. Liberals see the family as a “village”, or Heather with two mommies. They see “traditions” as what you did yesterday morning. A nanny state to them is a shining example of government acting “wisely”.

So let’s be clear. What a paleo (or any other philosophy) says abstractly is only half the issue. To fully understand it, we need to see it in practice. And what do the paleos themselves tell us about the practice of paleoconservatism? Race matters. Whites are superior. The KKK was acting in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. Segregation is God’s law. We need a one drop law to establish racial identity because “race is important” to preserving traditions, kith and kinnism, the “tribe”, etc.

And I didn’t even get into the smell of a Negro, or the need to establish one’s racial purity through DNA analysis. If all we’re dealing with is a couple of kooks who live in a bunker in Montana, then who cares? But the self-identified Paleos who make these statements aren’t just talking to themselves. They are advocating policies and actions based on these beliefs.
“Idiocy” becomes “racism” when a world view that sees things first and foremost through the prism of race enters the arena of public policy.

7. Is their any benign racism? (Rooting for a “Great White Hope” in boxing for example?” On the contrary, would a Black person be wrong for hoping Vince Young does well in the NFL because he “wants to see a Brother succeed.”) Or is all racism unmitigated evil?

*** This is the problem I have with people who are looking for a way to avoid an issue instead of actually address it. I wrote extensively on the existence of a universal moral code: “It is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life”. (See “What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”) I didn’t say “innocent white life”, “innocent brown life”, etc. It’s not immoral to love your family more than other families. It’s not immoral to root for the Yankees vs. the Red Sox. It’s not immoral for people to form a political union, pass laws through a constitutionally representative process, and enforce those laws).

But this is a far cry from choosing your sports team exclusively based on the color of the players’ skin, or preventing your next door neighbor from attending a good school so your kid can get better grades, or forming a country of DNA-certified-white-people-only to keep all non-certified other color people out.

You can take any notion of choice and make it into a rhetorically-evil action, like extending the logic against slavery to mean that we can’t have any zoning laws because both activities “discriminate”. It’s patently clear to anyone reading my article that I object to policies that are based first and foremost on race. And it’s equally clear from the way paleos interpret their own philosophy IN THEIR OWN WORDS that they see everything through the prism of race. They define “family” as one’s race; “tradition” as one’s race, etc. This is the real issue at hand, not whether I root for team A or team B in the NFL playoffs.

8. You reject the label neocon, but your argumentation, rhetoric, and thought processes are entirely neo. You are not alone. Most modern conservative activists accept neo formulations uncritically. That is why we paleos have such an uphill battle.

*** I personally couldn’t care less what label I’m called. I don’t know what neocons believe (other than they are presumed to be very supportive of Israel, which I am; but I’m also supportive of other US allies too — so what does that make me?). And don’t really care. I’ve build my opinions by asking the question “Why are we here?” — in short, why did God place man on earth and give him a brain to analyze the world as well as the actions of his fellow man?

Broadly speaking I’ve found conservatism to be a more forthright and honest approach to answering this question than anything found in liberalism, so I’m quite happy to accept the label “conservative” — even though the paleos tell me I’m actually a Marxist, not a neocon! Again, it just goes to show you how silly labels are when the real issue is what people actually do with their lives.

I look to philosophy to stimulate a debate about the proper way to live my life, not to end the discussion. I don’t believe that every paleo is a racist — I said this before. But I do know from seeing the firestorm of debate that resulted from a statement I made “We should judge a person by what they do, not the color of their skin”, that paleos attract a number of people who found this statement extremely offensive. Re-read the comments to my essay “Off to the Races” to see them in their full glory.

Until paleoconservatism cleans up its act and stops hiding behind word play, and deals with the fact that The Vanguard News (which I quoted in my essay above) feels perfectly at home under the umbrella of your philosophy, you will continue to see others like me react to this blatant racism.

Now it’s my turn to ask you a couple of questions.

Tell me how a paleocon’s America functions, not just about its abstract beliefs. What do you do with the non-white tribe members? How do you promote segregation (which Kirk and Weaver say are the foundation of True Conservatism) without being a racist?

But most of all I’d like to know why you felt compelled to ask me a bunch of questions to justify my position (which I am more than happy to provide), BUT NOT ONCE ask Nick Stix to repudiate the statement he made: “While I do not presume to speak on paleos’ behalf, THEY WOULD BE FOOLS NOT TO CONSIDER THE WHITE RACE SUPERIOR. Blacks consider the black race superior; Asians consider the Asian race superior; whites consider their own race superior. Public pronunciamentos and private euphemisms notwithstanding, I have never met a white leftist or neo-conservative who in private conversation did not imply that he took WHITE RACIAL SUPERIORITY for granted (emphasis added to draw you to his main points).”

I don’t mean this to be a personal attack on you, Dan, because I haven’t seen any reason yet to believe that you share these supremacist views. But now it’s time for you to step up to the plate and deal with paleo-practice instead of abstract theory. You and other paleos don’t want to be called racists for advocating the things I’ve pointed out using the paleos own words. Fine. Distance yourself from them.

So I ask, do the paleo comments I’ve noted in my essay reflect the way you, a scholar on paleoconservatism, think? Will you also take ownership of those exact words? And if not, why not? If these people are perverting paleoconservatism, tell us. If they are not, then publicly embrace them.

Either way we’ll have a good answer to my question about whether this line of thought is driven by the logic of paleoconservatism itself, or whether a bunch of ignorant racists are using paleoconservatism as a cover for their noxious beliefs. And if it is, don’t you think it’s about time to expose them for what they are and rid them from your movement?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Donna:

It’s difficult to make an argument that I am calling all paleos racists when I stated exactly the opposite in my essay above:

“So what does all this tell us? Is every paleo a racist? Of course not. But paleoconservatism does seem to attract more than its share of white racists the same way Looney Liberalism attracts racists of another kind. If we can all recognize the hypocritical use of racism by liberals against conservatives, why is it so hard to see that so-called ‘True Conservatives’ can play games with the same word too?”

If you want to play the game, the first requirement is that you address an issue honestly. Otherwise you are exposed as an ignorant fool. And just to be sure you understand what I’m saying, while Donna is a fool for making an ignorant statement, not every Donna is an ignorant fool.

By the way, if the paleo statements read like a bunch of non sequiturs, you should take that up with the paleos. It’s their words I’m quoting.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Dan:
I read your second message after I posted a reply to your first.

My first thought too was that people like Cato and Sir Anthony couldn’t possibly be serious. Unfortunately, they are. They posted a call to arms in The Vanguard News, along with a 20 year old picture of me, that said the following: “LISTEN: This guy is a complete left-wing / neocon nut job. He basically hates the white race. He also attacks American Renaissance in his silly article. GO here and write a comment and defend AR: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/#comments”

They also shut down my original email, which I foolishly listed as my business email, with threats to crash my system unless I backed off. I don’t give into bullies, so I just changed my email address.

I believe that you are a good person and are trying to find some way to explain away these racist idiots because they do not represent the paleoconservatism you embrace. This is why I didn’t call all paleos racists. But I still believe that paleo-think provides a haven for this kind of thought, and will continue to do so until you paleos rid yourself of these extremists.

I’m still very much interested in a statement from you that formally distances yourself from the white people are superior, segregation-is-God’s-Law, the KKK is just Thomas Jefferson, etc. bilge I’ve gotten from the paleos. It will be the first time any self-described paleo has repudiated this thought process since I began writing at IC.

If this is what paleoconservatism is, then I need to hear it from you and other paleocons. I’m happy to formally repudiate each and every one of those statements, so I’m not asking you or any other paleo to do something I wouldn’t do.

The fact that it’s been so hard to get any paleo to do this has been very troubling. All they want to do is quibble over definitions instead of repudiate the action, whatever it is called.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Phil obviously does not know the first thing about paleoconservatism.

Does anyone here want to bet me $100 that Phil has never read an issue of Chronicles Magazine or The American Conservative magazine?

I bet he has not even read the Wikipedia entry on paleoconservatism.

His whole rant reminds me of the lesson of Socrates: people should not speak about which they know nothing. His rant is like the man arguing about geometry who has never even looked at a geometry textbook and knows not the first thing about geometry.

I read the posts by so-called "paleos" and those people were just obviously pulling Phil's leg. It is just sad that he was gullible enough to fall for it.

And Kant? Kant was an Enlightenment liberal, not a paleo.

Comment by DonnaWilson | December 22, 2006
Donna:

Kant was cited by a fellow paleo as evidence that even enlightened liberals think Negros are inferior (as this paleo did).

It's good to know you think that those who say white people are superior are just having a little fun with me, so you won't find it difficult to repudiate the specific comments made by Nick Stix that I cited above. Like the Israelis did with Arafat when he said that Israel had a right to exist — in English — just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, they asked him to say it in Arabic too.

He never did, by the way.

I don't believe that you are sincere in your statement that these people are "so-called paleos." I think you actually embrace the same philosophy, given your visceral reaction to my essay pointing out their words. Otherwise, you would have written the kind of response Dan Philips did, which represents a sincere effort to get at the truth of an issue while still disagreeing with some of my observations.

Denounce these people by name (or by specific reference to an actual quote) as the fools they are, and you will have a sincere public apology from me. Play games by saying you won't do it "on principle", or because I challenged you and it's beneath you to reply, or some other excuse (like not replying again at all), and we'll have another Arafat moment here.

My offer is sincere. If I have unfairly tagged you as an ignorant fool for believing the same thing Nick Stix and the others I cited in my essay above believe, I'll happily, publicly, and sincerely and profusely apologize since you will be the first paleocon to repudiate these beliefs.

If not, have a happy holiday — and may all your Christmas’ be white.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
NOTE TO EVERYONE

If you think I’m being a little too harsh on Donna, consider what is happening.

After several rounds of throwing the paleos’ own words back in their faces and exposing these individuals for the racists they are — and having other paleos complain that I am deliberately misinterpreting their words, or just endlessly repeating my point, or watching the paleos debate what the meaning of is“is”, we’re now treated to a new version of the truth: It was all a joke.

For three months a merry little band of paleos have been saying the most outrageously racist things that I foolishly fell for. Their only interest was to get a rise out of me, and have a little fun at my expense. They don’t really believe in racial segregation, white superiority, DNA testing and the like. They were just pulling my chain, and I was too gullible and “fell for it”.

Okay. Let me hear from those making these statements that it was all in fun, and we can all share a good laugh at my expense for being so naïve.

I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one. Unable to defend their racist remarks, others now want to deflect the debate by saying — generally — it was all a big misunderstanding or practical joke. But until I hear about specific words and phrases, I won’t believe a word of their latest explanation.

So now a couple of predictions. I expect to see Dan Philips put some daylight between the things I pointed out in my essay and what he believes paleoconservatism to represent. I expect Nick Stix to do the exact opposite and dig his heels in further. I don’t expect Donna to repudiate any of these statements (but I am quite willing to be proven wrong, and will apologize if that is the case).

The reason I expect nothing of substance from anyone but Dan Philips is that the first paleo who repudiates segregation as God’s law, white supremacy ala Nick Stix, or any of these other odious beliefs will be attacked verbally by their fellow racial supremacists and drummed out of the club. The only paleos I expect to hear from denouncing these beliefs are those not previously participating in any of this conversation who are as offended as I am about what these people think.

So we’ll see if it was all a big joke, or exactly what I said it was.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Old Republic —

Regarding your comment: “I just want to be left alone. So, Phil, please do NOT call or my friends “racists” because it is inaccurate. You may call me a genophiliast." You defined that word, interestingly enough, in comment 37 to Dan Phillips essay on paleoconservatism. Your exact words were: “It basically means that, unlike you, I do not support the annihilation of my own tribe, and I have pride in my European ancestors.”

Annihilation? Exactly what have I done to advocate your tribe’s annihilation? Spoken out against white supremacy? Spoken out against the one drop rule for testing racial purity?

For the third time I will now ask you, in a world where you can fly from the US to Europe in less than 6 hours, where people no longer marry other people who were born, raised and died within a mile of one another, does the notion of kith and kin, or “tribe” really mean anything like it did 2000 years ago, or is it just a convenient way to mask one’s real motives?

This debate isn't about you sitting in your living room interacting with your family. That's your business. But since paleoconservatism (like any other political philosophy) isn't just an abstract debate, it's a prescription for real world policies, when those ideas are put forth as policy objectives, then it does become my business — and everyone else’s.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Phil,

I've got an idea. I'll accept Donna's bet, and you confirm that you have read issues of American Conservative and Chronicles. We can split the winnings 50/50. Or we can use some of the money to buy Donna a book, so she doesn't have to rely on Wikipedia anymore.

Comment by Katzen | December 22, 2006
Nevadamistermom:

From #6: “If you are unhappy with Jackson’s portrayal of what paleos believe on this topic, then perhaps you can enlighten us instead of hurling spears at Jackson. Let’s hear it straight from a paleo’s mouth.

“Comment by nevadamistermom | December 21, 2006”

I’m sorry, nevadamistermom, but you came to the wrong address. While I am not offended by being called a “paleocon” – or being called a “conservative,” for that matter – I have never identified myself as either. I got involved with paleocons in circa 1992, when a couple of acquaintances (a leftwing magazine store owner and an anarchist (?) journal editor) directed me to Chronicles magazine, thinking I might find it congenial. I did, based on Chronicles being the only magazine I knew of, that had the courage to speak honestly about black supremacy. At the time, it was also the most intellectually powerful and best-written magazine of ideas I was aware of.

I tried working with neocon editors on the same matter, but they (e.g., the weekly standard’s William Kristol) chickened out.

(Until circa 1996, I considered myself a “liberal.” Then I realized that in contemporary discourse, “liberal” was – and still is – a euphemism for “socialist.” I was not, and am not a socialist. Although I will admit to being a conservative on certain specific issues (the fisc and the Constitution), I have never chosen a new political identification, because: 1. I see no benefit in, or obligation to do so; 2. I am ambivalent about the value of tradition, the support of which is seen by many self-identifying conservatives as a philosophical litmus test; and 3. Identifying myself as a "paleo" or even a "con," would lead other people to have certain (justified) expectations about how I may respond to certain issues, and would make me feel beholden to take certain positions. At times, that would mean biting my tongue, and putting blinders on my reason. Politically, I am perfectly happy to refer to myself – as I have in private since before Mark Helprin wrote the words for Bob Dole – as nothing but a man.)

Today, I find that all but a very few paleocons also have their tails between their legs on race in general, and black racism in particular. At present, I know of only two writers in America who write on race without pulling their punches or outright lying: White nationalist Jared Taylor and moi.

Nevertheless, I did recently consider writing an article on conservatism and race, but the research and (re-)writing would entail hundreds of hours that I simply don’t have. And so, such an article will have to remain on my wish list, until which time it either slips my mind or I do it. But even were I to do it, it would, for the reasons previously given, not be a personal credo.

As for my “hurling spears at Jackson” … what on earth is wrong with that? I don’t see you telling Jackson to stop hurling spears at other people, like say, me. Your lack of any criticism of Jackson for his spear chucking (and I’ve largely just been responding to him), and your paper trail as a Jackson fan, give you a credibility problem.

The Phillip Ellis Jacksons of this world pose a problem for any serious writer. What Jackson does at this Web site is analogous to the Leftists who shout down any speaker with whom they disagree. If one remains silent in the face of Jackson & Co.’s heckling, they win via “heckler’s veto.” “One” refers not just to writers being attacked by Jackson, but any reader sympathetic to a writer being attacked by Jackson who does not bother going on the offensive against him. At IC, such a surrender to the heckler means the hijacking of discussion threads.

Typically, such a heckler’s veto requires the support of the authorities. At universities, administrators have for years aided and abetted leftist mobsters.

But if one should throw oneself into flame wars with Jackson, one has to sacrifice precious, limited time from one’s research, writing, and recreation. And serious thinkers must invest huge amounts of time in their research and writing. No such investment is necessary for Jackson, whose “study” of paleoconservatism is limited to copying and pasting (and often, misrepresenting) quotes from posters. The Jackson Composition Method: What, me read? What, me think? What, me rewrite? What, me worry?

And so, one must be prudent. I may devote a few hours to this troll this week, and perhaps ignore him for the rest of my life, or I may come back to him now and then. I certainly plan on imitating at times his copy-and-paste method, in order to save time (after all, all he does is repeat himself, so it’s not as if I need to think anew about any hard questions he has posed). But I hope I will not permit myself to be suckered by the likes of him into neglecting my work.

A correspondent wrote me, charging Jackson with being “book smart” in a limited sort of way, but I wrote back that I am convinced that Jackson is innocent of the charge. After all, to be book smart, you have to read books. My correspondent also doubted, and spoke of friends who doubted that Jackson actually has a University of Chicago Ph.D. But what if he does have a University of Chicago Ph.D.? Consider what that would say about the decline of academic standards at that once proud bastion of liberal learning, made famous by the likes of John Dewey, Robert Maynard Hutchins, George Herbert Mead, Mortimer Adler, the legendary Chicago School of sociology, and the very different, and even more famous Chicago School of economics? If universities engaged in negative advertising the way political candidates do, they could destroy Chicago by simply doing ads emphasizing the academic “credentials” of Jackson and other neocon trolls among Chicago’s alumni.

Comment by Nicholas Stix | December 22, 2006
A friend sent me a link with the dire message, "a reputed conservative site is attacking conservatives as racist." When I read the excerpts in his email, I thought they'd taken an Onion satire as the real thing. It's a joke, I concluded. Then I clicked on the url and started reading. It was a Phillip Jackson op-ed, so while it is a joke, it's nothing to take seriously.

Jackson swears he's being objective, and even has the nerve to say, "So to make up for the shallowness of my studies, I asked the paleos themselves to tell me what paleoconservatism is. And this is the point of my essay today."

But the truth is that he is hardly being either objective or fair. His first comment in the Dan Phillips post mentioned above http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/what-the-heck-is-a-paleoconservative-and-why-you-should-care/
shows he's already prejudged paleoconservatives, and is just itching to prove his moral superiority:

"As these practitioners of paleoconservatism and modern day Defenders of True Conservatism identify themselves, the key issue that drives them isn’t so much free trade and foreign policy, but their racial superiority. Paleoconservatism is a testament to their superior blood line, from which all other policies flow."

Remember, he said this before any paleos made any comments at all. Is this a man guided by fairness and objectivity?

Jackson acts and thinks like any other multicult leftist, pouncing with malicious glee on any statement that he can interpret as racist. What's the difference between Jackson and the Southern Poverty Law Center? The SPLC gets paid for slamming conservatives.

Comment by mtuggle | December 22, 2006
mtuggle —

Here is how I actually started my comments (Comment #1 to What the Heck is a Paleoconservative …):

“I found your essay very informative, but to my mind you’re still missing one important element. It’s one thing to discuss the historical and philosophical traditions of paleoconservatism, and another to look at its modern-day practical application. We had quite a revealing discussion a few months back that I summarized in my essay “In Their Own Words: The Undisguised Racism of the Far, Far, Far Right.” As these practitioners of paleoconservatism and modern day Defenders of True Conservatism identify themselves, the key issue that drives them isn’t so much free trade and foreign policy, but their racial superiority. Paleoconservatism is a testament to their superior blood line, from which all other policies flow.”

This comes off a little different than “His first comment in the Dan Phillips post mentioned above shows he’s already prejudged paleoconservatives, and is just itching to prove his moral superiority: ‘As these practitioners of paleoconservatism and modern day Defenders of True Conservatism identify themselves, the key issue that drives them isn’t so much free trade and foreign policy, but their racial superiority. Paleoconservatism is a testament to their superior blood line, from which all other policies flow’.”

Why is it paleos like you have to resort to such dishonest slights of hand to prove their point? When I quoted Nick Stix, I didn’t end his statement at “While I do not presume to speak on paleos’ behalf, they would be fools not to consider the white race superior.” I gave you the full quote with whatever qualifiers he chose to add.

And now you speak about some unnamed “friend” sending you a “dire message”. It's kind of an interesting comment coming from you, since you participated in the debate in Dan Phillip's article that your mysterious friend has now suddenly alerted you too. And you even use the same identical language about the Southern Poverty Law Center you used before.

And yet you tell us all that you’ve just found out about this whole debate. Why the need to be so dishonest? Can’t you make a point any other way?

Note to Dan Phillips and Donna: Do you think the message from Mike Tuggle is another joke?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Katzen

Tempting as your offer is, I'm still holding out hope that Donna will prove me wrong and clearly state exactly what she found humorous about the "so-called" paleo quotes I provided, and thus repudiate the paleo bilge I've documented. She will then become the first paleo to distance her/himself from that garbage. It will result in a public apology from me for doubting her sincerity that I will be glad to make. Since her statements will demonstrate that she isn't part of that camp, I will then respectfully decline to make the bet, since at that point I wouldn't want to take her money.

On the other hand, if she is a paleo cut from the same cloth as mtuggle (see above), betting her and winning wouldn't result in any payoff. She'd get an urgent email from an anonymous friend informing her that she made a bet, and we'd spend the rest of the comment section debating the meaning of the word "honesty".

So it's a real Catch 22, paleo-style. But I do appreciate the sentiment behind your thought.

Take care, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Nick Stix:

I’ll take your distancing yourself from holding the label "paleocon" as a sorta-victory for the non-paleo racists, since you’ve disassociated your white supremacy remarks from that philosophy, although you do say you find paleoconservatism a congenial philosophy. Unfortunately, it just strengthens my point that paleoconservatism seems to attract people with the world view that you have, and this is a problem that paleos need to confront.

Again, I know it’s terribly embarrassing to see your words repeatedly quoted back to you. I’d be embarrassed too if I made them.

I’ve had my parentage questioned by Cato who reasoned that I was clearly from inferior blood, my fairness and objectivity challenged by mtuggle who had to have a friend alert him to the fact he had participated in a previous discussion with me, and now you question my schooling. I’m just devastated, and may never recover from this challenge to my credentials.

You’ve spent a very long time here and in the Dan Philips article telling us that it would take a very long time for you to respond to any of the paleo bilge I cited from the paleos. It would have been interesting to see you spend just a little bit of that time actually addressing the main issue instead of telling us that you were too busy to do so.

I’ve answered every question I’ve been asked by Dan Phillips and others. Some were kind of silly: Do you support open borders? “No”. Do you believe liberals should be condemned for racism if they engage in racist activities? “Yes”. It’s really not hard to answer questions, and it’s not difficult to condemn policies that are race-based — unless, of course, your main purpose in responding is to throw up chafe about my perceived academic deficiencies rather than actually address the points raised by me and others. One then only wonders why you can’t? Or won’t?

