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.
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?
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.
Excellent!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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?”
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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?
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.