Question for Dan and Donna: since Nick doesn’t believe I think real good, can you please tell me if his response is serious, or another joke?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
Old Republic:

Glad to see you toned down the definition of genophelia to get rid of the race annihilation language. We're making some progress here.

Oh, and we can now add "new age hippster" to my list of neocon-liberal-Marxist-libertarian-hates white people credentials. Much obliged, and keep them coming. My business card still has a little room left.

One question though in your passionate defense of blood soil kith and kin in the 21st century. Does your "tribe" have a name, like the Heckowees? Or is it just a kind of ceremonial thing, you know, like on "Survivor?"

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2006
To Nick Stixx, Mike Tuggle, Old Republic, Dan Phillips and other paleos and/or paleo identifiers:

I believe I have a simple, straightforward way to bring this conversation to a productive close. Here is how a Neocon-Marxist-Neomarxist-Libertarian-white race hating-inferior blood type-crude-uncultured-unrefined-uneducated-undereducated-poorly educated-new age hipster (i.e. Jackson) would answer the following questions.

How would each of you answer them as well based on your identification with paleo philosophy?

1. What’s more important in assessing the value another human being: what they do and say, or the color of their skin? Jackson: What they do and say.

2. To be a true conservative, must you automatically support segregation? Jackson: no.

3. Is it God’s plan for the races to keep to themselves? Jackson: no

4. Is the KKK a modern-day expression of Thomas Jefferson? Jackson: no.

5. Is it important to have the right kind of DNA in order to be a True conservative? Jackson: no.

6. Are the only people white working folks can rely on themselves, and other like minded whites? Jackson: no.

7. Is the white community entitled to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically, because at the present time it is the “advanced race”? Jackson: no.

8. Are we “fools” not to consider the white race superior? Jackson: no

Nowhere will you find the word “racist” to describe any of these actions, so we don’t need to deal with the baggage surrounding the etymology of this word. We just have a simple, straightforward set of questions that I was able to answer in 12 words in less than 10 seconds. No long explanation was needed.

If I’m wrong about any conclusions I’ve drawn about the nexus between the-word-which-must-not-be-spoken and people attracted to paleo philosophy, answering these simple questions is an easy way to show it and bring this discussion to a productive end.

I’ve answered each one of the questions myself, so I’m not asking you to do anything I wouldn’t do. I’d be curious to see if our answers fundamentally differ, or if you find answering such questions objectionable in their own right.

Phil Jackson

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 23, 2006
Mr. Jackson,

As a matter of fact, I was informed about this particular discussion thread by an email from a friend, who quoted some of your nonsense in the original email. For your information, I was not award of this thread before that time. Hardly a sleight of hand. (Or slight, as you spell it.)

Your implication that I was attempting a slight of hand (I mean sleight of hand — now you're infecting me) is ludicrous. The quote was accompanied by the url for anyone to review the context. Either way, it shows how frighteningly fixated you are about traditional conservatives.

I seriously wonder about a man who pumps out 5 separate posts in his own discussion thread. Are we getting a bit obsessive here?

While you're burning up all that bandwidth, could you include some answers to our questions? Backed up by, I don't know, some facts to back up your scary accusations? Or do you have nothing left but stale wisecracks and holier-than-thou insults?

Comment by mtuggle | December 23, 2006
Phil,

If you are trying to bully me into accepting your view of liberal self-hatred, then no, I won't do it. I am a conservative.

I am white, and I am proud of the achievements of Western Civilization. I am proud of all the Western art, architecture, science, mathematics, literature, philosophy, history, and poetry.

Want me to renounce this? No, I won't. Do I think that Western architecture is superior to the dung huts of Sub-Sahara Africa? Yes, I do.

Unlike you, I am proud of the white race and its noble accomplishments. I am not a "racist." I am just proud of my people.

I feel like this is some left-wing inquisition where Phil is out to purge the world of conservatives.

Comment by DonnaWilson | December 23, 2006
Mtuggle:

Mtuggle’s words: “As a matter of fact, I was informed about this particular discussion thread by an email from a friend, who quoted some of your nonsense in the original email. For your information, I was not award of this thread before that time.” [It's actually "aware", but I won't make fun of your typos.]

The fact is you participated in the Dan Phillips paleoconservatism article debate. You posted reply #65 (among others). I began my reply #66 with the following comment: “NOTE TO EVERYONE: This thread has now moved to the essay “’Paleo Bilge’”. You continued to post comments after that. You knew well before your mysterious friend sent you the URL to this essay that I’d already written this piece, yet for some reason you want us all to believe that the only way you’ve been dragged into this conversation is because someone alerted you to it, so you could pretend to be shocked.

You lied. You got caught. Be a man and admit it. It’s all there for anyone who wants to go back and see it.

You also said that I began my comments to Dan article about certain with a preconceived notion that was formed before any paleo made any comment at all. (“Remember, he said this before any paleos made any comments at all.”). You supported this by quoting the last half of my sentence without quoting the first where I said “We had quite a revealing discussion a few months back that I summarized in my essay “’In Their Own Words: The Undisguised Racism of the Far, Far, Far Right.’.” This is where I drew the paleo quotes from, and you knew it.

You lied. You got caught. Be a man and admit it.

I answered every question Dan Phillips posed to me, as well as yours: For example, your comment 26 to the Dan Phillips article: “Do socialists have to apologize for the crimes of Stalin and Mao? Why not?” My answer comment 28: “And yes, Stalinists and Maoists should not only apologize for their crimes against humanity, they should be locked up for them. The fact that you even raise this as a seemingly relevant issue in this discussion is a little frightening.” Your comment 43 to the Dan Phillips article: “And why do you post on a ‘conservative’ site?” My answer comment #44: “I post on a conservative website because I am a conservative, not some racist fool who feels perfectly at home on the Vanguard News Network.”

I can’t help it if your questions are inane. I answered them, which is more than you will do for mine. When you’re not lying about how you stumbled across this article, you’re protesting that I’m making scary accusations. They are just 8 simple questions that anyone shouldn’t have a problem answering — unless they have a reason not to.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 23, 2006
Donna:

I believe that "bullying" falls somewhere between "on principle" and “beneath you to reply”, so my prediction is correct.

You stated clearly that “I read the posts by so-called ‘paleos’ and those people were just obviously pulling Phil’s leg. It is just sad that he was gullible enough to fall for it.” So I asked you to tell me specifically which statements were jokes. And now that I called your bluff, you feel the need to tell me the color of your skin, and that you are “proud of the white race and its noble accomplishments.”

The last time a paleo used the word “noble” was to inform me of his DNA certified test results to prove his racial superiority. That was allegedly one of the “jokes” you previously referred to in general, but now feel that I am challenging your conservatism to ask you to say it specifically.

Once again I have to thank you, mtuggle, and all other paleos for telling us what you really think, and who and what you really are. You can’t answer simple questions about your belief system without debating what the meaning of “is” is. You can’t honestly portray how you just happened to stumble across this discussion and were shocked, shocked mind you, to find someone writing the things I did. You try to deflect attention away from the rampant stupidity of some of the paleos comments by saying it was a joke that I was too gullible to appreciate, and when I ask you to tell me which statements specifically were a in jest, you invoke the non-bulling, non-Sub-Saharan dung hut white culture is inherently superior rule to refuse to answer.

Katzen: You now see why it would have been fruitless to accept Donna’s bet!

Dan Phillips: Since you are the only paleo I’ve communicated with publicly or privately who has any real decency at all, I am intensely curious whether you believe the people here reflect your paleo ideals in practice, or are just a bunch of yahoos like I originally surmised?

This all started back in September with a paleo assault (talk about hijacking a discussion, Nick!) on a conclusion I drew in an article I wrote about liberal PC hypocrisy over false accusations of racism against conservatives. I said we’re all better off looking at who and what a person is and does, than judging them by the color of their skin.

Real controversial stuff! To date, after 4 months of trying, I have yet to get even ONE PALEO to say this is true. In fact, they repeatedly state the opposite that True Conservatism requires us all to examine everything through the prism of race.

Is this what paleoconservatism really is once you peal back all the lofty abstract expressions of tradition, tribe, kith and kin?

It’s just a simple set of questions that paleos refuse to answer. I wonder how many people looking in on this discussion who describe themselves as conservative would also have trouble answering them?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 23, 2006
Mr. Jackson,

You may see yourself as the self-appointed Torquemada of New-Age conservatism, as well as a mindreader, but the truth is that you've revealed yourself to be nothing more than a judgmental, obsessive bore.

Frankly, I don't care if you don't believe me that I had not seen the Paleo-Bilge article until I received the email. I value your opinion about me about as highly as I value your political opinions.

As for our original exchange, you might want to go back to it and read my unanswered posts to you. I'd like to see you slither your way out of this one.

Must run now. I have two Christmas get-togethers to attend — my and my wife's families. Try not to blow a gasket over the weekend.

Comment by mtuggle | December 23, 2006
mtuggle:

Okay … You repeatedly posted on the Dan Philips article; I alerted you to my new article; you posted after that alert so you obviously saw it, but it's still important for you to maintain that the only way you found out about it is through an urgent alert from an imaginary friend. So if it's that important to you to describe your entrance into this conversation this way, I'm happy to accept your explanation of events.

Have a good get together with your friends and family. In the spirit of bridging the gap between us, I hope you and yours have a very white Christmas.

Somehow, though, I don't think that will be an issue.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 23, 2006
listen i'm jewish and a bigtime neocon. i got an email to come here.

phil have you read iq studies? blacks are always inferior to us jews. and so are mestizos.

stop being such a liberal!

Hillel Ariel Goldstein

Comment by Hillel Ariel Goldste | December 23, 2006
Nick, mtuggle, et. al.,

This has become quite comical. I tune in each day just to see what new salvos will be fired over the bow.

This could all be cleared up quite rapidly if the paleo brigade would simply give us their unvarnished view about race. But instead we get Nick telling us he's too busy, his views transcend boxes or labels, and besides he's one of only two people writing about race without pulling punches. That statement alone causes Mr. Stix to lose credibility with me. Perhaps he's one of only two people writing about race with his particular views, but one of only two people on the entire planet who aren't pulling punches? Sorry, that statement is a little to pompuous for me.

As to being a Jackson fan, there are plenty of things Mr. Jackson and I do not see eye-to-eye on. We have corresponded about at least one of these topics via private e-mail, but you make it sound as if I am some kind of groupie who would never deviate from Jackson's thoughts.

The truth is, I agree with Jackson BECAUSE NONE OF YOU WILL PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE. How hard is that to understand? The book of Proverbs comes to mind here: "A matter seems right until you have heard the other side."

So stop whimpering and step up to the plate. If you've spent as much time writing fearlessly about race as you suggest, then send me the links or a PDF or whatever format it is available in.

But I'm beginning to think I need to know the secret handshake and send away for the special decoder ring before I'll be allowed to read the super-secret, inner-sanctum truths that are suitable only for the intellectually worthy few.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 23, 2006
nevadamistermom,

Since I've probably written over 200 articles on race, perhaps you'll forgive me if I don't havw a list of all of them,. Of course, if you weren't such a lazy cuss, you'd already know know that. You'd have googled under my name and other qualifiers such as "race," found my articles and read them, the same way I check out anyone I'm interested in knowing more about.

Below is a tiny sample of my work on the subject.

Domestic Terrorism: The Nation of Islam and the Zebra Murders
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/domestic-terrorism-the-nation-of-islam-and-the-zebra-murders/

George S. Schuyler, All-American
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3220.html

Giving Thomas Jefferson the Business: The Sally Hemings Hoax
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/jeffersonhemings.html

Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Police Corruption
http://www.vdare.com/misc/051004_stix.htm

“Disappearing” Urban Crime
http://www.vdare.com/misc/stix_urban_crime.htm

Seven at NOLA Times-Pic Win Duranty-Blair Prize
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/seven-at-nola-times-pic-win-duranty-blair-prize/

The Color of Crime: Ground-Breaking New Study Released
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/the-color-of-crime-ground-breaking-new-study-released/

Letters from New Orleans
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/letters-from-new-orleans/

Howard Beach II: New York is Terrorized by White Males
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/howard-beach-ii-new-york-is-terrorized-by-white-males/

James Edwards: He Paved the Way for Poitier and Washington
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/james-edwards-he-paved-the-way-for-poitier-and-washington/

De-Policing in America's Cities: Erasing the "Thin Blue Line"
http://geocities.com/nstix/thinblueline.html

The War on the Police
http://geocities.com/nstix/waronpolice.html

Questions That May Not be Asked about New Orleans
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/non-questions.html

New Orleans, and the Hurricane Next Time
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/hurricanenexttime.html

Six Little Girls
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/sixlittlegirls.html

Barry Bonds, Racist
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/bondsracist.html

Alleged Black-on-White Attack a Big Misunderstanding
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/alleged.html

Brian Nichols: PC Kills … Again
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/briannicholspc.html

Super Tool: Race-Pandering by NFL.com's Pat Kirwan
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/nflheadcoaches.html

MLK Day, 2005
http://www.geocities.com/nstix/mlkday2005.html

New York Times to White Prisoners: 'Bend Over and Take It'
http://geocities.com/nstix/nyttowhiteprisoners.html

Rapper KRS-One Supports Al Qaeda (But Don't You Dare Report It!)
http://geocities.com/nstix/krs-one.html

Barack Obama, Bob Herbert, and Race Politics
http://geocities.com/nstix/obama.html

In Cincinnati, the Police are Always Presumed Guilty: The Nathaniel Jones Case
http://geocities.com/nstix/cincyjones.html

Selected Archives

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/author/Nicholas%20Stix

http://geocities.com/nstix/

Comment by Nicholas Stix | December 23, 2006
Donna,

How about you just give me $100? In the Christmas spirit?

It may be that you are not a racist. If you were at all interested in not looking like a racist, you would mix in some praise for the accomplishments of other races with the that which you lavish upon the "white race." But as long as your writing (and the writing of many other paleocons) is indistinguishable from that of racists, you can forgo your indignant pose. I'm sorry if we're getting you wrong, but when you reduce the differences between the races to "Western architecture" vs. "dung huts," you don't create a good impression for yourself.

Comment by Katzen | December 23, 2006
I read a few of the articles Nick Stix posted in his response above. Although he phrases some things differently than I would, he seems to quite accurately document the liberal double standard on race. As I’ve said repeatedly in my own writing, these people use the race card as a weapon against conservatives, and we need to hold them to account for their actions like we would any racist.

Which brings up an interesting point. Nick uses the term “racist” quite liberally (no pun intended) in his writings. But I’ve yet to see a paleocon take him to task for using Marxist terminology, or saying that we can’t believe what Nick is documenting because he’s using the word “racist” to describe the action.

So why is it okay to use the word “racist” to describe black against white discrimination, black against white race-based double standards, and/or black racial supremacy policies, but when we look at white against black we can’t have the discussion because it’s a neo-Marxist term?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 23, 2006
"Which brings up an interesting point. Nick uses the term 'racist' quite liberally (no pun intended) in his writings. But I’ve yet to see a paleocon take him to task for using Marxist terminology, or saying that we can’t believe what Nick is documenting because he’s using the word 'racist' to describe the action."

"Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 23, 2006"

Have you ever seen a paleocon discuss my work, positively or negatively? If so, I'd love to see a link or a citation, so I too can see what they're saying about me.

Comment by Nicholas Stix | December 23, 2006
"I refuse to respond to the charge of ‘racist’. It is but a left-wing conversation stopper"

So racism doesn't exist. That is what you just said.

The ludicrous thing about a paleo objecting to being called a racist is that I have yet to see a single paleo distance himself from the racism of Buchanan or Tancredo. Instead, they refuse to see the elephant in the room, insist that the Emperor is wearing clothes, and then heatedly object when you properly identify them as racists.

If you weren't racists, you would decry the racism of your leaders.

Nativism is nothing more than the basest form of populism — appealing to the lowest common denominator by creating a scapegoat.

And as far as my neighborhood, I'd far rather live surrounded by Mexicans than paleocons. At least I'd get great food.

Comment by rightwingprof | December 24, 2006
From Comment #35: "phil have you read iq studies? blacks are always inferior to us jews. and so are mestizos. stop being such a liberal! Hillel Ariel Goldstein"

Before you think this is another “joke”, this moron wrote me privately proposing that we “spay and neuter” all blacks. [Actually, he didn’t use the word “black”, but I refuse to repeat his words here]. I confirmed with the IC editors that his post is indeed legitimate.

I’m happy that people like Nevadamistermom, Mountain man, Katzen, Rightwingprof, and others can support my basic position, and people like this idiot feel more comfortable aligning himself with the opposite point of view.

We are known both by our friends, and the enemies we make. As I’ve said many times before, I’m fortunate on both counts.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2006
"My problem with their work is that it either hasn’t gone far enough in telling us all what paleoconservatism really is, or that when discussing paleo-racism…"

This is demonization of the opponent: Paleoconservativism = paleoracism.

"Where Marx wants us to look at the utopian nature of a communist society and not how communism is actually practiced in the real world, paleos want to talk exclusively about the importance of kith and kin, allegiance to one’s "tribe," and other abstract notions without addressing how these concepts actually play out in life today."

This is not true, on two counts:

1) Paleos do not talk exclusively of the importance of kith and kin– an importance that apparently is of no value to Dr. Jackson & rightwingprof & a number of others here.

Paleos also talk about the damage done to culture by the sort of unrestrained consumerism encouraged by the mass-marketing & advertising of Big Business corporate America.

Paleos also talk about the dangers of America assuming the role of global policeman. Contrary to Dr. Jackson's remarks, paleoconservativism is inherently "anti-utopian". That is, paleos are opposed to anybody who would attempt to build some supposed "Heaven-on-Earth" based on some ideological abstraction– be that abstraction the Proletariat, the White Race, or the Democratic-Capitalism worshipped by neocons. A primary interest of paleos is that of returning political power to the local level– that is, to state and local governments. A town's fate should not be decided by detached elitist politicians and pundits living in the Beltway bubble-world, nor by Hollywood movie stars & entertainment moguls… but by the people who actually live there. At present the American people have a slavish servility vis-a-vis the celebrities of politics & entertainment– this servility must be broken.

Paleos also talk about the Christian tradition as a central element of the development of American society.

2) Paleos do indeed address how these concepts play out in life today.

As to consumerism, they call for us to question the dogmatic assumption that what is good for Big Business is good for society.

Paleos long ago declared the invasion of Iraq to be both ill-advised and megalomaniacal, and not at all in the interests of defending America.

Paleos continually call for a defense of Christian tradition, and for the recognition on the part of the American people that secular humanism and multiculturalism are effectively the state religion of the USA.

As to how the paleo position on race "plays out in life today", it amounts to this: The people who actually live in a community should have some say as to who moves into the community– and they should be able to say so without fear of being branded a "racist" by Dr. Jackson or having rightwingprof sneer at them as "nativists".

At present our immigration policy is dictated by corporations who desire cheap wage-slave labor, and people like rightwingprof who could care less whether Red-State small-town America is swept away by a wave of immigration– all rightwingprof cares about is preserving his own cozy cosmopolitan lifestyle of cute ethnic restaurants. As for the redneck voting fodder, they are expected to shut their white-trash mouths and vote Republican, so the GOP may hold the reins of the spoils system & provide rightwingprof with a nice niche in the Beltway think-tank circle someday.

Rightwingprof would rather live next to Mexicans than paleos, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether he would like to live next to the duped rednecks and duped rural folks who provide the backbone for the GOP voting-base. The answer, apparently, is "no".

I invite rightwingprof to try some collard greens, corn bread, and sweet potato pie sometime, or listen to some bluegrass music. He might– just might– find it in his enlightened heart to decide that the communities that produce such things are worth preserving. If he wants a burrito there are easier ways to get it than wiping out the local culture of Paintsville, Kentucky.

"Now please understand that not everyone who writes about paleoconservatism is a nut."

The only accurate statement in Dr. Jackson's article. Anyone interested in paleoconservativism is invited to check out the writings of Dr. Thomas Fleming, Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Scott Richert, or Paul Gottfried. The first three gentlemen are regular contributors to Chronicles Magazine.

"…did that by taking Marx’s own words and pronouncements and tying them to real world activity. The Marxists screamed bloody murder that the Marxist-Communist utopian philosophy was being "distorted" by this process. It was not. It was being exposed for what it really was."

Marxist-Communist utopian philosophy really is evil, and one can see that by its fruits.

Using this as a means to damn paleoconservativism is false, for two reasons: One, paleoconservativism is currently powerless. Aside from Congressman Ron Paul, I don't think anyone holding any political power comes anywhere close to being a paleo.

The second reason is this: One could just as easily condemn Christianity in exactly the same manner– that is, in the same manner that liberals condemn the Faith, by pointing out that some who profess Christianity have done or said vile things.

"But as I asked one paleo and have yet to receive an answer, in a world where you can fly from the US to Europe in less than 6 hours, where people no longer marry other people who were born, raised and died within a mile of one another, does the notion of kith and kin, or "tribe" really mean anything like it did 2000 years ago…"

While I do not speak for all paleos, I will provide an answer: Kith and kin are being destroyed by the nomadic ethos of modernity. If we wish to preserve the bonds of kinship and community, then we must reject this nomadic ethos, slow down the pace of our lifestyle, and re-plant our roots. That is, we must cultivate a re-attachment to local community and stop flitting around the world like hummingbirds, and stop pulling up stakes every couple years to migrate to some new megalopolis.

This is difficult, given how our economy is structured, but no one ever said doing the right thing is easy.

"Throw in some anti-Enlightenment pronouncements and a few denunciations of Marx, and you’ve got the making of "True Conservative" thought as defined by the paleos."

This remark is facile rubbish, intended to discourage the reader from investigating further what "some anti-Enlightenment pronouncements" and "a few denunciations of Marx" actually amount to– they are considerably more substantive than anything Dr. Jackson has to say.

"…it just goes to show you the deficiencies in my formal education as more than one paleo has pointed out.)
So to make up for the shallowness of my studies…"

I am inclined to wonder if some of the vitriol in this article might not be due to a bruised ego & resentment.

"It’s sad if the first thing you apparently see when you look at another person is the color of their skin, followed by a DNA test to establish the purity of your familial line."

All of the remarks of this sort made by Dr. Jackson are attempts to demonize. These remarks are exercises in deceit– whether they are intentional or whether he is merely incapable of knowing any better is anybody's guess.

I am a paleo, and I believe all men are made in the image of God, and that Jesus Christ died to redeem every human being. I do not believe a white man's life to be of more worth than a black man. I regard racism as a heresy forbidden by Scripture and tradition.

In this I am more typical of paleoconservativism than most of those whom Dr. Jackson quotes. Note that Dr. Jackson does not address the religious component of paleoconservativism at any point; most paleos are Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

"This, by the way, was from the same guy who said one sentence later, "Perhaps unlike you, I do not support the complete annihilation of the white race." Which I guess begs the question, doesn’t every benign philosophy speak about race in terms of "annihilation"?"

Wow. Speaking of bilge. So a man says he DOESN'T want to see a race annihilated, someone WARNS AGAINST a possible annihilation– and thus he must be the adherent of a malignant philosophy. Perhaps Dr. Jackson thinks that someone in the 1930's who warned against the possible annihilation of the Jewish race was a racist. Perhaps Dr. Jackson thinks that someone who (gasp) uses the word "annihilate" as in, "I'd rather not see jihadists annihilate our way of life," is a bigot.

"Below are four reader quotes from American Renaissance (the premiere paleo site paleos themselves pointed me to)…"

This is a lie. The publication that defines paleoconservativism is Chronicles Magazine, with American Conservative as a second. Dr. Jackson chose American Renaissance (which I have never read) because he knew it would be a good source for nasty-sounding quotes.

"These paleo icons tell us we can’t be seen as a human being. You must be black, white, brown, Asian, "Persian", etc."

This is yet again a mischaracterization of the views of Kirk and Weaver.

Incidentally, if Dr. Jackson finds Kirk & Weaver so loathsome, perhaps he should write his next article on why the Intercollegiate Studies Institute should be shut down. Or at least why they should submit themselves to an ideological purging.

For that matter, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Perhaps we should burn the entire Bill of Rights, to show our righteous horror at the man.

"They are not racists, despite their own words on this subject, because — and I’m not making this up — because I’m using the wrong word to discuss their odious beliefs in white racial superiority. Therefore, the odious beliefs do not exist."

Tripe. The problem is not that there is no such thing as racism– the false belief that one race possesses superior worth– but rather that racism has become a useful tool for labelling and hence negating anyone who might disturb the multiculturalist status quo.

Dr. Jackson has decided that I am a racist, and that even if I deny the creed of racism it is still there, implicit in my opinions for anyone who looks for it.

Well, the Rev. Al Sharpton would say that anyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist.

"Racism" in today's P.C. soft-totalitarianism serves the same function that the word "fascism" did in the Soviet Union. It is a means by which to anathematize those deemed dangerous to the cozy little set-up of professional politicians and think-tank troglodytes who do not care about the ordinary person. The Democratic Party leadership sees the black man as voting-fodder, the Republican Party leadership sees rednecks as voting-fodder.

"Liberal with a large "L", liberal with a small "l", Left-Wing, Moderate, Libertarian, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, neo-con, "race traitor," "hates white people/his own kind with every breath he takes," comes from an "inferior blood line," and my opinions are the product of being "gang raped in prison." I’m still trying to figure that one out!)"

I would not say any of this. I think Dr. Jackson is simply another bootlick who knows who butters his bread– the GOP. What he knows of paleoconservativism is simply this: The Very Important People at National Review & The Weekly Standard despise it, and so Dr. Jackson is accumulating a good brownie-point track record by indulging in slander. Perhaps he'll get a slot at the American Enterprise Institute someday, and get to hang out with Davey Frum.

Which brings an interesting point to mind: How many articles has Dr. Jackson written condemning Christopher Hitchens, that Weekly Standard contributor who regards a belief in God as "revolting" and who openly mocks and despises John Paul II and Mother Theresa? This is conservativism?

How about the affair in Maryland, where Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich fired the director of the MTA, because the director dared to voice his opinion that homosexuality was unnatural? Governor Ehrlich fell all over himself condemning the man and made clear that it his statement that "I regard homosexuality as sexual deviancy. I'm a Catholic" was "utterly unacceptable".

Perhaps Republicans might seek the mote in their own eyes, instead of looking for those in paleos'?

"But paleoconservatism does seem to attract more than its share of white racists the same way Looney Liberalism attracts racists of another kind. "

No, it doesn't. Actually white-supremacists frequently post harassing and hostile remarks on the Chronicles Weblog. White supremacists hate Thomas Fleming, because he has no patience with fools of any sort– whether racist or neocon.

So actually Dr. Jackson's remark about being blessed by one's enemies more properly applies to paleos.

"…exactly what empirical evidence is there to support the notion that all blacks prefer "their own", all Asians prefer "their own", and all whites prefer "their own"? Either they do, or they don’t."

Currently I am working a seasonal job at Toys'R'Us. I have lost count of how many times a mother has asked me if I have a white version of particular doll. It amuses me about how embarrassed some of them are in asking– perhaps they are afraid Dr. Jackson is lurking in the next aisle, waiting to brand them with the "R" word.

Comment by J.D. | December 24, 2006
I have been following this debate with some interest over the past few days and find myself largely in agreement with Phil Jackson's position. For the record, to the extent ideological labels are useful, I would call myself neither a 'paleo' nor a 'neo' Conservative; but rather my philosophy is culturally conservative and perhaps fiscally libertarian (in the tradition of Reagan or Gingrich.)

I find forced, government mandated racial segregation (or integration, for that matter) of any type abhorent as I feel government(s) should have no jurisdiction in such matters. What people choose (where to live, what school to send their kids to, etc.) as individuals is their own business.

My problem is the following: I have been a fan of Russell Kirk ever since I read his wonderful work 'The Roots of American Order.' Many of the self-described 'Paleos' in this thread have used quotes they attribute to him to justify or rationalize their (sometimes) racist position(s). I only ask those people to provide exact references to these quotes so that I may authenticate them, place them in context, and thus draw my own conclusions as to his meaning. I've tried for the better part of three days to do so independently without success.

Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 24, 2006
Phil,

I've skipped most of the comments here, so I will just comment on what I have read of your articles themselves.

I have to tell you Phil, enough might just be enough already. I've literally read the exact same comments from that months-old article now half a dozen times in various essays you've posted to this site, let alone the near-hundred-post discussion comments. I can't claim to be an expert on "Paleoconservatism", but I can tell you that I will not base my judgment of it on the postings of a handful of jerks on an internet discussion board. It's very easy to identify yourself as anyone you want, or affiliate yourself with anyone you want, with the benefit of internet anonymity. All of your arguments about "paleoconservatism" hinge entirely upon the indisputable fact that 5 people on a couple of internet blogs are representative of the entire "movement", for lack of a better term. As I mentioned, I am not an expert on paleoconservatism, and there may very well be legitimate arguments to be had about the logic and reasonableness of their philosophy. But that's not what's going on here, nor has it been for the past several articles of this nature that have been posted. Instead, you use the same selection of quotes from self-described "paleos" on an internet blog to dismiss the idea outright, refusing to discuss any "paleo" ideas on their merits on the grounds that the entire thing is racist. That is a traditional leftist evasion tactic and an obvious logical fallacy. I'm not disagreeing with you: the guys you refuse to stop quoting were racists, or if that term is too politically correct, haters. But I don't think it's appropriate to base your entire view of paleoconservatism on their comments alone, and you simply haven't ever used any other source in your attacks on their ideology. You can use their comments as a justification for calling them whatever names you wish. But it would be unfair to use them as the sole reference when dismissing an entire broad-based set of ideas without any other information. I could easily jump into an internet chat room and claim to be a devout Christian, then proceed to advocate mass-suicide, pedophilia, drug use, and the extermination of humans for the sake of the environment. I'll bet you I could even set up a website with some dedicated followers. Then along comes the uninitiated reader who proceeds to denounce Christianity as a hate-filled and radical religion based on my comments. Using that same logic, I could identify myself as a socialist who believes in limited government and free markets (not real far-fetched if you look at both of America's political parties). Or a pacifist who supports war. Or a separatist who supports diversity. Or pick any two polar contrasting nouns. And as long as I have a group of people who will say the same thing I do, we are representative of whatever ideology we profess, and no further inquiry is required. That's completely illogical. It's sloppy reasoning. And as an academic, you know better. Can this please be the last "Phil's Favorite Quotes of the Paleocons" essay, please? I'm sure all of the regular readers have more than gotten the point by now.

Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 24, 2006
Patrick:

I didn’t start this little excursion into paleoland. I wrote an essay denouncing the Left for using race as a weapon, and made the simple statement that we should judge people on the basis of what they do, not the color of their skin.

That brought a reaction from about 30 self-described paleos telling me that I was a Marxist neocon dupe, and insisting that to be a True Conservative (which is to say according to them, a paleocon), I had to embrace segregation and white supremacy. They dragged in people from other websites, including the white supremacist Vanguard News Network, to bolster their position. I said that was a load of bilge, and waited for the “true paleos” who thought this was bilge too to say so as well.

But they didn’t. Instead, all I got was an endless parade of people protesting my choice of words (“racist”) to describe this world view, while deliberately refusing to condemn it. I’ve been waiting for at least ONE PERSON who says that they are a paleocon or paleocon sympathizer to specifically renounce this bilge. As you say, “the guys you refuse to stop quoting were racists, or if that term is too politically correct, haters.” This is patently evident to everyone, but the fact that no one who describes himself as a paleo will actually say so in a forthright way is quite disturbing.

Not every conservative is going to be in lock step with every other conservative. I can support quite a bit of what Nick Stix writes about PC-oriented racism against conservatives, for example. But that doesn’t mean I must agree with everything he says on every subject, nor that everyone has to agree with everything I say. But there’s a difference between debating, say, the war in Iraq or the Pope’s comments on Islamo-fascism, and debating whether white people are inherently superior to all others because “True Conservatism” (paleoconservatism) says they are.

I can’t abide conservatives who are racists who tell me that True Conservatism/paleoconservatism demands that I be a racist too. If someone tried to tag my belief system that way, I’d scream bloody murder loudly and repeatedly to say it’s not true — which is what, in fact, I’ve been doing. I’m not interested in being labeled a neo, paleo, or whatever conservative; the broad designation “conservative” (vs. liberal) suits me just fine, as I imagine it does for most people. And conservatism does not require one to be a racist, so I have no problem loudly, and repeatedly, making this point.

But for those who want to carve out a more precise label for themselves like paleoconservative, they have an equal responsibility to speak out against the kooks and nuts that pervert their philosophy. So far, all I’ve gotten from paleos and paleo sympathizers is more of the same bilge that I found offensive in the first place. Paleos need to clean up their act and get rid of these idiots who are defining paleoconservatism by being the only ones speaking out about race in white supremacy and segregationist terms. This conversation isn’t just taking place at the Intellectual Conservative — if you Google some key words you’ll see my essays and reader comments pop up on a number of websites in addition to those I cited. And these paleos aren't offended by the so-called white supremacy logic of paleoconservatism. They embrace it.

Again, the issue isn’t the intellectual roots of paleoconservatism; it’s how paleoconservatism is practiced by its proponents. “Tradition” is a word even Liberals can get behind. They define it as what happened yesterday morning, and use it to enact whatever law suits their immediate political purpose. As conservatives we all “know” what tradition really means, and it isn’t that. But while most conservatives reading paleoconservative words about tradition would think about the importance of long held values, what we see from the present-day practitioners of paleoconservatism that I quoted is that tradition means “white supremacy”.

This is the disconnect, and this is the problem. The five idiots (your word was actually “people”) you referred to in your comments are giving us the so-called paleo side of the practical-policy debate by defending white supremacy as an inherent part of that philosophy. Dan Phillips dealt with them to some extent by offering that they might be joking, which is not the case.

I am not a subtle person when it comes to standing up for what I believe in, as you and others have picked up on by my refusal to let go of the issue. But I will honor your request to stop shoving these idiots’ words back in their faces if I can see that they are in fact aberrations to, and not representatives of, how paleo theory is put into actual practice. If not, I’ll probably start a “Looney Paleo Chronicles” series as a companion piece to the racism and hypocrisy of the Left.

Donna would call this blackmail. Cato, Sir Anthony, Mike Tuggle, Old Republic and others would just keep calling me an ignorant uneducated race-traitor necon Marxist new age hippster to avoid facing the issue. Whatever they want to say is okay with me — I haven’t really been talking to them, anyway. I’ve been talking to the people looking in on this debate who are interested in learning whether these people are correct about what it means to be a paleoconservative once you get away from abstract theory and operate in the real world. Does “tradition” really mean “white racial superiority”? Does “tribe” really mean “segregation now and forever”?

All I want to know — from the paleos themselves — is whether the idiots who first told me that this is what paleoconservatism demands because Kirk and Weaver and Aristotle said so represent the vast majority of people who identify with that movement, or whether they are the crazy aunts every family has who make noises from time to time from the upstairs attic.

Your points are well taken Patrick, as I hope mine are too. Thank you for your comments.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2006
Old Republic …

"His evidence is anonymous posts on a message board."

Speaking of anonymous posts, we don't seem to have your name listed anywhere. Irony is often lost on the ironic.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2006
Jeff:

I did a little search on Google just to see what would pop up on Kirk and segregation. This is from American Renaissance in an article titled “The Decline of National Review: NR was once a voice for whites.” http://www.amren.com/009issue/009issue.html

“For Kirk, civilization required apartheid: ‘In a time of virulent 'African nationalism,' . . . how is South Africa's 'European' population . . . to keep the peace and preserve a prosperity unique in the Dark Continent?’ White rule, he answered, is a prudent way, ‘to govern tolerably a society composed of several races, among which only a minority is civilized’." (Note: The ellipses were in the original quote from the AR article).

Seems like a little more than just "His argument is that communities should be able to live how they see fit without Big Brother stepping in to social engineer."

You can also find a reference to this American Renaissance article in Uppity-Negro.com (http://www.uppity-negro.com/2002/08/the_level_flying_of_the_nation.html).

That is correct, “Uppity Negro.com”

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2006
For ordinary people, the word “racist” means the belief that certain people are inherently inferior due to a shared genetic makeup. Due to leftist debasement of language it has been redefined to encompass both the traditional definition and failure to adopt white guilt.

The entire civil rights movement was based on a set of lies, the foremost of which was that whites and blacks were culturally equivalent, thus making anti-black sentiment irrational. Another whopper was that the claim that there was no Communist influence in the civil rights movement, which has been disproven in many ways, including the fact that MLK, Jr.’s principal adviser, Stanley David Levison , was a “secret” member of the CPUSA, a fact which J. Edgar Hoover was leaking to the Southern press in 1960. Contemporary black leaders were in the front of support of the Communist victory in Indochina, and nine out of ten blacks vote for candidates who are unrepentant for supporting the aforementioned Communist victory. The ultimate repudiation of the lie of no Communist influence was the 2004 Paul Robeson (a CPUSA Party stalwart)postage stamp in the “Black Heritage” series which implicitly ties contemporary blacks to the crimes of Stalin. This is segregationist vindication of the highest order.

If Mr. Jackson had read Shelby Steele’s “White Guilt” he would know that contemporary blacks believe that America’s attempt to protect South Vietnam from Communist aggression stripped it of the “moral authority” to judge black people by the content of its character, the color of its skin, or anything else. Given the fact that the Communist victory in Indochina led to two million deaths in the following socialist revolutions, as well as massive ethnic cleansing and the Third Indochina War, it is obvious that contemporary blacks have no moral authority to be the tail that wags the American dog.

The Left has always seen American blacks as a means of promoting socialism. The contemporary white guilt/black power cult is an expression of cultural Marxism that is intended to destroy traditional American society in order to make way for a putative socialist utopia, and the contemporary civil rights movement has become an ethnic special interest movement for promoting socialism. No conservative of any stripe should condone it or any of its false dogma.

Mr. Jackson’s simultaneous denunciation of Marxism and blind advocacy of an ethnic group which overwhelmingly supports Marxism is downright schizophrenic and smacks of white guilt. Insisting on the color-blind society America was promised at the start of the so-called civil rights era simply doesn’t make on a racist in any meaningful sense.

Comment by William Woodford | December 24, 2006
Right Wing Prof,

"The ludicrous thing about a paleo objecting to being called a racist is that I have yet to see a single paleo distance himself from the racism of Buchanan or Tancredo."

So you think Buchanan and Tancredo are racists? You have completely drunk the PC red Kool Aid. Would you please, I beg you, tell me what qualifies you as right wing? What/who are you to the right of? You should change your name from right wing prof to thought slave prof. Perhaps you would feel more at home at Intellectual Sycophants than you do at Intellectual Conservative. Are you just being a troll? Are you just attempting to provoke? You are like a caricature of the good little PC orthodoxy enforcer. Labeling prominent public figures as racists because they are “nativists” on immigration is extremely irresponsible. Why would I distance myself from Buchanan and Tancredo? They are two of the few people who are taking a stand on immigration.

Phil, do you think Buchanan and Tancredo are racist?

I will have more to say later.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 24, 2006
OldRepublic

Let's go through these paleoplanks.

"They are critical of big business as well as big government."
It's hard to know exactly what you mean by this. Are paleos critical of big business in the same way that I'm critical of pop music? (I wish it didn't exist, but there's not much I can do about it.) If so, this is hardly a political position. It is simply a matter of personal taste. Or are paleos critical of big business in the sense of favoring policies to curb it? And if so, what exactly is the non-big government paleo solution?

"They want to maintain small communities."
Again, how? By population control? Forced exile from cities? Or are paleos just nostalgic?

"They support tradition."
A totally empty statement. Everybody supports some tradition. The interesting question is which traditions paleos support.

"They reject most of modernism and enlightenment liberalism."
True, and important. Although some paleos seem to accept some of the weird pseudo-scientific racial theories from the Progressive Era.

"They are skeptical of free trade."
Finally, an actual position. Still, I wonder if your use of the phrase "skeptical of" instead of "opposed to" is meant to distance yourself from the issue.

"They are against the liberal notion of a proposition nation."
Fine, but by taking this position paleos forfeit the claim to the legacy of the American Revolution. I say "forfeit" only because many paleos seem to think that they, and only they, still cling to the ideals of 1776.

"They were 100% right about what would happen in Iraq…"
You can't just call any revolutionary change you don't like "Jacobinism" and expect to be taken seriously. Nobody of any significance has ever denied that different societies need different governments, but you can't possibly believe that Aristotle would have looked at the Baathist government in Iraq and nodded approvingly hat this was an appropriate government.

"Paleos are opposed to the third world invasion of America–and rightly so."
I don't understand why you can't just say what you really mean instead of using a silly phrase. Are you referring to legal or illegal immigration? On illegal immigration, paleos are not alone. But if "third world invasion" includes legal immigration, then you're casting aspersion on people who broke no law in coming here. It's perfectly reasonable to want to restrict immigration, but why not be clear about what you mean? Why not say, "Paleos are opposed to policies allowing and encouraging immigration from poor countries with different cultures."

Unless, of course, you don't think the point is worth making unless you can bash the third world.

Comment by Katzen | December 24, 2006
Mr. Woodward:

The fact that bigots on the Left have used racism as a phony charge against conservatism does not mean that “racism” doesn’t exist. Nor does the fact that bigots on both sides of the political spectrum have played games with the civil rights movement mean that we all need to embrace segregation because we haven’t achieved a color blind society.

However, it does make sense if you’re looking for reasons to maintain a belief in white supremacy.

As for my “blind advocacy of an ethnic group”, I wasn’t advocating for any ethnic group. I was objecting to one group’s claim that they are inherently superior to all others.

The fact that you can’t understand this — or don’t want to understand this – is more evidence for my claim that paleoconservatism appears to attract people who see the white race as superior to others. Paleos need to deal with this infestation and clean their own house so the debate can be about the ideas you present, not the racist bilge about whites being a superior race.

[By the way, you’re out of step with the analysis of my motives. It isn’t that I have “white guilt”, I’m supposed to hate white people due to my genetic deficiencies. You’ve got to get the charges right or soon they’ll be charging you with schizophrenia.]

Dan:

I don’t think that Buchanan is a white supremacist of the nature I have been referring to. I haven’t paid close enough attention to Tancredo to offer an opinion one way or another.

I have answered every question you’ve asked me. I’m still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed to you 3 days ago in comment 12. The way the other paleos play the game is to refuse to answer my questions because I’ve used the “wrong word”, or because my educational background or genetics are deficient, or some other excuse, while posing new ones that I answer. Are you in fact part of that crowd, or are you willing to answer my specific questions too? I’m beginning to wonder.

JD

You appear to be new to this conversation. From what I can tell you seem to simultaneously object to what I have said about the individual paleos who Patrick Mulligan called a “handful of jerks” that were distorting your movement with their racist bilge, while at the same time rejecting their ideas about white supremacy.

You say you are “a paleo, and I believe all men are made in the image of God, and that Jesus Christ died to redeem every human being. I do not believe a white man’s life to be of more worth than a black man. I regard racism as a heresy forbidden by Scripture and tradition.”
This wins you the distinction as being the first paleo to enter this conversation to distance himself from the words that these self-described paleos used to explain paleoconservatism.

Yet all your criticism is directed against me, but not the people who said things like “While I do not presume to speak on paleos’ behalf, they would be fools not to consider the white race superior.” So now I’m uncertain where you actually stand on this issue.

You want to talk about the Republican Party, homosexual politicians, Toys R Us and mothers seeking certain colored dolls. I’m not sure how any of this relates to the point I made, which is that I was attacked by paleos for saying that we should evaluate people based on who and what they are, not the color of their skin. That seems much closer to your position as you stated in the quote above than anything the so-called paleos have said about white racial superiority.

I can’t help it if people who say they are paleos support their white supremacist statements by quoting Kirk and Weaver. You appear to be offended by the idea that these men support white supremacy. I am too. But I’m not a paleo — you are. I’m only repeating their words and asking people who are paleos to tell us if supporting Kirk and Weaver means supporting white supremacy, believing that God ordained segregation, and that race matters first and foremost in all things.

Your quarrel is with them, not me.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2006
AN OPEN REQUEST TO ALL PALEOS

Since we've had a number of paleos enter this discussion anxious to set the record straight about what paleoconservatism really is, and what it is not, can we now get an answer to the questions I posed earlier? They are drawn from statements made by people identifying themselves as paleoconservatives, or sympathizing with paleoconservatism. How would a genuine paleoconservative answer them?

1. What’s more important in assessing the value another human being: what they do and say, or the color of their skin?

2. To be a true conservative, must you automatically support segregation?

3. Is it God’s plan for the races to keep to themselves?

4. Is the KKK a modern-day expression of Thomas Jefferson?

5. Is it important to have the right kind of DNA in order to be a True conservative?

6. Are the only people white working folks can rely on themselves, and other like minded whites?

7. Is the white community entitled to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically, because at the present time it is the “advanced race”?

8. Are we “fools” not to consider the white race superior?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2006
"It sounds like the traditional conservative concept of a nation."

Sounds more like a Nazi rationalizing what to do with the Jews in Poland. But we've all been warned not to pay attention to "anonymous posts", so it's probably just a joke.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 25, 2006
OldRepublic,

Neoconservative foreign policy is nothing short of what great military and political powers have always done: establish regimes similar to their own in countries affecting key national interests. Thucydides wrote about how Athens and Sparta tried to do precisely that.

I can't help but think you and the professor like the word "Jacobism" because it brings to mind the guillotine, the reign of terror, and the Committee on Public Safety. When you equate neoconservatism with Jacobism, you equate defenders of neoconservatism with defenders of these things. It's a rhetorical trick, not a legitimate historical analogy.

On other point, you come awfully close to saying that deporting blacks to Africa after the Civil War would have been something to applaud. I won't assume that's your opinion unless you confirm it (in which case I'll thank you for making Phil's point), but would you at least avow that the anti-proposition nation crowd was wrong on that one? And on the Italians? And on the Irish? And on the Eastern Europeans? Maybe some others, too?

Comment by Katzen | December 25, 2006
Mr. Republic:

I have to assume that “Republic” is your last name, and that for some cruel reason your parents named their newborn child “Old”. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be hiding your identity while condemning me for citing “anonymous posts on a message board” (comment 47) to showcase the idiocy of certain people who claim to be paleoconservatives.

But then again, the rules aren’t meant to apply to you. You can continue anonymously posting your defense of paleoconservatism, and when I or others illustrate the absurdity of your opinions, you dismiss what we say out of hand because we’re citing an anonymous source! No one ever said you have to reveal your true identity to participate in this discussion — but it’s rather hypocritical to condemn me for quoting anonymous paleocons to prove my points while hiding behind a false name yourself.

The fact is, you don’t have the guts (or character) to say what you really mean. In keeping with your penchant for anonymity, you hide behind the phrase “proposition nation” without really explaining what you mean by using it. You and your paleoconservative philosophy are opposed to the notion that “all men are created equal”. You believe that some — meaning your race — are superior to others. From this notion of inherent white supremacy, all other paleo concepts flow.

This is why you won’t answer the straightforward questions I asked you about your views on race. If you do, you must admit to being a white supremacist. This is why you won’t distance yourself from the quote that the white race is entitled to prevail, or that the KKK is just a modern-day expression of Jefferson. You, and the other paleos participating in this discussion, believe that both statements are true.

You know full well that the overwhelming majority of people who hold “traditional conservative values” don’t buy into this garbage. Believing that God made all people equal doesn’t mean opening our borders and abolishing our nation. It means that we don’t make policies that classify or target another human being solely because of their race. That goes for people on the Right, as well as the Left.

These are not difficult concepts to grasp for any person with a basic understanding of American history, or a real embrace of western religious tradition. The fact that you and others cannot be direct about what you actually believe is evidence that you understand this too; and it’s why you can’t afford to be honest with pronouncements about what paleoconservatism actually means once it reaches the public policy level.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 25, 2006
Old Republic:

In all seriousness, your comment #60 was the start of the first forthright reply I’ve received from you, so I’ll cull out those parts of your answer and respond to them in the hope that you’ll do the same if you or any other paleo choose to respond. I’m not trying to be argumentative or provocative. I’m just trying to understand from your comments what actions a paleo supports, not just the abstract principles they hold.

I understand that paleos object to the word “racism”. So I will not use that word, but instead simply refer to the action of forming policies that take a person’s race into account first and foremost above all other factors. I cited several people who called themselves paleos who stated this flatly (“race matters”, etc.), and asked if this was a mainstream paleo thought or an aberration.

By your comments on the Bible and slavery, I take this to mean that the color of a person’s skin is more important than what they do (question 1), that to be a true conservative, must you automatically support segregation (question 2), and it is God’s plan for the races to keep to themselves (question 3). Again, this isn’t argumentative. I’m just trying to understand if this is your position, and you consider yourself to be a mainstream paleo. I’ll leave it up to others to assign any value-term to these actions and judgments, and to decide if they want to associate with it.

I will accept in good faith your modified definition of a genophiliast that removes references to race annihilation and defines it instead as “an instinctive attachment to my family and tribe.” In this regard, every human being on earth is at least in apart a genophiliast, insofar as they have an instinctive attachment to their family. However, I still don’t know what the practical definition of a “tribe” is in the 21st century. How exactly is individual "A" identified as a tribe member or not? Cato told us it’s the “one drop” rule, but that involves DNA testing. How do you assign tribal status to someone with French German Italian English Spanish African ancestry, other than to look at the values they share independent of race — instead of at their race itself? I’m not trying to goad you here. I just want a practical answer to how this calculation is made.

You say that paleos are not white supremacists. I have an honest question for you then. Can you support the statement that was made that paleos would be “fools” not to believe that whites are superior? It’s a straightforward question, and not meant to trick anyone. Having pride in one’s ancestry is not the same thing as believing their race is “superior”.

I would like you to clarify whether mainstream paleo thought considers slavery to be an acceptable practice since, as you pointed out, you believe that the Bible does not condemn it and other paleos have told me that Aristotle said it was a perfectly acceptable practice. If not, why not — since it is in keeping with the Bible as you described it? If not slavery, is segregation a desirable practice on the part of all races? And if so, is it an option, or must it be embraced as a conservative principle as I have been told so that any policy opposing segregation is not conservative?

I’ll leave it up to you and others now whether you want to respond to the policy implications of paleoconservatism as paleos themselves have defined their movement.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
Wow, I actually took a holiday during Christmas, and came back to see this thread has doubled in size! Some of you people need to get a life.

It sure be clear to everyone by now that with the exception of JD and some isolated comments from some others, that there will be no clarifying comments forthcoming by self-avowed paleos. These paleos are not interested in clearly explaining their positions on any issue, they will not answer a direct question, and they seem to love to brand people with their labels.

If paleoconservatism is a philosophy with any merit, one would think that a paleo could explain it in a way that pursuades and illuminates. Quite the opposite, however. These self-described paleos seem bent on alienating their opponents. They have revealed themselves as angry, self righteous, and unable to play well with others.

Oh, and by the way, if I have to read the phrase "The term [racist] was popularized by NeoMarxists to undermine Western Civilization" one more time, I'm going to throw up. This is an intellectually vapid statement that contributes nothing to reasoned debate. There are racists out there, despite the prostitution of the word by leftists and unfortunately, some on the right.

A note to Dr. Jackson: Your persistence has yielded all the benefit possible. I don't think there will be any further fruit coming from your efforts. I think it's time to move on.

A note to everyone: This is a marketplace of ideas. Try to keep your remarks restricted to ideas, and not persons. If your ideas cannot bear up under the weight of scrutiny, and your response is to attack the person, maybe it's time to take a long look at your ideas.

Comment by Mountain Man | December 26, 2006
Mountain man —

Your and Patrick Mulligan's points about moving on are well taken. My comment #64 appeared before you wrote yours. If we can move the conversation to discussing paleo policy rather than abstract theory, then I'll continue it. If not, then your assessment of this exercise is right on target.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
Well, I tried.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
i cant speak for paleos. i'm a neocon. but i think evidence is evidence. ever read the Bell Curve? blacks are always on the bottom. and they love love love crime. there is no doubting these stats. and whereever they move their neighborhoods turn to crap! (just like mestizos)

neocon till death!

hillel ariel goldstein

Comment by Hillel Ariel Goldste | December 26, 2006
Hillel — glad to have you on the opposite side.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
Yeah, Dr. Jackson, you did try, I give you credit. But OldRepublic just can't seem to bring himself to explain his views other than vague theories.

I, too, wonder how he proposes to take his theoretical attack on big business into the real world. Doesn't seem to be very conservative to bring the strong arm of government upon a legally operating business whose chief sin is that it is too successful. Same with small communities. What might be the practical expression of this utopian theory in the real world?

I want to touch on the Bible for a minute. As I read the Bible, I find that God is no respecter of persons. First Corinthians 12:13 says, "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." There is no kith or kin here. Yes, our families are our first obligation (1 Timothy 5:8), but God does not draw a line here in terms of our greater obligations as individuals functioning within the the Body.

We need a broader view. "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." (Galatians 6:10) The Church Body is the grand God-version of family. which transcends nationality and blood relationships (Ephesians 3:15).

If we are going to draw the Christian faith into the discussion, we had better be prepared to accurately discern the teaching of the whole of Scripture.

Comment by Mountain Man | December 26, 2006
Nicholas,

A couple things…

1. I owe you an apology. The name Stix is not particularly commonplace — I don't think I've ever encountered it before now in my 45 years. I presumed it was just a username and, as such, it never occurred to me to google it. I was also unaware you were a regular contributor to this website.

2. You made it clear in one of your earlier posts that you don't necessarily identify with any particular branch of conservatism (or liberalism for that matter). So, knowing your views about race don't really get us any closer to knowing paleo views about race.

Item #2 notwithstanding, I did read about a dozen of your articles, but I'm not necessarily any closer to understanding your views about race as a whole. Perhaps I didn't read the right articles, but those that I did read were commenting on individual trees rather than the forest as a whole. So, although I know what you think about Schuyler, MLK, Barry Bonds, black "hate crimes" against whites, and statistics that show blacks vastly more likely to commit crimes against whites than vice-versa, it still doesn't necessarily get me to an understanding of what you believe about race as a whole.

If I had to venture a guess based on what I've read, it appears that you are essentially agnostic when it comes to race, but then again you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time pointing out black hypocrisy so maybe I'm to read something into that. Bottom line: I'm still left to guess what you think about race. Not that it particularly matters, since you've been quite clear you don't necessarily identify with paleos and don't speak for them. But I would mention that simply because you've written so many articles dealing with race, this is still not the same thing as an essay that says "here is what I believe about race." And I'm afraid I'm just not inclined to read all 200+ articles to try and infer it.

So again, my bad for not looking up what you've published already. However, none of what I did read seemed to answer the question: "where does this guy stand on race." Depending on which article I read, I could come to entirely different conclusions.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 26, 2006
"Your and Patrick Mulligan’s points about moving on are well taken. My comment #64 appeared before you wrote yours. If we can move the conversation to discussing paleo policy rather than abstract theory…"

Oh, but let's not move on. Let's continue to consider some more of the good doctor's remarks.

"Your quarrel is with them, not me."

If it's OK with you, doc, I'll be the judge of which people I am quarrelling with. You entitled an article "Paleo Bilge– Where paleo-theory meets paleo-practice, run for the hills!" and then proceed to tell everyone what paleoconservativism is all about. And it is fairly obvious that either you don't know, or that you are deliberately trying to present a false image.

This is the exact equivalent of an atheist writing an article entitled "Christian Bilge– Where Christian theory meets Christian practice, run for the hills!" The atheist then proceeds to depict Christianity as a predatory creed that wishes to oppress the individual's right to think for himself. Christianity, he explains, is responsible for political fanaticism and oppression throughout history.

Then, when I attack the atheist's arguments, he tries to play innocent and says, "Well, even if Christianity is such a nice faith as you claim, still, your argument is with those who advocate reviving the Salem witch trials and burning people at the stake, not with me."

Oh, but no. My quarrel IS with you, Dr. Jackson.

You want to know why I don't repudiate Nicholas Stix. Well, I have little doubt that on a lot of issues Mr. Stix and I would disagree violently. I doubt we would agree on the question of race; I expect our disagreements on the subject of religion would be even greater.

However, what Mr. Stix has NOT done is attempt to depict paleoconservativism as something other than what it really is. He makes clear that he does not consider himself paleoconservative. As I said, he and I would disagree. I expect I would find him wrong on a great many things.

I do not think the white race is genetically superior– I think that the achievements of Europe are attributable to a variety of factors, such as geography, the peculiar twists and turns of history, and most of all the widespread acceptance of the Christian religion and how that faith interacted with the complex pagan creeds of Greece and Rome that preceded it.

But unlike yourself, I do not find Mr. Stix dishonest. He does not try to slur me whilst leaving himself a convenient out– on one hand, "Are all paleos racists? Of course not." and yet later we hear

Dishonesty? Yes, dishonesty. I mean remarks like:

"This is what the people who call themselves paleoconservatives believe. It isn’t a matter of opinion or personal preference to them; it is demanded by the very logic of paleoconservativism as its present-day advocates follow it. "

Neither I nor any other paleo I know of– and I know many of them– advocates the Connor McCloud "There Can Be Only One" theory of race-relations.

Second, what would Dr. Jackson know about "the very logic of paleoconservativism"? He has STILL not bothered to consult Thomas Fleming, Srdja Trifkovic, Paul Gottfried, or Scott Richert, or Chronicles Magazine.

Now, for the sake of argument let's accept that paleoconservative logic is perverse, or psychotic or evil, and hence REALLY IS responsible for someone advocating race war.

But how would you KNOW unless you have bothered to look at what paleoconservative leaders have actually SAID?

Again, Chronicles Magazine is the central nexus of paleoconservative thought.

Go ahead, anybody– look up the Chronicles webpage and take a look at the articles posted there RIGHT NOW. Someone please tell me how ANY of that paleoconservative logic presented there relates to white supremacism.

When I pointed out many other issues that paleos are angry about, to show that we are not in fact fixated on some false idol of race, Dr. Jackson responds with:

"You want to talk about the Republican Party, homosexual politicians, Toys R Us and mothers seeking certain colored dolls. I’m not sure how any of this relates to the point I made, which is that I was attacked by paleos for saying that we should evaluate people based on who and what they are, not the color of their skin."

This is deceit– or "sleight of hand", as the doc would say.

I was rebutting the doctor's repeated implication that paleoconservativism is essentially some sort of nutty fixation on race.

I rebutted this by pointing out some of the reasons why we paleos detest the Republican Party– or at least the Republican Party leadership, and the propagandists at NRO and Weekly Standard.

Dr. Jackson's meets my rebuttal as if the points I made are non sequiturs. Sorry, doc, but you have no more power to turn valid points into non sequiturs than you have the power to turn me into a newt.

I mentioned issues like homosexuality and the National Review to put paleoconservativism in context.

I mentioned the white mothers who prefer to buy white dolls for their white children to point out that one need not regard one's own race as superior in order to have some sense of identification with it.

I would not consider a black mother to be racist for wanting to buy her child a black doll, either. I do not thinking blacks are racist for using the term, "brother" or "sister" to refer to other blacks. It is very human to feel special kinship for those of one's own ethnicity.

In short, I brought up other points to emphasize that paleoconservativism is not a racial ideology, and to note that paleos do not treat "the white race" as an idol to obssess over.

And Dr. Jackson responds by saying, "No, no, no– we're just talking about race here. Stop bringing in these other issues."

Just WHO is the one who is obssessed with race?

In fact America writ large is obssessed with race, and paleos are perhaps the ONLY group that doesn't try to turn it into some sort of lynchpin for an ideology. Republicans & Democrats preserve their status in the P.C. system by repeating over and over the mantra that race is nonexistent, an illusion; a small, small faction of racialists act as if race is the most important thing there is.

To paleos, race is simply one of many facets of human existence– a facet that should be neither worshipped nor disavowed, simply recognized.

We have no "policies" on race because we do not believe in legislating reality.

Forced segregation is a mistake; forced integration is also a mistake.

What communities– whether black or white or yellow–REALLY need is to have the power to decide their own destinies returned to the hands of the community itself, rather than placed in the hands of Beltway intelligentsia or politicians.

Paleoconservativism is about subsidiarity– a Church doctrine that teaches that centralization and consolidation of power are dangerous and lead to impersonal dehumanization– whether we speak of centralized business or whether we speak of centralized government.

You want MY policy? My "policy" is to debunk and discredit the liars of the Republican Party, and spread the truth that the Two-Party System is nothing more than a choice between Coke vs. Pepsi.

Shall we let Big Government stretch its domineering tentacles into every last facet of community life, or shall we let the board of directors of some transnational corporation dictate to people how they live, and brainwash the children of the world with mass-marketing from the moment they are born into the world?

As to why I do not bother attacking white supremacists and instead focus myself on Dr. Jackson, well– that's because white supremacists aren't worth my time.

You should be flattered rather than offended, Dr. Jackson.

But just to make you happy, here's one of the quotes you attempt to identify with paleoconservativism:

“Just as the skunk cannot escape the stench of his own body and takes it with him wherever he goes, the Mexican cannot escape the stench of his own culture and takes it with him wherever he goes.”

This is about as un-paleo as it gets. Thomas Fleming did a piece a while back on a visit he took to Mexico, and spoke admiringly of Mexicans' Catholic roots and their zest for life. Personally, I respect Mexican heritage, and think any man a wretch who would compare any living human culture to a "stench".

But this is because I see Mexican ethnicity as a REAL THING to be VALUED, not as something that is IRRELEVANT.

By analogy, I think zebra mussels are wonderful, beautiful elements of God's creation– but I do not think zebra mussels have fit into the native ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay all that well. In fact, the invasion has disrupted the ecosystem there in a very disastrous way.

(I'm waiting for someone to hurl the charge of "racism" at me for using the zebra mussel in this analogy.

Nooooo, just for the record I do not think Mexicans are a low life form that lives in salt water and are bereft of central nervous system. Noooor do I regard Mexicans and Anglo-Saxons as being separate races.

It is an ANALOGY.

I am using the natural world as a model for human society.)

Differences between creatures, cultures, genders, and ethnicities are GOOD– but if we pretend like those differences don't matter, we are going to create a mess.

Perhaps I am a bigot for having an unnatural fixation on preserving the Chesapeake Bay oyster population. Perhaps I am a Chesapeake Bay oyster-supremacist.

I'm not saying that there should be NO Mexicans in the U.S., any more than I would say that the Chesapeake Bay should be purged of every life form except for the native oysters.

What I AM saying is that we should treat both ecosystems and cultures with a little more delicacy, if we want to preserve them.

But hold– I'm not done with that little quote about Mexicans.

If Dr. Jackson is sincere about his hostility toward bigotry in the conservative-house, if he is so dedicated to viewing human beings as beings endowed with divine dignity by their Creator– then WHERE are his columns attacking Republicans for their bigotry toward the French?

I dare y'all this– take the preceding hateful quote about Mexicans, and change the word to "Frenchman".

And THEN try to keep a straight face and tell me that that quote wouldn't be PERFECTLY AT HOME on any number of "respectable" Republican blogs.

Just TRY to tell me that hatred or contempt for the French people, culture, history, and heritage is NOT ONLY subscribed to by "a few crazy aunts" but is in fact ENDORSED BY THE INTELLECTUAL LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

Oh, but right. Dr. Jackson is only concerned with bigotry insofar as he can use it to tar paleoconservativism.

Of course a half-dozen people will hop on to tell me that it's DIFFERENT when the French are slurred. That's because of the war, so naturally speaking of the French as sub-humans is excusable in that case. Or at least not so significant as digging up a few obscure crackpots from FreeWhitey.com and trying to connect them to paleoconservativism.

These are not "non sequiturs". I am putting this discussion into a broader context.

What I am pointing out is that Dr. Jackson is all keen and eager to go charging after bigots, SO LONG as it is absolutely convenient for maintaining the status quo.

"Can you support the statement that was made that paleos would be “fools” not to believe that whites are superior?"

I doubt I could say this enough times to satisfy Dr. Jackson, he would always find a reason to wonder where I REEEEALLY stand on the issue. But I do not think the "white race" is superior to other races.

I do not think my grandfather is superior to other people's grandfathers– however, I do feel a certain attachment to him simply because he is MY grandfather.

Now, on to the doc's pop-quiz:

1. What’s more important in assessing the value another human being: what they do and say, or the color of their skin?

What they do. I would scratch the "say" part.

2. To be a true conservative, must you automatically support segregation?

No.

3. Is it God’s plan for the races to keep to themselves?

Actually, I don't know much of God's plan beyond "Love God" and "Love thy neighbor".

But I doubt He means for them to put up walls and never talk to one another, if that is what you mean.

4. Is the KKK a modern-day expression of Thomas Jefferson?

No.

5. Is it important to have the right kind of DNA in order to be a True conservative?

No. Confucius was a conservative, as are the black Anglicans in Africa who are fighting against the corruption of the Anglican church.

6. Are the only people white working folks can rely on themselves, and other like minded whites?

No.

7. Is the white community entitled to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically, because at the present time it is the “advanced race”?

No.

8. Are we “fools” not to consider the white race superior?

No.

Now, I'd like to ask Dr. Jackson some counter-questions. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

#1. Is a white man a racist for having an attachment to European heritage that takes precedence over, say, exploring the culture of central Africa?

#2: If you oppose forced-busing, mandatory integration, and the re-education of the American population on subjects like "diversity" and "racial tolerance"… does that make you a segregationist?

#3: Is a white man a racist if he would prefer his daughter to marry a white boy, rather than a Chinese boy?

#4: Is the American culture and economy in 2006 an expression of Thomas Jefferson?

#5. Is it important to embrace "global democratic revolution" in order to be a "True Conservative"?

#6. Can white working-class folks rely on the Republican Party– or Republican intellectuals such as rightwingprof– to speak out on behalf of their communities, families, and interests?

#7. Are the residents of a white community (or a black community, for that matter) entitled to express any opinion at all, in terms of who does or does not move into that community?

#8. Are we "white supremacists" if we are proud of the achievements of European peoples?

Last but not least… I brought up National Review and The Weekly Standard in my first post:

Here are some quotes from Chris Hitchens, who writes for both magazines:

In 2004 Hitchens described Leon Trotsky as "a prophetic moralist."

(For those who don't know, Trotsky– who is popular in neocon circles as a "democratic revolutionary"– was the Marxist murderer who was in turn murdered by his former colleague Stalin.)

In 2005, during an interview, Hitchens said: I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity … I mean, that to me is a horrible, repulsive thing.”

Hitchens has repeatedly trashed Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul the II, and Mother Theresa (almost before their bodies were cold, I might add.)

Again, Hitchens writes regularly for that "conservative" publication called The Weekly Standard.

Here is how Michael Ledeen, neocon punduit and a pillar of the National Review, sees foreign policy:

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

His buddies at NRO wittily refer to this as the Ledeen Doctrine, ha ha ha. Very funny if you're sitting in a think-tank while others are doing the dying.

So. Dr. Jackson would say all these are non sequiturs, I would say that I am putting this debate into context.

Dr. Jackson wants me to repudiate white supremacy, so here goes: A good man is a good man, regardless of his skin color.

Now, Dr. Jackson won't take anybody seriously who does not repudiate white supremacy explicitly and with excruciating detail.

I, on the other hand, do not take seriously anyone who claims to be "conservative", yet who does not repudiate the likes of Chris Hitchens and the neocon movement.

So– Dr. Jackson? I'm waiting for you to condemn Hitchens, Michael Ledeen, and Rich Lowry of National Review Online (NRO).

Lowry's recent contribution to conservative thought lies in advising those working-class "losers" who insist on remaining in the small-towns where they grew up "to quit, move out of the Midwest, and get a job that is going someplace…"

My "policy" in terms of promoting rootedness, kith and kin?

Ignore the garbage served up by NRO. Ignore the advice of cappucino-slurping professional think-tankers who don't have any real intellectual substance, and who do not know nor care about the real-world challenges of military life or working-class life.

Picture some snotty, superficial twerp sitting in Starbuck's with his important looking briefcase and his iPod and his SUV parked out front, and you've got… a Democrat? A Republican?

Like in Animal Farm, they both blend into one another at the end.

BTW, may I point out that Hitchens, Lowry, Ledeen, etc., etc. aren't anonymous weirdos picked up off the Internet, by the by.

These are the "intellectual" LEADERS of YOUR Republican Party.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
Dr. Jackson: you really lit a fuse this time!

Mountainman: Your comments (#68) are right on target. After having said that "I really don't have time to address this issue right now", this group (Paleos) has taken more time and used more words to avoid answering the questions raised by Dr. Jackson on at least three separate occasions (the last being in #55). Instead they chose to address Dr. Jackson's writing style, abilitly to read, and possible personal characteristics. I think that's what's referred to as raising straw dogs.
Just goes to prove that Lenin was correct. He labeled those who follow without knowing or understanding the effect of their allegiance to a cause, useful idiots.
Mike Brown

Comment by Mike Brown | December 26, 2006
No doubt those hostile to paleoconservativism are waiting to pounce on a blank spot in my entry, preceding the word "Dishonesty?"

The blank is due to my losing track of which of many dishonest "sleights-of-hand" used by the doctor, such as:

"….what paleoconservatism really is, or that when discussing paleo-racism…"

Just so, you know, we get a nice close association between the words "paleoconservative" and "paleo-racism". Yeah, that's objective, doc.

"I believe that the practice of paleoconservatism has been used to justify the practice of racism, and I’ve used the paleocons' own words to illustrate this. Like a legion of little Dahrendorhfs, they fill in the missing pieces for all of us to see. "

Gee, now earlier you were quick to point out how open-minded you are by oh-so-generously concedingthat not all paleos are racists (most of them maybe, or at least many, but of course not aaaall. Why, how thoughtful of you to say so doc, even without having looked at the sources of paleo thought, such as Chronicles Magazine.)

But this previous quote… well, mightn't it be just a wee bit of that demonization that Mountain Man was complaining about earlier? "A legion of little Dahrendorfs"?

Gee, Mountain Man, how is that NOT an "attack upon the person" on the part of your hero Dr. Jackson.

As for me, I don't attack people because my ideas don't bear the weight of scrutiny.

I attack people because it's fun.

Now for a third quote to highlight:

"And you wonder why we can’t have an honest conversation with these people?"

Hmmm. "These people"?

Gee, doc, once again if I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to lump all paleos into a villain-box. Especially since you have no problem using remarks by white nationalists back and forth with remarks by serious paleos. (If other paleos don't go out of their way to answer your quiz and earn your approval, that's because they don't care about what you think of them, doc. I only answered your quiz because I thought it might be useful to make a point of how hypocritical you are.)

I'd also think you're engaging in demonization given that you STILL show NO interest in the central sources of paleo thought. (I SAY AGAIN FOR POSSIBLE PENETRATION… CHRONICLES MAGAZINE.)

Oh, but wait– I keep forgetting that earlier you announced generously that "Not all paleos are racists."

So you covered yourself– very skillful. I salute you, sir.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
Mike Brown:

"…has taken more time and used more words to avoid answering the questions raised by Dr. Jackson on at least three separate occasions…"

I'm sorry if I can't reduce my remarks to short pithy phrases that could fit on a bumper-sticker.

How about this: "France sucks", and "Greed is good"?

Can I join your club of unbigoted, decent people now?

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
Isn't the first requirement for joining a club of unbigoted, decent people to be a decent, unbigoted person?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
If you paleos would spend more time telling us what you actually believe than simply protesting "I just know you'll twist it around and turn it into race-hating or race-bashing" then maybe we'd learn something. We'd learn what you believe. Perhaps not why…but at least what.

Do you think you could trust us enough to be able discern for ourselves whether your beliefs constitute genuine racial hatred versus simply racial differentiation or racial segregation or racial pride or racial whatever?

But instead we get a continual stream of reasons why you can't trust us with your beliefs. It reminds me of a teenage girl locked in her room sobbing, "no…you just WON'T understand" to her pre-historic parents. Except in our case, it's a petulant "no…you'll just think I'm a racist!"

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Tell us WHAT you believe, dear paleos. We don't expect it to fit on a bumper sticker, J.D. But neither do we need a 5,000 word essay on WHY you believe what you do (that question will probably be the addressed in an upcoming essay from Mr. Phillips). And don't confuse what with why. What you believe regarding race should require at most ten sentences. Why you believe it may admittedly take pages, but we aren't looking for the "why" right now. Also, please don't follow OldRepublic's lead and use words such as "kith" "kin" "soil" and "blood" because they simply don't mean much to the rest of us here who aren't part of the paleo inner circle. I would tend to associate such words with family and offspring – not necessarily race. Thus my contention that they are code words of some sort to the paleo, given special meaning and nuance that the rest of us aren't privvy to.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 26, 2006
"Isn’t the first requirement for joining a club of unbigoted, decent people to be a decent, unbigoted person?"

Brilliant comeback, doc. Let me slink away with my KKK-branded tail between my legs, now.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
JD,

Dr. Jackson is not my hero, he simply has brought an issue to the fore and has suffered for it at the hands of some who would style themselves as paleo-conservative. You will find that nowhere did I defend Dr. Jackson's point of view. I must say, great job of deflecting the substance of my comments. Done with a true quasi-leftist style. I am starting to wonder why I complimented you earlier on your clear presentation.

You said, "I am a paleo, and I believe all men are made in the image of God, and that Jesus Christ died to redeem every human being." And then you said, "I attack people because it’s fun." Care to reconcile?

Yes, "these people." These people who call themselves paleo, who refuse to answer a direct question, who alienate rather than persuade, who insult rather than reason, who claim faith in God yet find pleasure in attacking people who disagree with them. Boy, I want to become a paleo so bad! Where do I sign up?

Comment by Mountain Man | December 26, 2006
J.D.,

I think both Christopher Hitchens and the Republican Party would deny association with one another. Hitchens does not write "for" either National Review or the Weekly Standard. He has, occassionally, contributed an article to the latter. He is also not a neoconservative, or any other kind of conservative.

I'll provide answers to your questions.

#1. Is a white man a racist for having an attachment to European heritage that takes precedence over, say, exploring the culture of central Africa?

No. But there is something a little odd about someone who, through a sneering tone, ridicules white men who do have an interest in the culture of central Africa. And I am sorry to say that I commonly find this demeaning sentiment among paleocons.

#2: If you oppose forced-busing, mandatory integration, and the re-education of the American population on subjects like “diversity” and “racial tolerance”… does that make you a segregationist?

No.

#3: Is a white man a racist if he would prefer his daughter to marry a white boy, rather than a Chinese boy?

Not necessarily. (Though that is exactly what a racist would prefer, one may prefer this more defensible reasons.)

#4: Is the American culture and economy in 2006 an expression of Thomas Jefferson?

No. Nor would have Thomas Jefferson expected that they would be.

#5. Is it important to embrace “global democratic revolution” in order to be a “True Conservative”?

No. And while I won't say that embracing "global democratic revolution" automatically disqualifies one from being a "True Conservative," it is a postion that, in no intelligible sense of the word, can be called "conservative."

#6. Can white working-class folks rely on the Republican Party– or Republican intellectuals such as rightwingprof– to speak out on behalf of their communities, families, and interests?

It depends what the interests of these particular white working-class folks are. But I'll give it a qualified no. But I'll qualify it again by saying that the Republican Party is the only realistic alternative to the Democratic Party, which (I suspect you agree) is even further from your beloved paleoconservatism.

#7. Are the residents of a white community (or a black community, for that matter) entitled to express any opinion at all, in terms of who does or does not move into that community?

Expressing opinions? Yes. Freedom of speech, you know. But I don't think a township should be able to legally prevent people of a particular race, who have a perfect right to be in the country, from residing in that township.

#8. Are we “white supremacists” if we are proud of the achievements of European peoples?

No. But don't expect people to know you're not a white supremacist if you, like DonnaWilson above, try to make larger points about the greatness of your European heritage by making snide remarks about European architecture vs. dung huts. The biggest sin of paleocons is frequently careless and intemperate speech.

My question: Do you consider race to be as important in paleoconservative loyalties as citizenship? I suspect this is a source of much of the disagreement here.

Comment by Katzen | December 26, 2006
Ohhhhh, but there's more.

Let's talk about race and bigotry some more.

“Isn’t the first requirement for joining a club of unbigoted, decent people to be a decent, unbigoted person?”

Hmmm. Unbigoted and decent. Wonderful words.

Now, one example of being unbigoted-and-decent just might be… oh, say, NOT referring to an entire people as a "nation of cowards", it might consist of NOT describing that people's culture as worthless and meaningless.

Especially if the people being condemned produced things like the poetry of Baudelaire & the plays of Montaigne, the writings of Tocqueville. St. Joan of Arc. Charles Martel. Etc., etc.

And ESPECIALLY if the people in question produced generals and admirals who saved American troops during the War of Independence.

And especially if these people produced fighters who rescued downed American flyers during WWII.

And especially if these people's troops have– oh, say, for example– rescued AMERICAN CITIZENS in the past decade in African hotspots.

Yes, I'd say any political movement that promoted mindless prejudice, hatred, and hostility toward such a people would definitely be a movement comprised of indecent bigots.

Class? Anybody guess who "the people" are? And what "political movement" I'm talking about?

Bueller? Bueller?

(Hint: Think of a big, fat, dumb elephant charging through a jungle, stomping on everything in its way.)

But rest assured, because Dr. Jackson is soooo committed and honest in his fight against ethnic bigotry, he'd pounce on such a political group if they were to start using hate-filled witticisms and ethnic slurs against this people… if, say, this political group were to promote the idea that this people's entire heritage and culture is vile and worthless.

Unless of course taking such a stand would make him unpopular among GOP circles. But then that's understandable.

Yes, as we all know, the man is a fearlessly crusading anti-bigotry martyr… but, well, you know… the Game is the Game– right? Criticizing Francophobia would cause him to lose popularity-points among the GOP-intellectual circle.

Oh, wait. Lemme guess. I can't use the word "Francophobia" because… well, "phobia" is a tool of the Left, right?

Of course some might argue that if– oh, say– the French were to oppose American foreign policy, then this would justify howling and yapping about how worthless France and French culture is. Because the hatred is really based on the stance of the French GOVERNMENT.

Of course a cynic would reply that sneering at Frenchmen as products of "frog culture" simply because their government and ours don't get along is no better nor worse than some redneck using the n-word should America have a falling-out with Nigeria.

But happily there are no cynics around.

But is anybody foolish enough or dishonest enough to claim that hostility toward the French by Republican Party shills is any less spiteful and hate-filled than any other form of ethnic hatred?

How many Republicans felt bad when Paris was being smashed?

As to blacks… if the people of both Left & Right really cared about blacks, they would pay more attention to the phenomenon known as "gentrification".

Having lived in Northern Virginia for a while, I can tell you what gentrification is. It is where shallow rich yuppie dinks start spreading into a black neighborhood– a neighborhood which might not be rich, but which has real roots, and character, and in which people actually know each other. A neighborhood in which one might see a snappily-dressed old black gent with class strolling down the street, smoking his pipe and wearing a fedora. There really are a few such neighborhoods, I've seen them.

But of course once the yuppies move in– some Democrat, some Republican– then all the charming little knick-knack shops and coffee-shops and false-fronts and tourist-bars follow, and prices start going up and up and up, until the blacks who lived there can no longer afford it, and are then driven out, and their extended-family structures are broken up, as they struggle to find a living in someplace new.

I know about this in particular because it frequently happens to poor whites, too.

Hmmm. Now whoooooo ever says anything about gentrification?

The Republican Party? Or the Democratic Party?

No. Neither Democrats nor Republicans could care less, so long as Big Brother keeps getting more benevolent and powerful, and so long as Big Business keeps making more and more swill.

Keep the Party rollin', woo-hoo!

The GOP & Democratic idea of social progress is for black neighborhoods to get atomized, so that trite bourgeois-bohemians can sit in a cute Ethiopian restaraunt and style themselves as avante-garde multiculturalists.

After all, the bo-bos never miss the latest exhibit at the African Art Gallery… and they may have even read "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings."

Ooo, la-la.

This is how 99% of America regards culture: Black, European, Chinese, whatever. As a consumer product.

Not as a way of life, but as a consumer product. Something to shove in a museum and "contemplate", something by which to put on elitist airs, or maybe they think of it as a yummy CD of bagpipe music or Tutsi drum-work or Japanese biwa-strumming.

To the modern American, Left or Right, the cultures of the world are different dishes of a stuff-yourself-till-you-drop buffet. Not elements in a way of living, to be protected.

From the point of view of the Democratic or Republican bo-bo sitting in the cute Ethiopian restaraunt feeling all "cultured", the black people exist simply so that simpering, complacent white elites can dabble in black culture when they feel like it… so that John Q. Yuppie can get a warm fuzzy from watching "Amistad" on cable, so that he can get another warm fuzzy by assuring his other simpering, complacent white elite friends as to how racially-progressive he is.

And I'M the one who's expected to apologize for being insensitive toward other races. These people are utterly divorced from reality, tucked in a technological iWomb, and I'M the one needs to worry about INSENSITIVITY.

Anybody who's plugged into mainstream politics see themselves as godlike Olympians, the "movers and shakers", and they see ALL ordinary people– of whatever color– as little pawns to be prodded around with legislation, to be indoctrinated, to be herded like cattle toward whatever purpose is deemed best by the enlightened elites.

For C.S. Lewis fans… wake up. Our society– Left and Right– is run by The Men Without Chests. They only SEEM smart because their hearts– and natural human affections– are so withered and atrophied.

And so to them ordinary people's lives are like points in a big game. To the enlightened elites, things like "patriotism" and love of heritage are goads by which to dupe decent boys into dying for idiotic ideological wars, whether in Bosnia or in Iraq. To the enlightened elites of the GOP, "family values" is nothing more nor less than the gasoline that runs their electoral machine. It is a red flag by which to motivate and prod those primitive, tribally minded Red-Staters into voting Republican. Nothing more. Nothing more at all.

The reason paleos don't have a "policy" that fits into the game is because we aim to change the game's rules.

We aim to untie the knot of Government-Corporate Leviathan– or failing that, we aim to preserve little pockets of Christendom when Leviathan eventually self-destructs, as all such pride-filled experiments in building the Tower of Babel inevitably do.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
Mountain Man, I am sorry about getting being so coarsely critical. If you look over the remark again, I think you'll find my point is still valid– if you can overlook my rude clumsiness in expressing it.

"And then you said, 'I attack people because it’s fun.' Care to reconcile?"

Well, you can't imagine how vicious and cutting I'd be if I WEREN'T Christian.

If you knew all the things I'd like to say about Dr. Jackson but am restraining myself from, you'd be much more impressed with my level of devotion.

As it is, I admit that jabs at people like Dr. Jackson help keep me going in excruciatingly tedious discussions like this. I confess I am not motivated solely by a pristine, ascetic love of truth.

This does not, BTW, make my remarks, jabs, or observations any less true.

Anyhow, I'll try to do better… perhaps I'll give up smart-ass remarks for Lent.

Nah. Whiskey's easier.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
P.S.

"…who claim faith in God yet find pleasure in attacking people who disagree with them. Boy, I want to become a paleo so bad! Where do I sign up?"

The difference between myself and most people who participate on these blogs is that I am honest about the pleasure– naughty though it may be– that I take in "jabbing" somebody.

Be honest, Mountain Man. Do you really take no satisfaction in sticking it to somebody, when you feel you've caught them out in something? Do you really take NO satisfaction in letting some crum have it with a sarcastic barb?

Remember… thou shalt not lie.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
New posts are appearing inbetween old ones, so it's a little hard to keep track of some parts of the conversation. This is a response to J.D.'s very long statement, which is #75 at the time I write this.

J.D.

Thank you for your comments. You are the first paleo to have gone on record repudiating every one of the quotes I repeated from self-proclaimed paleos wrote to describe paleoconservatism. I’ve been trying for 4 months to get someone who says he represents mainstream paleo thought to tell me if these people reflect paleoconservatism policy. You say they do not, and I accept your word for it.

As an aside, the question about the “KKK [as] a modern-day expression of Thomas Jefferson” came from a quote from Richard M. Weaver: “Some of the means, for example the Ku Klux Klan, were irregular, but essentially it was the political genius of Jefferson, of Washington, of Madison, and of Pinckney expressing itself in times of trouble and oppression.”

The quote about “Is the white community entitled to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically, because at the present time it is the ‘advanced race’?” came from Russell Kirk: “The White community is entitled [to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically], because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” Both Kirk and Weaver are claimed by paleos as the intellectual fathers of modern day “true conservatism,” which paleos define as paleoconservatism.

This is why I said your argument was with ones making the original quotes, not me. They are the ones defaming your paleo-theory. I’m simply repeating their words and asking if they are true.

To answer your questions now.

#1. Is a white man a racist for having an attachment to European heritage that takes precedence over, say, exploring the culture of central Africa?

** No “attachment” is racist in public policy terms. People can think whatever they want about whatever they want, as I repeatedly stated. However, ADVOCATING LAWS to “prevail” over others on the basis of race is racist, whether these laws are created by the Right or the Left.

#2: If you oppose forced-busing, mandatory integration, and the re-education of the American population on subjects like “diversity” and “racial tolerance”… does that make you a segregationist?

** No. These laws are race-based. There's no real difference from a public policy standpoint between forced segregation and forced integration.

#3: Is a white man a racist if he would prefer his daughter to marry a white boy, rather than a Chinese boy?

** Hopefully, a parent would want their daughter to marry a man, not a boy. But as I said before, people can conduct their private lives any way they want. I’m only concerned with public policy, as I’ve stated from the beginning.

#4: Is the American culture and economy in 2006 an expression of Thomas Jefferson?

** Some of it is, and some of it isn’t. Do you want to be more specific? It’s a very general question, and our culture and economy involve much more than the influence of one single man.

#5. Is it important to embrace “global democratic revolution” in order to be a “True Conservative”?

** I have no idea what you mean by a “global democratic revolution”. If you’ll tell me what you mean from a specific policy standpoint, I’ll be happy to answer it.

#6. Can white working-class folks rely on the Republican Party– or Republican intellectuals such as rightwingprof– to speak out on behalf of their communities, families, and interests?

** Anyone can speak out on any issue. This is America. My issue is with public policy — the making of laws. People have a responsibility to think for themselves, and in a constitutional republic, to educate themselves about a candidates true beliefs so they can vote for the person to best represent those interests, and then hold that person accountable for their actions at re-election time.

#7. Are the residents of a white community (or a black community, for that matter) entitled to express any opinion at all, in terms of who does or does not move into that community?

** Opinions are like the exit points of the human digestive tract. Everybody has one. People can express any opinions they want. Passing laws is an entirely different matter.

#8. Are we “white supremacists” if we are proud of the achievements of European peoples?

** As I’ve repeatedly stated, people can be proud of any achievement they want. Being proud of one’s European, Asian, Hispanic, African etc. background is not a public policy issue. Making laws that give one racial group supremacy over another is.

J.D. Every one of your questions (except #2) involved an individual’s opinion about an issue. The issue has always been public policy (law making).

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
Old Republic —

I too agree that J.D. had a great post. He's the first paleo not to duck the issue by answering forthrightly whether the OTHER PALEOS I quoted were distorting paleoconservatism.

J.D. is extremely upset with me because he thinks I am attacking paleoconservatism. I am not. I am attacking those people who have repeatedly said that paleoconservatism stands for white racial superiority, mandatory segregation, and other odious public policies. None of you who claim to be paleos would repudiate these vile positions. J.D. did.

J.D. has shown that there are some paleos who believe you can be a true conservative and not have to view everything through the prism of race FROM A PUBLIC POLICY STANDPOINT — that is, the making of laws.

What you think about other races is irrelevant. This is America, and you can think anything you want. But a Leftist who insists on forced busing to achieve some race-based policy objective is no different than someone on the Right who supports laws that segregate people on the basis of race, or assign superior status to whites for whatever reason.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 26, 2006
Nevadamistermom:

"And don’t confuse what with why. What you believe regarding race should require at most ten sentences."

So I see that answering the doc's little quiz served no purpose, as I expected. I'm sorry if I'm too "wordy" for you. I'll think real hard about a way to condense my view of the human race into ten sentences or less, and then get back to you.

"But instead we get a continual stream of reasons why you can’t trust us with your beliefs."

I've been telling you what I believe, in excruciating detail. It's not a matter of trust, but the matter that you are not listening, whether by choice or inability I'm not certain.

Or perhaps I'm just really clumsy and dopey with language. Could be.

If your attention span cannot match my "wordiness", then we must both try harder to meet in the middle.

"Tell us WHAT you believe, dear paleos."

Here's the shortest way of putting it. The relationship between members of the same ethnic group– Chinese, Tutsi, Italian, Greek, English, Scottish, etc.– is an extension of the familial relationship.

Once upon a time the word family did not mean Mom & Dad & 2.1 Children & Fido, but rather an extended family. Grandpa & Grandma, aunts & uncles, and a lot of kids.

Which then tied to Grandpa & Grandmas brothers and sisters, and so on, and so. Putting together a few of these families, this is what was once called a COMMUNITY.

Now of course, hip neocons and guys like Bill Maher sneer at them as being inbreds. But once upon a time, city-states and provinces were fairly self-contained and self-reliant, and had an identity that hadn't been steamrolled by tourism & mass-transit.

Anyhow… family can also refer to one's ancestors & descendants… the folks in the graveyard, the black & white pictures on the wall, the names in the fading pages of the Bible. And further and further.

For pagans the concept of the family was the nearest conception they could come toward Eternity. Ancestry extending back into the mists of the past, and descendants extending into the mists of the future.

This is not just a European concept; it is also found in Confucianism, and in fact most healthy forms of paganism.

Ultimately a race– or ethnicity, if "race" sounds too icky– is an extended family.

Ultimately these family networks tied into other families, and expanding one's perspective one sees larger and larger families, ultimately leading to what Three Dog Night referred to as "the Family of Man."

The family was sanctified rather than abolished by Christianity. One cannot serve the Family of Homo Sapiens by pretending that the differences in history & culture and so on between the different branches are irrelevant.

As to "public policy" on this… well, what is public policy regarding the nuclear family?

The implicit policy is to fission it, as near as I can tell.

Now I guess in nevadamistermom's lexicon none of the preceding constitutes a "what". I suppose "what" consists only of my proposing new legislation or new regulations or that all blacks be sent to Liberia.

As a paleo I don't have any "public policy" goal vis-a-vis race. Or anything else. Power or elective office or constitutional amendments are not our goal.

Our goal is changing the culture, and changing the way people see themselves.

Sorry if all that sounded like encrypted, evasive code. Perhaps if you put your Dan Brown decoder-ring on you will be able to see through me, and realize that I have a white hood in my closet and that Jesus married Mary Magdalene.

And no doubt the more I "doth protest" the more clearly you'll see that I'm REALLY a Carolingian bloodline-supremacist.

And sorry if all that sounded like a teenage girl… although I'm curious about the kind of town you live in, where teenage girls talk like me.

Strange, strange place, I reckon.

Comment by J.D. | December 26, 2006
Let me make it clear that my answering the good doctor's questions does not mean that I am trying to earn anybody's good graces & thus leave OR out in the cold.

If there's one thing that's obvious from politics, it's that trying to attain common ground with the other side via "reaching out" is almost always pointless– all one does is wind up revealing weakness.

Note that my answering the quiz did not satisfy nevadamistermom in the slightest; over and over again some on this thread have harped on paleo "evasiveness". I had no expectation that stepping up to the inquisition would change anybody's mind, and– lo and behold, I was right.

Trying to pass the doctor's test does not get any response from nevadamistermom except for labelling me as a hysterical teenage girl.

So now I am the "good" paleo, as opposed to "wacko" paleos like OR. Gee, do I get a cookie?

As for Mountain Man– he can understand my POV and tendency toward acidity if he imagines debating abortion with a liberal. Paleos are so far removed from Republicans (AND Marxists, contrary to what the doc would say) that posting on this thread is rather like trying to communicate with someone who is employing an entire different language.

This might sound arrogant– maybe it is– but it's true.

From a paleo viewpoint, the right-think test is rather like having a feminist issue questions like, "Do you think a woman can be as capable as a man?" and "Do you think women should be oppressed by the patriarchy?"

One is shafted regardless of how one answers. If one issues a short "Yes," and then "No," one has bought into– in so many words– the position that women should be in military combat units and that women should be encouraged to become professionals rather than mothers. If one attempts to clarify, one is attacked for being "wordy".

Just for the record, I don't mind being attacked. Being attacked does not, in fact, cause me to run into my room and throw myself on my bed and break out my My Little Pony diary-book and write, "Dear Diary, these folks are just soooo mean…."

Rather, I'm making the point that some folks are just never satisfied. I could answer a dozen quizzes, and somebody would always have some little quip like "Thou dost protest too much."

Yeah, that's exactly what a Da Vinci Code follower would say when I get hot under the collar trying to pound through his skull that Jesus didn't marry Mary Magdalene.

If the doc wants to be all buddy-buddy, he can start by not entitling articles with "Paleo Bilge" and then playing innocent and high-minded. I mean, I can't POSSIBLY imagine how I would have seen the title of this article as an attack on paleoconservativism. Yeah, I guess the hysterical teenage girl in me must have just come out again.

If the doc wants to make me think he is serious and a non-hypocrite about the issue of bigotry, he can start by addressing the matter of the hatred for the French which is pushed by the Republican Party. If it is loathsome and stupid to revile Mexican culture as a "stench", then it is equally loathsome to do so regarding the French, yes? Am I right, doc?

As to specific policies that have to do with the public sphere– well, offhand, I don't believe monuments to Confederate soldiers should be torn down throughout the South.

And I believe an educational system that does not recognize the centrality of Western civilization in American history is culturally corrosive. Plato really is more important to the American story than some ancient Ethiopian king.

Generally speaking paleoconservativism aims more at culture than at assuming the reins of power, aims at encouraging classical Christian schooling rooted in a sense of provincialism, and a commitment to Western civilization.

It is to be hoped that those so educated will vote, speak, and base their civic actions on this commitment.

As to "public policy" in general, the reason it's hard to answer is that I would like to see the federal government stripped of most of the power that it currently wields unconstitutionally. You all ask about public policy when my aim is to see a country where the government doesn't have the power for anybody– Republican or Democrat– to enact their bright ideas over a great herd of people. Bright ideas about race, or anything else.

The federal judiciary should not be looking over local & state shoulders, micromanaging them– the Constitution is meant to limit the federal government, not empower it to crusade for a society of liberty, equality, and brotherhood.

Not that I worship the Constitution as word from Mt. Sinai, either, it's just a compact, an agreement– but if we're going to bleat about it and brag about being constutional, then we should either A) start taking it seriously or B) scrap it and write a new one.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Another point:

Doctor Jackson is of the opinion that "This is America, and you can think anything you want."

This is not true. Or rather, it is true so long as you don't mind being fired. As I mentioned earlier, the Republican governor of Maryland fired a Catholic man for saying that his religious beliefs led him to regard homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. Trent Lott was cast from office for making a joke at a birthday party. (Not that I especially respect Trent Lott.)

I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who said, "In the modern world a man is free to believe whatever he likes, so long as he does not take his beliefs seriously."

That is, believe what you like about Western Civilization, so long as you do not in any way attempt to manifest those beliefs in the real world.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Old Republic

You say you don’t support forced segregation, but you are unwilling to answer “No” to the question “To be a true conservative, must you automatically support segregation?” You say to do so would be to fall into a Leftist trap.

So what’s the trap? You are a paleo who rejects forced segregation, but you believe that paleoconservatism does support forced segregation, and you don’t want to acknowledge this publicly? Is that what you are afraid of?

Once again, I wrote a straightforward essay “Off to the Races” that condemned race-based policies by the Left. Self-identified paleos told me I was wrong, and that “race does matter”. Several said that segregation was not just an option, but according to paleoconservatism, it was “God’s law”.

So I asked True Paleos to tell me if this was an accurate reflection of paleo-philosophy and paleo-policy. What I keep getting from Old Republic is a denunciation of the question. It seems pretty straightforward. Either the people saying they represented paleo philosophy-in-action got it right when they said that whites were superior to blacks, and that segregation was an integral part of “true conservatism”, or they didn’t.

So far JD is the only paleo to go on record saying that this does not represent true paleo thought. Unfortunately, his honest reply is balanced by others like Old Republic who not only refuse to answer this or any other question about race-based policy (note: loving your family is not a “policy”), Old Republic condemns me for citing “anonymous sources” — that is, the other paleos and paleo-sympathizers who said these incredibly stupid things in the first place, among them a couple of people who actually gave their names.

And yet “OR” hides behind his anonymity in making these charges! He tells us he could clear up all our questions if we read his scholarly works. But since he won’t identify himself or his works, we’re left with just another anonymous post.

I could care less whether Old Republic identifies himself or not — but since he made it an issue, and since he won’t even repudiate the so-called paleo belief that segregation is mandated by God even though he himself is against forced segregation, what is anyone left to believe about the veracity of anything he says?

I’m happy to let the paleos themselves who have devoted much of their time to the study of their subject tell us what paleoconservatism is. I just want them to also tell me what it is NOT. Paleos themselves have raised the issues I summarized in the 8 questions I noted above. If you think it takes a paragraph – instead of a simple “no” — to explain what you mean by rejecting the notion of white supremacy, then write it. But simply repeating abstract theory about kith, kin and tribe is not an answer to this question. And Old Republic (and the others who hide behind his logic) know that.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
JD, another dodge! Well done. Ignore the substance, address the periphery.

Don't try to paint me with your brush. I do not take pleasure in "sticking it" to somebody. My only intention is to draw out the truth in this issue we are discussing and to find a way to get people like OldRepublic to quit dancing around the issue. Alas, this objective is clearly a pipe dream, based on his post #88.

As for you, you made a claim regarding your faith. That places you in a context that requires a higher level of behavior than some others who post here. "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." (1 Peter 2:12)

For the benefit of OldRepublic, I will restate my position as a conservative as posted on #52 in the "why-you-should-care" article: "If a person believes in constitutionally limited government, liberty exercised in a biblically moral context, and free market capitalism, then they have exhibited sufficient credentials for me to consider them a conservative. All the rest is pretty much just nit-picking."

If there are people who want to quibble about this criteria, they are simply wasting peoples' time wringing their hands over minutiae. They desire to categorize people as left-wing baiters so that they can summarily dismiss them and not have to deal with questions raised. This technique is quintessentially leftist.

Comment by Mountain Man | December 27, 2006
“So now I am the ‘good’ paleo, as opposed to ‘wacko’ paleos like OR. Gee, do I get a cookie?”

** No JD. You get an acknowledgment for being honest about what you believe. You continue to be angry with me for showcasing what other Paleos have said about paleoconservatism. They are the ones who claimed that paleoconservatism demands that you believe in white supremacy. You are the only self-identified paleo who rejects these things your fellow paleos have told us are an integral part of paleoconservatism.

“One is shafted regardless of how one answers. If one issues a short ‘Yes,’ and then ‘No,’ one has bought into– in so many words– the position that women should be in military combat units and that women should be encouraged to become professionals rather than mothers. If one attempts to clarify, one is attacked for being ‘wordy’.”

** Not to be argumentative, but you’ve probably written 5000 words here and in other posts telling us that you resent the fact that you’d have to spend 5000 words to explain a Yes or No answer.

“If the doc wants to be all buddy-buddy, he can start by not entitling articles with ‘Paleo Bilge’ and then playing innocent and high-minded. I mean, I can’t POSSIBLY imagine how I would have seen the title of this article as an attack on paleoconservativism.”

** Start by going back into the IC archives and read my September 2, 2006 essay “Off to the Races: The Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness.” I had absolutely nothing to say about paleoconservatism, and was quite happy bashing leftist race hypocrisy until certain so-called paleos told me that race does matter. That’s how this all began.

“If the doc wants to make me think he is serious and a non-hypocrite about the issue of bigotry, he can start by addressing the matter of the hatred for the French which is pushed by the Republican Party. If it is loathsome and stupid to revile Mexican culture as a ‘stench’, then it is equally loathsome to do so regarding the French, yes? Am I right, doc?”

** I disagree with French foreign policy. That is a legitimate activity. I do not take this policy disagreement and then say that the French people are genetically inferior. So the last sentence in your paragraph is indeed correct. However Republicans opposing the French government over a policy issue is not the same thing as reviling French culture. Once again, all I’ve ever focused on is policy-making. If a person hates another race because of their race, that’s none of my business until it becomes a matter of public action.

“And I believe an educational system that does not recognize the centrality of Western civilization in American history is culturally corrosive. Plato really is more important to the American story than some ancient Ethiopian king.”

** As do I. This is a simple fact. Western literature, science and culture were more important to the “American story” than non-western science, culture, etc. This statement does NOT say that the West is “superior” to the non-west. “Relevant” is not the same thing as “superior”.

“As to ‘public policy’ in general, the reason it’s hard to answer is that I would like to see the federal government stripped of most of the power that it currently wields unconstitutionally.
You all ask about public policy when my aim is to see a country where the government doesn’t have the power for anybody– Republican or Democrat– to enact their bright ideas over a great herd of people. Bright ideas about race, or anything else. The federal judiciary should not be looking over local & state shoulders, micromanaging them– the Constitution is meant to limit the federal government, not empower it to crusade for a society of liberty, equality, and brotherhood. Not that I worship the Constitution as word from Mt. Sinai, either, it’s just a compact, an agreement– but if we’re going to bleat about it and brag about being constutional, then we should either A) start taking it seriously or B) scrap it and write a new one.”

** Again we agree. See my November 29 essay on “What we need is a Constitutional Convention”. I also wrote about this in “What Kind of Car Would Jesus Drive to take his girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?”

J.D. — You are obviously passionate about what you believe, and I respect you for that. It may be a subtle point, but the subtitle to my Paleo Bilge article was “Where” (not “when”) Paleo theory meets paleo-practice …”. It was a direct reference to the people who claim to be paleos who are claiming that you need to be a white supremacist to be a paleo.

All I want to do is set the record straight for those looking in on this conversation about what paleoconservatism really means in practice, not just as an abstract theory. The sad fact you are the only paleo to reject the other paleo’s statements that “race matters”, whites are superior, etc. Other so-called paleos have actually reaffirmed these statements!

Until more paleos out against this bilge, you’ll find the Neo-Nazis of The Vanguard News Network, American Renaissance and Uppity-Negro.com rushing to identify with paleoconcervatism. Or you’ll just get people like Hillel who think all blacks are genetically inferior. These people believe they have a home in your philosophy because unlike you, no other paleos will condemn this way of thinking. They are more afraid of falling for a “leftist” trick than they are clearly showing us where they stand.

I’ve now said all I have to say on this subject, and am going to take a few days off. The people who wanted to voice their opinions on this subject have, and those that don’t have either stayed out of the conversation, dodged the issues, or simply not responded to the questions I’ve asked them.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
"I do not take pleasure in “sticking it” to somebody."

Then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

"As for you, you made a claim regarding your faith. That places you in a context that requires a higher level of behavior than some others who post here."

And a much better Christian, too.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"If a person hates another race because of their race, that’s none of my business until it becomes a matter of public action."

It's unclear to me which of Dr. Jackson's pop-quiz elements deal with public policy. Surely if one chooses to define "conservative" as dependent on DNA, that is one's own business, yes?

If we don't care about what a man believes so long as he is not trying to translate it into a public policy, then what difference does it make if one thinks labels as "fool" anyone who does not feel the white race to be superior?

It's also unclear to me, then, why the doc brought up the quote about a "Mexican stench", either. No reference to a public policy initiative there. Just a sentiment. I thought the doc didn't care about sentiments?

I'm also wondering if anybody has chewed on G.K. Chesterton's little observation that modern society doesn't care what anyone believes so long as those beliefs are kept compartmentalized into irrelevancy.

You all are free to believe in Jesus all you like.

Just don't try putting Nativity Scenes on public property.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
OR– drop me a line at jdsalyer59. At Yahoo.

We can conduct sinister backroom plotting, and exchange new code words now that the cat's out of the bag on tricksy-terms like "rootedness", and "kinship".

I know an albino in Opus Dei who can set us up with a new headquarters. Bwah-hah-hah-hah.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another," JD. (Proverbs 27:17) Or don't you liked to be sharpened? That's the beauty of the Body of believers, we can "spur one another on toward love and good deeds." (Hebrews 10:24)

I never claimed superiority to you. In fact, if you take the time to research this site, I posted that I would prefer to view others as superior to me. I have been very straightfoward with you, dealing with you from a brother-to-brother perspective ever since you confessed your faith in a previous post.

At some point you're going to have to tell me why you have this animosity. Is it only because someone is disagreeing with you? Or does your ideology take precedence over your faith and your interpersonal relationships?

Come on, JD. This is a discussion of ideas. Get rid of the chip on your shoulder.

As for OldRepublic, I have promoted no stereotypes about paleos. Cite me one instance, sir. I have from the beginning asked for clarification of your ideas, and you persist in glib phrases and evasion. I want YOU to explain YOURSELF. At some point I might wander over to that website, but I hold out hope that you can articulate your beliefs in a way that is reasonable and persuasive. Give it a try.

Comment by Mountain Man | December 27, 2006
"Or don’t you liked to be sharpened?"

Yes. I wasn't complaining.

But I'm afraid I enjoy sharpening others, too, perhaps a bit too much, hence the naughty pleasure at jabbing people.

As to the chip on my shoulder, imagine trying to explain something to a parrot. You must admit that one would have to be a saint not get acerbic from time to time.

And I think one thing you and I can agree on is that I am not a saint.

By the way, where DOES St. Paul condemn slavery, since we're all good Protestants here, playing Bible Trivia, and living by "sola scriptura"?

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Phil, PC Prof, Mountain Man, nevadamistermom, Katzen, others,

Wow. This is the thread that keeps on giving. Is there an IC record for # of replies?

The Christmas season and a malfunctioning keyboard have made it hard for me to reply. I will reply at greater length when I get a chance to use another computer.

First, I have absolutely no responsibility to “repudiate” anyone or anything. I am responsible for what I write, and when I presume to speak for paleoconservatism in general, I have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible.

I believe this “repudiate what person X said or else it can safely be presumed you share the same sentiments” is an immature form of debate. At the minimum it is tacky. At worse it is deceptive and dishonest.

I was taking part in another forum about my paleo article, and a quote from Sam Francis against inter-racial marriage was brought up. I was repeatedly asked my opinion on the quote. But inter-racial marriage had nothing to do with what we were talking about. They didn’t really care what I thought about the quote. They wanted me to repudiate it or else take a position that was blatantly anti-PC so they could say “See, I told you paleos are all a bunch of racists” and have themselves a good little self-righteous finger-wag. To me, that reeks of middle school. That is not how thoughtful adults are supposed to carry on an intelligent debate.

Second, Phil you can not simultaneously insinuate that a particular opinion is beyond the pale and no civilized, right minded person would hold it, and then also hold it against someone for not using their real name (Old Republic) when they don’t unequivocally embrace your position. You are making it abundantly clear that to not embrace your position is an offense against right think. Unfortunately, in today’s hyper PC climate who can blame someone for not using their real name? Basically you are saying conform or else. Pay lip service to PC or we will out you as the “vile filthy racist that you are.” Again, that strikes me as a very immature way to debate. It is the way ideological dogma and orthodoxy are upheld, not the way knowledge is advanced.

More later.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 27, 2006
It's a simple yes or no question. Be careful how you answer, though, you might fall from grace.

Does the Bible explicitly condemn slavery?

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"I posted that I would prefer to view others as superior to me."

Now you're making me blush.

But if you reeeeally want to think of me as being superior you… well, who am I to say "No?"

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
BTW,

I don't understand why you object to my "jabbing", if you're so keen on being sharpened.

I'm doing you a favor, right?

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
J.D.,

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of reading and understanding extended discussions, but I'll cheefully admit that I find it difficult when someone's beliefs are scattered like Easter Eggs amongst 103 posts.

I don't confuse public policy with one's beliefs, and it seems that you don't either. Good. I think there is much we agree on as fellow conservatives, and this is one area. Whether we agree on matters of race, however, is still an open topic.

As to asking you to distill your core beliefs about race into 10 sentences or less, I stand by my contention that verbosity is generally a sign of someone who hasn't crystallized their beliefs very well. I still contend that you confuse "what" with "why." You want to provide historical context and other details that while perhaps important, still fall into the realm of "why." And, you want to complain that 10 sentences isn't nearly enough and blame me for a short attention span, deficient I.Q., or both.

Let's put this into perspective: The Nicene Creed is 4 sentences. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to distill your core beliefs about a much smaller topic than the essential elements of christian faith into ten sentences. It has nothing to do with my attention span. It has everything to do with forcing one to decide what they really believe on a single, narrowly focused topic and communicating it succinctly.

What I think bothers me most about the tone of the paleo discussions I have seen (with exception of Mr. Phillips) is this implied sense that they are the "only true believers" and that everyone who fails to align (or subscribe to "Chronicles") is a flaming liberal.

I'm officially giving up on this forum as a place to learn what paleos believe. It has been an enlightening experience to see how they behave, but that's about it. I'll look forward to Mr. Phillips' upcoming article with mild anticipation, but the comments exchange here has proven to be wholly unproductive. I'm sure there are other resources on the web regarding paleo belief, and I'll avail myself of those avenues instead.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 27, 2006
"The Nicene Creed is 4 sentences. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask you to distill your core beliefs about a much smaller topic than the essential elements of christian faith into ten sentences."

How about this:

———————————————————————————–
I do not think my grandfather is superior to other people’s grandfathers– however, I do feel a certain attachment to him, and a special obligation toward them, simply because he is MY grandfather.

By analogy, I do not believe that the Anglo-Celtic people are superior to other peoples—however, I do feel a certain attachment to them, and a special obligation toward them, simply because they are MY people.
———————————————————————————-

That was 68 words. The Nicene creed is 226 words.

"is this implied sense that they are the “only true believers” and that everyone who fails to align (or subscribe to “Chronicles”) is a flaming liberal."

I wouldn't say that. I don't think I ever used the term "Real conservative" or anything like it, or hurled the Marxist accusation at anyone.

If I wished to insult a man, I would not play around with ideological terms that could mean anything thanks to newspeke– i.e., "racist" or "leftist".

Rather, I would simply insult him with a clearly insulting word. (As in calling Dr. Jackson a "bootlick").

To my mind it is less important to identify whether a statement is "conservative" or "Marxist" than to identify whether or not it is true.

Anyhow– when Dan Phillips comes back, he can vouch that I have argued (at meetings in our secret paleo lair, bwah-ha-ha-ha) that we should not, in fact, get into arguments as to who is or is not "a real conservative".

"I stand by my contention that verbosity is generally a sign of someone who hasn’t crystallized their beliefs very well."

I will concede that I have been too wordy on this forum. I like to talk too much.

"I find it difficult when someone’s beliefs are scattered like Easter Eggs amongst 103 posts."

But I bet when all is said & done you find Easter Egg hunts to be worth your time, yes? (grin)

"I’m sure there are other resources on the web regarding paleo belief, and I’ll avail myself of those avenues instead."

Chronicles Magazine has a website, so you don't even have to subscribe in order to investigate it, I don't. (Because I am cheap, and poor.)

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Cha-ching! There we have it. OldRepublic finally came clean. He is the defender of "true conservatism," and everyone else who does not toe the line is an infidel. Ironically, one of their own declared it so on his deathbed, and that makes it so.

Everyone else, and I mean everyone, is "polluted" by liberalism. Only paleos have the truth, only paleos can see things as they really are. Everyone else are pretenders, they fit neatly into his categories (neocons, movement “conservatives,” Bushbots, and blind followers of the GOP), a marvelously quick and easy way to dismiss those who happen to have another view.

You know, I had a feeling all along that this was never about racism (a neo marxist term, if you didn't know, a conversation stopper employed by us liberals). It's about the true faith, them vs. us, the chosen vs. the unwashed. That is the reason for the smug disdain, the obtuse language, the condemnatory language.

No, paleos are not racists. At least with some who have posted here, they are cultists.

Comment by Mountain Man | December 27, 2006
OldRepublic wrote:

"This is just an academic aside, but no where does the Bible condemn the institution of slavery. Paul may criticize how an individual slave is treated but nowhere is the _institution_ of slavery condemned. This by far is the academic consensus, both by liberals and conservatives."

Uh, gee…thanks. And this has what to do with the price of hockey pucks in Walla Walla?

(Perhaps you confused me with somebody else? Nowhere in my posts did I bring up the issue.)

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 27, 2006
Mountain Man,

I don't think OldRepublic has learned that time-tested bit of wisdom known as "The Rule of Holes". Namely, when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 27, 2006
"Cha-ching! There we have it. OldRepublic finally came clean. He is the defender of “true conservatism,” and everyone else who does not toe the line is an infidel."

Mountain Man, give me a break. Your side has no right to criticize anyone for wanting others to toe the party line. This whole thread has been about trying to get paleos to toe the PC party line on race.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 27, 2006
I find it more than a little curious that Dan’s Phillip’s computer was mysteriously fixed mere seconds after I said I wanted to spend some holiday time with my family for the next few days. Then Dan jumps back into the debate to respond to my comments of several days ago, only to tell us all now that he isn’t going to answer any questions about the way other paleos have characterized paleoconservative thought because he has “absolutely no responsibility to ‘repudiate’ anyone or anything,” and is responsible only for what he writes. This lets him off the hook to go on the record as a paleoconservative intellectual and tell us whether we all need to be white supremacists to be "good conservatives" as some paleos have suggested.

But apparently Dan feels no such constraint to repudiate others’ motives that “This whole thread has been about trying to get paleos to toe the PC party line on race.” So while he can’t, on principle, comment about (let alone repudiate) any of the paleo quotes I presented, he can certainly repudiate my contention that paleoconservatism seems to attract a number of white supremacists who feel right at home in this philosophy.

I’ve been called a neocon by Dan and other paleos, but it is interesting that the only self-described neocon to enter the debate (Hillel Ariel Goldstein) says he supports the paleocon position that blacks are inherently inferior, and suggests that these people need to be “spayed and neutered”. Hillel’s view on race, again, is not a position Dan Philips feels qualified to condemn, but he can chide me for telling Old Republic not to be a hypocrite by keeping his identity secret when Old Republic himself says it’s inappropriate for me to cite the words of anonymous paleos who have made these outrageous statements.

So, having momentarily re-entered this conversation due to an email alerting me to Dan’s post — not by some imaginary friend, but by Dan himself — I’m now going back to my family, confident to know that the main issues of this essay will once again be debated by the paleos: namely, how good were my grades in school, how poorly do I write, and why it’s not fair to quote the words from self-proclaimed paleos and ask other paleos if this represents mainstream paleo thought.

If any paleo says anything even remotely worth responding to, I'll pick it up again after the new year starts. In a time of year devoted to peace on earth and good will toward men, there's only so much paleo good will towards others I can stand without first reconnecting with people who aren't afraid to say — without hesitation — that it’s what a person does, not the color of his skin, that matters most in our dealings with others.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
I am going to try to clean up a few issues. First, I did not say that Sir Anthony and the “DNA proof of pure noble blood” guy were not expressing their true feelings. Perhaps they were. What I said is that they were playing a role. “Sir Anthony” was not really Sir Anthony. Surely you don’t believe someone who has been knighted posted that. And the hyper British verbiage was a give away. And the “DNA proof” guy didn’t really have DNA proof. As I explained, I don’t think such a thing is possible. So what they wrote should not be used as something “paleos” said. It could have been a big joke or they might have been trying to make a point, but they aren’t real people. That happens in the anonymous world of the internet.

Second, why would I want to “repudiate” Nick Stix? He said unsolicited nice things about me and defended me. Given that, to repudiate him would be disloyal, would it not? Loyalty is a higher virtue, as far as I am concerned, than is public profession of PC orthodoxy. Now, I don’t think it would be a problem to give my take on what Nick Stix said. I will do so by way of an instructive analogy that will also get at some of the problems with neocon thought.

One of the planks of neocon orthodoxy is American exceptionalism. As an American, I believe America is the best place on earth to live, particularly in the South. I am loyal to her. That is the best element of true Patriotism, as opposed to neocon nationalism. But I would expect an Italian person to believe that Italy is the best place to live. An Irishman Ireland. A Japanese person Japan. Etc. That is the way it should be. For each person not to think that would be disloyal. Doesn’t mean they have to overlook their countries flaws. Doesn’t mean they have to embrace some historic mythmaking to justify their belief. I’m sure the Irishman would expect the Italian and the Japanese person to disagree with him about where to live and that would be ok. But many conservatives have bought the American exceptionalism argument and have lost perspective. They think America is the best place on earth and don’t recognize that other people from other countries might not agree.

Another example: I have never understood people who root for other than the home team (unless they have a good reason such as family history.) I believe a person who roots for a distant team because they are a “winner” is being disloyal. A person should root for the home team and believe the home team is the “best.” Even if objectively they are not the best. They are the best because they are mine, not because the stats prove it. See what I am getting at?

So in a similar way, prior to 50 years ago, I think Nick is probably correct that Whites thought Whites were superior, Blacks thought Blacks were superior, and Asians thought Asians were superior. Perhaps they felt they were superior in different ways, I don’t know. In WWII, the Japanese clearly thought they were culturally superior to the West. That is one reason why it was so much worse to be a Japanese POW than a German POW. The Japanese thought we were a bunch of savages, and they treated us accordingly. That, like preference for one’s own country, is the way it is. It is only with the rise of PC multiculturalism that this inherent tendency has been brow beaten out of people.

PS. the above was typed before the above reply from Phil. My computer keyboard at home is malfunctioning. That is why my previous entry was short. I am at work now typing this. The longer response to which I was referring still awaits.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 27, 2006
You know Dan, there were about 30 self-proclaimed paleo quotes that I synthesized into 8 statements. You’ve focused on 1 of the statements (the most blatantly stupid and indefensible one), and deliberately ignored the other 7.

And just to be honest about the conversation, I didn’t ask you to “repudiate” Nick Stix as a human being. I asked you to repudiate his words that paleos would be fools not to believe that whites are superior. You are playing games with words, and it’s quite transparent.

As for your notion that “to repudiate him would be disloyal, would it not?” At last we have a clear insight from you into what paleo philosophy means when theory is translated into practice. It doesn’t matter what a fellow tribe member does, whether they act morally or immorally, do or say something despicable or admirable. If they are a member of the tribe, you defend them, period.

Someone said paleoconservatism was a cult, not a philosophy. This is a pretty clear indication that there’s a lot of truth to that observation.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
Apropos of nothing, and with deepest, profoundest apologies for going off-topic (just what is the topic?) … has anyone ever seen Phillip Ellis Jackson and John Podhoretz in the same room together?

Comment by Nicholas Stix | December 27, 2006
By the way, re-reading your comment that "It is only with the rise of PC multiculturalism that this inherent tendency has been brow beaten out of people," I believe we now have a second answer from you.

You do think that white people WOULD, in fact, be fools not to believe their race is superior. You’re convinced that every other colored skin person thinks they are superior, so whites should too. [This is consistent with the additional paleo-logic I quoted before Nick’s observations: Asians think they are superior so a race war is coming, etc.]

You hedge a bit by saying that “superior” might be something benign, like they are superior typists I suppose, but somehow I don’t think the paleos making this statement mean it in “different ways” as you posited. I think, like your supporter Ariel suggested, that they believe that whites are superior genetically to other races.

So we now know that when “true conservatism” (meaning “paleoconservatism”), speaks about kith and kin, and tribes and loyalty, they are speaking about restoring the state of white racial superiority that characterized earlier times.

I won’t provoke you by assigning a neo-Marxist phrase to describe this. In fact, I see no need to characterize it at all. I asked for clarity on this issue, and I have now received it. This is some of what it means to be a practicing paleo once we get past abstract theory. Now others can decide if it suits their notion of how we should live our lives.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
"I find it more than a little curious that Dan’s Phillip’s computer was mysteriously fixed mere seconds after I said I wanted to spend some holiday time with my family for the next few days."

The difference between myself & Dr. Jackson is that if I wanted to call Dan a liar, I would simply say, "Dan, I think you are a liar," in much the same form in which I said, "Dr. Jackson is a bootlick."

Rather than, say, weasel around with "I find it a little curious…"

"It doesn’t matter what a fellow tribe member does, whether they act morally or immorally, do or say something despicable or admirable. If they are a member of the tribe, you defend them, period."

So if you caught your brother selling drugs, you would turn him in to the cops?

"Someone said paleoconservatism was a cult, not a philosophy. This is a pretty clear indication that there’s a lot of truth to that observation."

Well, you could take a cue from Richard Dawkins and accuse us of being infected by a virulent "meme"… it would be about as meaningful a debunking.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Nick! Good to have you back! Your ears must have been burning, as my mom used to say when someone was just talking about you. Your mother probably said the same thing too, but was commenting about you getting too close to that flaming cross.

Unless Dan has anything more to say on this topic before I shut down tonight, I'm going back to my own kith, kin and tribe for the next couple of days so Nick can continue speculating uninterruptedly about my education, writing style, or whatever other issues he finds necessary to avoid talking about the essay I wrote. And no need to apologize for your comments. So far no paleo has.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
"In fact, I see no need to characterize it at all. I asked for clarity on this issue, and I have now received it."

Ha ha ha ha ha!!

Oh, nice try, but nooooo doc. You dooooon't get to have the last and definitive word. Your "clarity" is worth about as much as that of the ding-a-lings who knew, just knew, that Saddam had weapons-of-mass destruction.

I can keep going till your little CPU shoots sparks and smoke out.

I had to take a break, I was watching McQueen's "Bullit" (great movie) so I'm a little behind on all the fun and adventure.

Standby all…

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"So if you caught your brother selling drugs, you would turn him in to the cops?"

Not if I was a paleo, apparently. I'd just let him destroy other people’s lives to make a fast buck because, well, they’re not a member of my tribe! We now have another great illustration of paleoconservatism in practice.

I wrote an essay not too long ago about the universal moral code that says it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent human life. It didn’t say “white” life, or my “tribe’s" life. Apparently if you are a paleo in good standing, the only lives of any value are those of your Klan.

Finally, after 4 months and 120+ comments, we’re getting away from abstract paleo thought and seeing how paleoconservatism plays out in practice.

Thanks again JD for coming through in the clutch!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
"Not if I was a paleo, apparently. I’d just let him destroy other people’s lives to make a fast buck because, well, they’re not a member of my tribe!"

You didn't answer my question, Comrade Doctor. All you did was try to insert words into my mouth, vis-a-vis my response.

Actually, what Iiiiii would do is get some of my cousins and sit my brother down for a little talk, which would possibly include an ass-whipping.

But that's just the primitive tribalist solution to things– solve problems at the lowest level possible, and try to handle things within the family, or the unit, or the ship, or the office, etc., whenever possible.

"I wrote an essay not too long ago…"

And how thrilling that must have been for you.

"… about the universal moral code that says it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent human life."

Well, you could knock me over with a feather.

So you're cool with turning American troops over to international war crimes tribunals, right?

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Woops! You sly devil, you still didn't answer my question!

Would you turn your brother over to the cops if you caught him selling drugs?

Or… would you turn your brother over to be shot, if you caught him deserting from the Army?

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"And no need to apologize for your comments. So far no paleo has."

Nor will I. You remind me of Grima Wormtongue from Tolkein.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
Yes JD, if my brother was selling harmful drugs to schoolchildren, I'd turn him in to save an innocent human life. I'm not a paleo. I don't assign more value to my genetic relatives than I would say, to you.

And by the way, the Army doesn’t shoot deserters any more.

That’s it for me. Back in 2007. If Dan posts something he wants me to comment on that appears after I send this message, he can drop me another email

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 27, 2006
"Yes JD, if my brother was selling harmful drugs to schoolchildren, I’d turn him in to save an innocent human life."

See, now I'd get my other brother and some cousins together, and give my drug-dealing brother a thumping. That is the paleo solution. I am responsible for my drug-dealing brother, and my responsibility to straighten him out precedes that of the State.

Mountain Man, Nevadamistermom, etc….

Consider this guy, who wrote this great "expose" of paleoconservativism. He spent a great deal of time fawning all over me and telling me how impressed he was about my taking a stand against racism.

Now, bang-O, because I say I wouldn't hand my own brother over to the cops, all of that "respect" (respect like that I can do without) he insinuates that I am, of necessity, a Klansman.

Now, you might think my attitude wrong– but does saying, "I wouldn't turn my own flesh-and-blood over to the cops," justify calling me a racist?

What would you think of a mother who didn't turn in her own son for selling weed?

That she is a Klanswoman?

That she needs to be re-educated?

That she needs to read Dr. Jackson's fine essay on "the universal moral code"?

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
If a problem (like drug-dealing or anything else) gets beyond the level of the family, or the tribe, or the military squad, or the ship, and has to be resolved by higher authority– such as the State– then that means there has been a failure somewhere.

The family is the font of the values of the society, not the other way around.

And the society is most certainly NOT based on some calculated universal moral code of Kant, of Rousseau, of Descartes, of Hegel– or of the illustrious Phil Jackson of the University of Chicago.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"I don’t assign more value to my genetic relatives than I would say, to you."

So I guess this means the good doctor is going to add me onto his will!!

Cool.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
On one side we have Dr. Jackson's universal moral code– a microwaved version of the Enlightenment regulations concocted by really-smart-intellectuals who got us to where we are today. The universal moral code always decays into liberalism.

On the other side we have Charity, which begins at home.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
I realize I can be as sarcastic as the best of them, and it often detracts from the dialog rather than adds to it. I think Mr. Phillips has generally done the best here of maintaining the high ground in that respect (if anyone is keeping score).

So setting all sarcasm aside…

I must agree with Mountain Man's use of the word "cultish." I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that paleo thought, as least as it has been espoused by several of those posting here, is far more like a cult than simply one end in the spectrum of conservative thought. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a cult is that its practitioners never regard themselves as being in the continuum of anything. There is their way…and there is apostacy. No in-between.

I'm not sure what I expected in the way of dialog here, but I can tell you the one thing I never expected as a conservative having a dialog with a group of other self-professed conservatives: to be called a leftist. That pronouncement alone tells me much about how paleos view themselves. Far more, for example, than the 8 pages JD saw fit to pen for post #75.

If the goal of these various postings was to persuade others to a paleo world view, or at least convince us of the reasonableness of those views, I'm afraid all you have really done for at least a few of us is send us running for the hills, as Mr. Jackson suggested in the first sentence on this page. Perhaps I'm depriving myself of some very good thinkers by wanting to distance myself from paleo practitioners and paleo publications. But it's a price I'm willing to pay at this point.

I have never been, and will never be, a neo-conservative, a centrist, and certainly not a leftist. I'm simply a conservative and don't feel a compelling need to align with some sub-genre in order to have a political or intellectual identity. Perhaps this need for paleos to do so stems from their deep-seated sense of tribe and rootedness.

I do strenuoulsy take issue with the contention that all other variations of conservatism are merely shades of liberalism. Regardless of who penned it, the statement is just as absurd as suggesting that everything to the right of Ted Kennedy is simply a varying shade of conservatism.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 27, 2006
One last post before bed.

For one thing, note that Dr. Jackson had to turn it into "selling drugs to schoolchildren", and that naturally we know for certain that an innocent human life will be extinguished should he not snitch.

Much as he no doubt knew that the smoking-gun would turn into a mushroom cloud if we didn't send American troops to die in Iraq.

I would not let my brother "get away with murder". Although better men than I have advocated this– a la Joseph Conrad's short story "The Secret Sharer". I know some of you have read it. The two characters aren't blood kin, but they do have a personal bond that takes precedence over "the universal moral code."

For another thing… anyone who describes his dealings with his brother or sister or children in terms of "assigning value" to "my genetic relatives" is lower than a dog.

"And by the way, the Army doesn’t shoot deserters any more."

Thanks. After 5 1/2 years of military service I didn't know that.

Note that he did another "sleight of hand", as it's called. Supposing they still did shoot deserters, what THEN?

Consider what sorts of societies have encouraged people to place the universal code ahead of personal bonds.

Even on a practical level, issues should be dealt at the level of the family, the tribe, the local community, etc. wherever possible. Rather than by really, really bright elites who have no personal knowledge of the people involved & the issues at stake.

The "universal moral code" is simply a computer program by which twerps in think-tanks or party headquarters may micromanage society.

It is not a substitute for real intimacy, for real knowledge of what's going on.

The cops don't know about your brother's issues, how he got to be where he is, what he's like– you DO.

YOU are responsible for him– if they must get involved, then YOU have failed him.

Comment by J.D. | December 27, 2006
"Even in the 19th century, you can still see many instances of loyalty to tribe trumping blind obedience to Big Brother."

Or even the 20th.

This is part of the parasitic nature of evil– at best it speaks condescendingly of personal human loyalties, and yet it is utterly dependent upon them.

Without tribal loyalty, who do you think all the neocons could get to fight their Woodrow Wilsonian global crusade for democracy?

Another Pop Quiz:

Soldiers show courage in battle because:

A) They want to serve the universal moral code

or

B) They don't want to let down their buddies in the squad.

Comment by J.D. | December 28, 2006
"If the goal of these various postings was to persuade others to a paleo world view, or at least convince us of the reasonableness of those views, I’m afraid all you have really done for at least a few of us is send us running for the hills…"

Ha ha ha ha!

Look at post #2:

"Knowing that this view of race is central to true paleo thought makes avoidance of that prefix all the more important to me."

Gee, I feel awful bad that I caused nevadamistermom to "run for the hills"– since he was was so open-minded about paleoconservativism and all from the very beginning.

This is useful to establish the goal of Jackson's essay– to make sure that people avoid paleo thought out of fear of being seen as the Other.

"I think Mr. Phillips has generally done the best here of maintaining the high ground in that respect (if anyone is keeping score)."

Trying to imply membership in the Klan, weaselly-imply that mtuggle and Dan Philipps are liars, "legion of little Dehrendorffs", "run for the hills", yes, that's all on the high-ground. If you're a sophist.

"Perhaps this need for paleos to do so stems from their deep-seated sense of tribe and rootedness."

No, it's because the word "conservative" has been co-opted and re-defined by believers in the Enlightenment's "universal moral code", and we need a term to make clear that we are not Weekly Standard zombies who think America is an ideological proposition.

Actually, let's look at that again:

"…running for the hills…"

He is offended because he can't defend his position and we won't let it go. Sorry, I forgot– one truth is good for me, and another truth is good for you.

Let's not get caught up in that nasty old objective truth– somebody's sacred cow might get tipped over.

I think O.R. is right– this is the language of the Left.

If I push a point, rather than defend it they cry "Intolerant!"

Comment by J.D. | December 28, 2006
[sound of crickets chirping]

Comment by Mountain Man | December 28, 2006
JD said,

"Without tribal loyalty, who do you think all the neocons could get to fight their Woodrow Wilsonian global crusade for democracy?"

That brings to mind the example of the Soviet Union in World War II. This most noble of "proposition nations" proclaimed perfect equality, not only among races, but among all classes. But to defeat the Germans, Stalin had to recast the war effort not as a defense of the "ideals" of communism, but as The Great Patriotic War. Stalin even admitted to US envoy Averill Harriman that the Russian people fought "for their homeland, not for us."

Basic human strengths and tendencies must be re-directed by sleight-of-hand, if not by pure fraud, into supporting the insane notions of leftists. What's sad is when they're able to package their agenda as "conservative," such as the Wilsonians, as you mention, and the Neocons have done.

Comment by mtuggle | December 28, 2006
Dear paleos,

If you'll look back to Mr. Phillips' original article and my comments there, you'll actually see that I was quite open-minded about your school of thought since it was new to me. I'm not new to conservatism, but I am new to the idea of various camps within conservatism. Mr. Phillips' article explained to me for the first time what neocons, paleocons, and other conservative genres believe, although I contend that there were certain aspects of paleo thought that were conspicuously absent in that article. Regardless, I have gone on record on several occassions with my posts to that article, and Mr. Jackson's article, that I agree with 80+% of paleo thought, and that I reject most of the pragmatism of neocons. I prefer a more principle-based approach, and that would seem to align me more with paleos than neocons. So that probably puts me somewhere more like 95% agreement with paleos.

But apparently, it is not sufficient to have 80+% agreement, or 90%, or 95%, or even 99.999%. Unless there is 100% acquiescence to every tenet, every dogma, every corollary, and every axiom you are just not fit to call yourself a conservative.

That, gentlemen, is what I call a cult. Not passionate belief. Not enthusiastic conviction. A cult. One that allows no dissention, no debate, no questioning.

In closing, I note that at least a few of you equate my silence on certain topics with an inability to articulate or defend my thoughts. The real reason can be found in Proverbs 26:4.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 28, 2006
One last item to J.D. and OldRepublic,

If you are going to ask questions of me or critique my posts, kindly remember that I am an individual, not to be confused with Mr. Jackson or any of the other non-paleos here. My thoughts are my own, as their thoughts are their own unless I make an explicit point of agreeing with them.

You consistently blend my posts with those of Mr. Jackson into these strange hybrid remarks that are neither mine nor his alone, and then apparently expect me to reply to them.

It's very poor form.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 28, 2006
Dear Paleos,

I made a post earlier, but for some reason it didn't make it to the server. If this is redundant, my apologies…

I've been accused here of being close-minded when it comes to paleo thought. But if you'll look back to Mr. Phillips' original article from a few weeks ago, you'll see that in my comments I am indeed new to the idea of different strains of conservatism. Until Mr. Phillips' article, I didn't know what a neocon was, although it is bandied about regularly by the media, and had never heard of a paleocon.

I have gone on record repeatedly on this site as saying that I probably agree with 80%+ of paleo thought. After reading Mr. Phillips' article, and learning more about the distinctions between the various genres of conservatism, I further went on record as saying that I don't like the pragmatism of the GOP or neocons, and approach life from a principle-based belief system that aligns me in many ways more with the principle-based approach of paleos. So I'm guessing that might actually put me somewhere north of 80% alignment paleos…perhaps 90% or 95%.

But here’s the problem.

It seems that only 100% acquiescence to every tenet, belief, dogma, axiom, and corollary of paleo thought allows me to dare call myself a conservative. If I question any of them, I have been polluted with leftist thoughts, leftist methods, and leftist reasoning.

Whenever I encounter a belief system that cannot distinguish between essential beliefs and peripheral beliefs, I have a name for it: A cult.

So in closing, don’t confuse my silence on certain topics as an inability to articulate or defend my beliefs. There’s a much simpler answer. It’s found in Proverbs 26:4.

Comment by nevadamistermom | December 28, 2006
In the Ryn article that Old Republic linked to is this statement:

"The Jacobin is not interested in diversity, only in imposing his blueprint."

I think that comes as close as anything I can think of to summarize paleo thought onto a bumper sticker. It was Edmund Burke who enunciated the conservative viewpoint as respecting and cherishing organic order as the hand of God in men's affairs. The hubris of the Enlightenment made certain men believe they could create a better world. The Jacobins were the first to realize that to implement their blueprint, they first had to destroy the traditional order. It ended up a bloody mess, as Burke predicted.

The truth is that tradition is the accumulation of experience from countless generations, and therefore reflects human nature better than any contrived blueprint.

Comment by mtuggle | December 29, 2006
"Whenever I encounter a belief system that cannot distinguish between essential beliefs and peripheral beliefs, I have a name for it: A cult. "

This is a good point; and also good to have a definition for the term. As to the admittedly polemical tendency of paleos, keep in mind that whenever paleoconservativism comes up in a forum like this, it is always with these sorts of serpentine, indefensible insinuations like of "Hmmmm… maybe they're racists, maybe not." The National Review never tires of hatchet-jobs labelling paleos as "unpatriotic conservatives" and "defeatists" for being opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

I understand your aggravation about orthodoxy & dogmatism. From our POV, the Republican Establishment acts as if Iraq is a litmus test for deciding who or who is not a "true conservative". Either agree with the Party line on the matter– or you are dubbed a bleeding-heart liberal pacifist.

Constant treatment like that tends to make one somewhat defensive and more than a little prickly.

I've frequently been called a "liberal" myself– as well as a "traitor"– because I believe the invasion of Iraq was a strategic and moral mistake.

This is, as I mentioned, after my having spent several years in the military, a half-year of which included a deployment to the Persian Gulf.

It's a little hard to speak softly when you are constantly being whacked with a big stick.

Anyhow, I can only reiterate that the whole point of this little article by the doctor is to establish an orthodoxy of his own– either you accept "the universal moral code"— or you are labeled "racist" and cast by Grand Inquisitor Jackson into the outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Comment by J.D. | December 29, 2006
"The hubris of the Enlightenment made certain men believe they could create a better world. The Jacobins were the first to realize that to implement their blueprint, they first had to destroy the traditional order."

The conservative aims to preserve and (very slowly , very carefully) perfect tradition.

The Enlightenment thinker aims to replace tradition with a rational system, an algorithm.

We can see the results of the latter all around us.

Mtuggle, have you ever read the novel "Demons", by Dostoevsky? While naturally I think it is important to focus on Burke's philosophical critique of "Rationalism", it broadens the perspective by considering the Russian experience of the matter, and from a literary perspective.

Dostoevsky predicted the insanity of the Bolsheviks to a T– and pinned the cause on the "enlightened rationalism" in which Bolshevism gestated. He compared the "inspiration" of enlightenment ideals as akin to demonic possession– and interestingly enough that novel is the source of the term "fire in the minds of men."

Comment by J.D. | December 29, 2006
No, I never read Demons, but do recall an op-ed about how Bush (or his speechwriter) had borrowed that very un-conservative phrase from Dostoevsky. Imagine how Dostoevsky would feel if he learned that someone used his denunciation of radicalism as a positive statement!

But then, consider how Madison would feel about how the Constitution is mis-read today.

Comment by mtuggle | December 29, 2006
I agree with Old Republic's recommendation of the Morality of Everyday Life. I suspect Phil’s nemesis he is arguing against by promoting a "Universal Moral Code" is moral relativism, but those two are not the only options. Someone once commented to me that they had never met a real moral relativists. That the “moral relativists” they had met were all “rights based absolutists” insisting on “freedom of conscious” or “freedom of choice.” In some cases this is perhaps accompanied by an unwillingness to condemn. The only people I have ever met who approach being moral relativists are young, green college kids fresh out of philosophy 101. I think a bigger problem these days is too much moral certainty, but moral certainty that is wrong.

I have found that Christians are easily swayed by “universal moral code” arguments. This is unfortunate. Christianity asserts that it is the universal way of salvation and it asserts certain non-negotiable moral norms such as the prohibition against fornication, but it is not universalistic in the manner that some believe. It does not mandate a universal social order or necessarily require that all traditions and customs be overturned. (As an aside, Islam is universalistic, hence the drive to dominate and convert or else.) I probably would not go as far as Dr. Fleming does, as he has a more Catholic understanding of certain things than I, a Protestant, do, but his book is a good anecdote to the appeal of the “universal moral code.”

Can I poke another hornet’s nest? I am not as comfortable as some at drawing the line of American conservatism back to Burke. There are many reasons for this that would be great fodder for several essays. But if the conservative beef is with Locke then why not embrace someone who is more clearly an anti-Lockean. Filmer for sure or too some extent Hume. A more recent American example would be Dabney.

Open to discussion re. Burke and the virtues and draw-backs of Filmer.

I also agree with J.D. that moral lessons are often best explained and taught in narrative and not in text books. Narrative allows for the emotional component of right and wrong not just the head component. In narrative it is easier to demonstrate for example why the intuitive revulsion to “snitching” that we all feel, especially us males and even more especially us Southern males, is protective of society and the established order not a danger to it.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 29, 2006
I know the op-ed you're talking about– it's in American Conservative, and is sort of a quasi-review of the book The Origins of the Revolutionary Faith.

The book's premise (TOOTRF, not Demons) is that revolutionaries (like neocons and Bush's democratic crusaders) regard the American War for Independence as having been not a war for independence at all, but rather a remaking of society and a reinvention of human nature — akin to what would later take be attempted in France.

As to Dostoevsky, he would probably have some dour Russian saying on the matter.

BTW, I don't agree with him on everything, of course– he was extreeemely phobic regarding Western Europe. But then again, in his time all the fashionable avante-garde Russians were falling all over themselves to espouse the latest and greatest from an increasingly rationalist and universalist West, and he obviously had a premonition of what that sycophancy would shortly lead to– so one can hardly blame him.

He was one of those xenophobic bigots who thought the Russian people should nurture & cherish their own identity & heritage (grin). Too bad he was hung up in his prejudices, or he could have written something worthwhile, like an essay on the universal moral code.

Instead of, oh … say, Crime and Punishment.

Comment by J.D. | December 29, 2006
"In narrative it is easier to demonstrate for example why the intuitive revulsion to “snitching” that we all feel, especially us males and even more especially us Southern males, is protective of society and the established order not a danger to it."

Right. The film Scent of a Woman is a good modern example– the protagonist at a prep school refuses to snitch on his classmates, while the school's dean gives him a two-pronged attack: A) Snitching is the "honorable" thing to do, in accord with the Baird code of conduct, and B) Snitching would serve his own interests.

Pacino's speech at the climax of that film is beautiful.

The play Antigone by the Greek poet Sophocles is another example. Antigone's brother betrays the city of Thebes, and so Creon, king of Thebes, orders that the brother's body be left outside the city's walls to be defiled by the vultures and dogs. Allowing his body to be defiled like this will "serve the greater good" by providing an example for any future would-be traitors, thinks the king. And so anyone who attempts to bury him will be executed.

Antigone defies this order, and buries her brother. The tragedy pits Creon's megalomania & delusions of godhood against Antigone's passionate devotion to her kin, as well as to her respect for the traditions of the Greek belief system which did not allow for leaving kin to rot in the open without a decent burial.

"Filmer for sure or too some extent Hume."

Although Hume is problematic in many ways, I'mmore familiar with him than Filmer and I think he does say a lot of good things. His skepticism towards the ability of human reason to supplant tradition is certainly valid, although he goes pretty nearly toward discounting rational inquiry into reality altogether. He was supportive of the monarchy during the English Civil War, as I recall.

"I suspect Phil’s nemesis he is arguing against by promoting a “Universal Moral Code” is moral relativism, but those two are not the only options… I have found that Christians are easily swayed by “universal moral code” arguments. This is unfortunate.

Very good point. My own view is that the spiritual/intellectual blight we are confronting could be seen as Binary-Think. A series of EITHER-ORs…. the oversimplified pseudothinking of a machine.

I get the impression Jackson does not regard it possible that I can possibly recognize as significant BOTH A) A man's ethnic heritage and cultural identity and B) What the man does. It's EITHER A) or B), to Jackson.

Per Jackson's simplification, either I care that a man is my brother OR I care about his behavior.

BOTH is… inconceivable. Per Binarythink, I can't POSSIBLY regard my bond to my brother as something having real consequences in the real world– unless I am the sort of the guy to stand on the sidelines and twiddle my thumbs whilst my brother sets up an opium den by which to kill Tiny Tim.

In reality, of course, it's the other way round. The fact that a man is my kin makes me MORE concerned about his behavior, rather than less so.

Or, per binarythink, EITHER I regard my grandfather as "superior" to other human beings by "assigning a higher value" to him (Good Lord, was Jackson hatched from a pod?) OR I accept that per the universal moral code we're all just abstract undifferentiated atoms, and hence the grandfather-grandson relationship is utterly superficial.

That I view my grandfather as simultaneously a human being AND my grandfather to whom I have obligations is… inconceivable!

(Somehow I am starting to get the image of Jackson as the little bald Sicilian criminal from The Princess Bride.)

The problem with the universal moral code from a Catholic viewpoint is that it attempts to render all human relations faceless and anonymous. I once taught a seminar for a Jewish senior citizens' group.

An analogy is the feminist attitude toward the question of gender: EITHER you view women as subhumans, OR you view differences of gender as utterly superficial.

Comment by J.D. | December 30, 2006
Add this to the John Jay quote:

"Democracy has always emerged in distinct communities; there is no record anywhere of free, unconnected, and calculating individuals coming together spontaneously to form a democratic social contract ex nihilo. Whether we like it or not, nationalism is the historical force that has provided the political units for democratic government. 'Nation' is another name for 'we the people'."

Ghia Nodia, University of Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia

And let's not forget that the mighty Soviet Union was brought down by culturally based political movements that led to secession. They resisted Soviet rule not in the name of any universal code, but for the independence and well-being of their respective ethnic group. Blood is thicker than ideology.

Comment by mtuggle | December 30, 2006
"The problem with the universal moral code from a Catholic viewpoint is that it attempts to render all human relations faceless and anonymous. I once taught a seminar for a Jewish senior citizens’ group."

Woops, I forgot to complete my thought on this. Mtuggle, your point about the critical value of a people's solidarity in the face of oppression is very apropos.

My point was that I think that I would have gotten along very poorly with the Jewish students of my seminar group — had I been insensitive to their cultural background, and insensitive to their heritage as Jews.

The "view every man as a culture-less abstraction" approach of Dr. Jackson's universal moral code would demand that when I engage with Jewish folks, I utterly dismiss from my mind the fact of the Holocaust — and that I act as if the Jewish people have had no history of suffering, tribulation, and triumph.

Indeed, Jackson's universal-moral-code demands that I pretend as if the Jewish people simply do not exist as a people — that to be Jewish means nothing of importance.

This hostility toward tribalism goes all the way back to the hostility leveled against the Tribe, I think, yes?

The Jewish people were often resented for holding fast to their own customs and ways, yes?

And they were condemned by the Dr. Jacksons of their day, for acting as if their ethnicity was an essential part of their identity, yes?

Hmmm….

Now, I'm not saying Dr. Jackson himself is an anti-semite– but there are definitely anti-semitic strains implied in some of his ideas …

Comment by J.D. | December 30, 2006
… I mean, I suppose we may take it that he condemns the Israeli government for being partial to Jews, right?

Comment by J.D. | December 30, 2006
(grin)

Comment by J.D. | December 30, 2006
Although it is a serious point, smart-alecking aside — the logic of Jackson's calculus would declare that the state of Israel has no right to exist.

And I'M the one who has to worry about being seen as intolerant.

Comment by J.D. | December 30, 2006
All,

I'll write an article on the pros and cons of Filmer and another article on the issues I have with Burke.

RESPECT FILMER. He was anti-Locke before anti-Locke was cool.

Comment by Dan Phillips | December 30, 2006
In anticipation of Phil returning to this thread after New Years, I post this.

Phil, my objection to the term racism is clear, but I don't think you answered my question. I will give you credit for trying. The objection is not just to the term, but to the PC laden definition. So replacing it with another term that still has the PC laden definition doesn't help. I say the word should be thrown out of conservative’s vocabulary, but barring that rosy scenario, if it is going to be used it should only mean hate. You clearly do not agree with that. So what do you think the word racism means? Do you agree with the modern dictionary definition? If not what part of the modern definition do you object to? How has the dictionary definition changed over time? Do you agree with the change?

In anticipation of objections, this is not being evasive or dodging the issue. How racism is defined is an essential issue? For example, is it “racist” to consider race when making certain decisions such as where to live, where to send the kids to school, where to go to church, etc.? Another example, is the well documented phenomenon of “white flight” inherently racist? It puzzles me a little bit that you ask for objective evidence that people tend to associate with their own. Doesn’t just looking around a little provide ample evidence? Look at the re-segregation of schools. Look at neighborhoods, and the well documented “other side of the tracks” phenomenon. Look at church on Sunday. These things do not happen by chance. They are clearly the result of people making conscious decisions based at least partially on race. Are all those people and all those decisions inherently racist?

If you say yes, then can’t you see how adopting this leftist definition plays into the hands of the left? The left constantly tells us that America is a society where racism is ubiquitous, and the obvious inequality of results that we see is the result of this systemic societal racism. Well, if the things above (and I could give many more examples) are racist then how can you object to the leftist characterization? If “white flight,” for example, is racist then the leftists are clearly right. We are all a bunch of racists. However, if people in America are behaving just as people have always behaved throughout history, then we are not racists. We are just human.

A question that is very important to this discussion on paleoconservatism is, “Is rejecting proposition nation thinking inherently racist?” Many think it is. That is why I said paleos can’t flatly reject the modern connotation of the word racism because many believe that a core part of paleo philosophy (as J.D pointed out it would be better characterized as the rejection of philosophy in favor of tradition, history, nature, Revelation, etc.) is inherently racist. Do you believe that?

Now you have already said that you don’t care what people think privately or how they behave privately, but that should not be reflected in the law? Fair enough. But current law is not neutral toward private behavior. Private discrimination is against the law. So would you be comfortable with the libertarian position on civil rights? Banning active government discrimination, but allowing private discrimination?

Here is my unsolicited two cents on how you should proceed. Instead of writing columns and posts implying that paleoconservatism attracts racists however you chose to define that, why not write a column defending proposition nation thinking? If you think rejecting proposition nation thinking is inherently racist then so argue. Also, since you are better educated in political science theory than I am, please trace modern proposition nation thinking (and the related ideas of American exceptionalism, color-blindness, etc.) back to the French Revolution, the primordial left/right distinction, and demonstrate how they belong on the right. If they actually belong on the left, then admit that and defend why you as a modern conservative support some leftist ideas. The fact that they are from the left does not inherently discredit them. As an American I am not defending absolute monarchy, even though I like Filmer for other reasons, and I agree with limited popular consent. So I accept some liberal ideas as good. But I do believe we need truth in labeling.

I intend to write a column defending the rejection of proposition nation dogma. I think all here would agree that that sort of debate would be very helpful in making distinctions and finding similarities between paleoconservatism and neo/mainstream conservatism.

Comment by Dan Phillips | January 1, 2007
Well, it looks like the paleos have been busy these past few days talking to themselves. And what a conversation it was!

Not only do they reject the notion that all men are equal in favor of assigning racial superiority to their own “tribe”, they reject the notion that there is a God-based universal moral code. The proposition that it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life — any life, not just a fellow clansman’s life — becomes a multicultural trap to deny the superiority of Western civilization and shoot military deserters. And further, in a twist of logic that only a paleo could appreciate, supporting this notion makes one an anti-Semite — even though my original essay discussing this universal moral code (“What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”) also focused on the rationalizations of Islamo-fascists to deny Jews their humanity so as to justify their slaughter.

Nothing illustrates the moral bankruptcy paleo thought better than to just sit back and allow the paleos to tell us who and what they really are, particularly as it relates to their true position on race. Through direct statements and deliberate omissions, the paleos have told us everything we need to know about them. The only question that remains is, why do they feel the need to do this by hiding their opinions instead of expressing them forthrightly?

I came across another conversation about paleos and race posted by Lawrence Auster that helps shed a lot of light on this subject. The question is asked: “Why should the paleos be terrified of being called racist? They’re not terrified of being called Israel haters.”

The answer is found in the very essence of paleoconservative thought. “To defend ‘white America’ is to defend a larger American identity that 200 million European Americans would potentially belong to. But paleos are against any larger American identity. A larger American identity would mean an American nation. The paleos are against the American nation. It was the American nation that the ‘bloodthirsty tyrant’ Lincoln defended/created and that the heroic South sought to dismember. The paleocon idea is to undo the work of Lincoln. Belief in a white America—in an American nation—stands in the way of that.”

Auster continues: “For most paleos race issues are the third rail. The liberals and neocons would finish them off, or so paleos tell me, if they even touch the race question. … However, it occurs to me that another possible factor in their silence on race is that they don’t know how to talk about sensitive subjects like this other than in a rancorous, menacing way. Inchoately realizing that they don’t have the ability to discuss race in a civilized and rational manner, and that they would be harshly attacked if they did discuss it, they stay away from it.”

Remember, this entire conversation began 4 months ago in “Off to the Races: the Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness”, where I condemned the Left for using race as a political weapon, only to be told by paleoconservatives that “race matters”, and more importantly, the white race is the superior race. I’ve tried to determine whether this thinking represents an aberration or mainstream paleo thought. Dan Philips has confirmed that it is in fact a mainstream paleo belief (comment 122).

What the paleos resent is not the belief in white supremacy, but the fact that it is spoken of so directly. They prefer to keep the conversation at a higher level of “tradition”, “tribe”, and “kith and kin” where they can talk about a universal love for one’s own family that everyone shares and can identify with. But this is not policy. To use JD’s own example, believing that anyone outside your tribe is an enemy (this includes the police), and acting accordingly by allowing your kin to continue selling drugs to schoolchildren until you’ve had a talk with them, is policy.

And, if your powers of persuasion are not sufficient to quickly and permanently stop this harmful activity, or the relative in question lives in a different city or state and you or other tribe members don’t have ready access to him, you keep that knowledge to yourself and allow the destructive activity to continue until the tribe, ultimately, handles it internally. Injury to fellow U.S. citizen but non-tribe members is not the focus of paleo policy; promoting the common good of the clan is.

As to Dan’s latest questions, we have another shining example of paleo logic at work. He can’t respond to any of my queries because it would violate his self-imposed paleo-code to do so, but somehow everyone else is expected to answer his questions. It’s a fruitless exercise, but an illustrative one in that it exposes the shallowness of their ideas. Their beliefs can’t hold up to public scrutiny. Questions are met with gratuitous insults designed to deflect the issue instead of address it, or in this case, with other questions that must first be answered before the paleos will again avoid answering mine.

By the way, for those of you keeping track, by asking paleos to explain why “race matters” and why white people would be fools not to believe that they are superior to other races, their basic position has boiled down to this. They can’t answer the question because it is a “Leftist trap” using the wrong word. And for posing the question I must therefore be a Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, Neocon, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, anti-Semitic, New Age Hippster.

Follow these people at your own risk.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 11, 2007
Phil, you made one of our points for us, but I'm not sure you realize it. Lawrence Auster is a white nationalist of sorts. He doesn't like paleos because they DON'T FOCUS ENOUGH ON RACE. Instead they focus on regional differences, like the South, for example. Paleos consider modern nationalism an ideological construct and hence artificial and potentially of the left. That is why many white nationalist don’t like paleos and many like Lincoln. Because he “saved the Union.” On the question of nationalism the white nationalists and the neos have more in common than do white nationalists and paleos. Perhaps you should do a little research. What is the difference between a paleo, a white nationalist, and a “racial realist?” And please defend proposition nation dogma and prove to me, with reference to the French Revolution, how it is not a leftist concept.

Comment by Dan Phillips | January 12, 2007
As I said before, discussions of paleoconservatism seems to attract white supremacists, even those "of sorts". And he was candid enough to explain why paleos can't deal honestly with the issue of race, which is why I quoted him.

By the way, thanks for the new term to put a happier face on paleo-racism: "racial realist". It does the same thing that "Ethnic Cleansing" did for "The Final Solution" — makes it politically acceptable to extremists and ideologues.

For the rest of us though, it still stinks.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2007
Phil, Auster is not a paleo airing paleo dirty laundry. He is a nationalist, outside of paleo circles, criticizing paleos for not being willing to talk enough about or focus enough on race. Auster is very straight forward in his criticism of paleos. You seem to be missing that point.

Comment by Dan Phillips | January 12, 2007
Dan: And you seem to be missing the point that regardless of who or what Auster is, his comments about why paleos will not forthrightly address the issue of race is right on the mark. "… they don’t know how to talk about sensitive subjects like this other than in a rancorous, menacing way. Inchoately realizing that they don’t have the ability to discuss race in a civilized and rational manner, and that they would be harshly attacked if they did discuss it. …"

I see you've been busy spreading paleo-good will in other posts to other articles of mine. Why am I not surprised that you're not attracting many new converts to your point of view, other than those I previously mentioned from the white nationalist websites.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2007
Popularity is not a measure of right. It is very easy to echo the party line. It is harder to stray from it.

Comment by Dan Phillips | January 13, 2007
NOTE: This discussion has now moved to my January 24, 2007 essay "The President is an Idiot".

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a comment

IC Blog

Recent Comments

Rachel Alexander on Twitter

Site info