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.
Apropos of nothing, and with deepest, profoundest apologies for going off-topic (just what is the topic?) … has anyone ever seen Phillip Ellis Jackson and John Podhoretz in the same room together?
By the way, re-reading your comment that “It is only with the rise of PC multiculturalism that this inherent tendency has been brow beaten out of people,” I believe we now have a second answer from you.
You do think that white people WOULD, in fact, be fools not to believe their race is superior. You’re convinced that every other colored skin person thinks they are superior, so whites should too. [This is consistent with the additional paleo-logic I quoted before Nick’s observations: Asians think they are superior so a race war is coming, etc.]
You hedge a bit by saying that “superior” might be something benign, like they are superior typists I suppose, but somehow I don’t think the paleos making this statement mean it in “different ways” as you posited. I think, like your supporter Ariel suggested, that they believe that whites are superior genetically to other races.
So we now know that when “true conservatism” (meaning “paleoconservatism”), speaks about kith and kin, and tribes and loyalty, they are speaking about restoring the state of white racial superiority that characterized earlier times.
I won’t provoke you by assigning a neo-Marxist phrase to describe this. In fact, I see no need to characterize it at all. I asked for clarity on this issue, and I have now received it. This is some of what it means to be a practicing paleo once we get past abstract theory. Now others can decide if it suits their notion of how we should live our lives.
“I find it more than a little curious that Dan’s Phillip’s computer was mysteriously fixed mere seconds after I said I wanted to spend some holiday time with my family for the next few days.”
The difference between myself & Dr. Jackson is that if I wanted to call Dan a liar, I would simply say, “Dan, I think you are a liar,” in much the same form in which I said, “Dr. Jackson is a bootlick.”
Rather than, say, weasel around with “I find it a little curious…”
“It doesn’t matter what a fellow tribe member does, whether they act morally or immorally, do or say something despicable or admirable. If they are a member of the tribe, you defend them, period.”
So if you caught your brother selling drugs, you would turn him in to the cops?
“Someone said paleoconservatism was a cult, not a philosophy. This is a pretty clear indication that there’s a lot of truth to that observation.”
Well, you could take a cue from Richard Dawkins and accuse us of being infected by a virulent “meme”… it would be about as meaningful a debunking.
Nick! Good to have you back! Your ears must have been burning, as my mom used to say when someone was just talking about you. Your mother probably said the same thing too, but was commenting about you getting too close to that flaming cross.
Unless Dan has anything more to say on this topic before I shut down tonight, I’m going back to my own kith, kin and tribe for the next couple of days so Nick can continue speculating uninterruptedly about my education, writing style, or whatever other issues he finds necessary to avoid talking about the essay I wrote. And no need to apologize for your comments. So far no paleo has.
“In fact, I see no need to characterize it at all. I asked for clarity on this issue, and I have now received it.”
Ha ha ha ha ha!!
Oh, nice try, but nooooo doc. You dooooon’t get to have the last and definitive word. Your “clarity” is worth about as much as that of the ding-a-lings who knew, just knew, that Saddam had weapons-of-mass destruction.
I can keep going till your little CPU shoots sparks and smoke out.
I had to take a break, I was watching McQueen’s “Bullit” (great movie) so I’m a little behind on all the fun and adventure.
Standby all…
“So if you caught your brother selling drugs, you would turn him in to the cops?”
Not if I was a paleo, apparently. I’d just let him destroy other people’s lives to make a fast buck because, well, they’re not a member of my tribe! We now have another great illustration of paleoconservatism in practice.
I wrote an essay not too long ago about the universal moral code that says it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent human life. It didn’t say “white” life, or my “tribe’s” life. Apparently if you are a paleo in good standing, the only lives of any value are those of your Klan.
Finally, after 4 months and 120+ comments, we’re getting away from abstract paleo thought and seeing how paleoconservatism plays out in practice.
Thanks again JD for coming through in the clutch!
“Not if I was a paleo, apparently. I’d just let him destroy other people’s lives to make a fast buck because, well, they’re not a member of my tribe!”
You didn’t answer my question, Comrade Doctor. All you did was try to insert words into my mouth, vis-a-vis my response.
Actually, what Iiiiii would do is get some of my cousins and sit my brother down for a little talk, which would possibly include an ass-whipping.
But that’s just the primitive tribalist solution to things– solve problems at the lowest level possible, and try to handle things within the family, or the unit, or the ship, or the office, etc., whenever possible.
“I wrote an essay not too long ago…”
And how thrilling that must have been for you.
“… about the universal moral code that says it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent human life.”
Well, you could knock me over with a feather.
So you’re cool with turning American troops over to international war crimes tribunals, right?
Woops! You sly devil, you still didn’t answer my question!
Would you turn your brother over to the cops if you caught him selling drugs?
Or… would you turn your brother over to be shot, if you caught him deserting from the Army?
“And no need to apologize for your comments. So far no paleo has.”
Nor will I. You remind me of Grima Wormtongue from Tolkein.
Yes JD, if my brother was selling harmful drugs to schoolchildren, I’d turn him in to save an innocent human life. I’m not a paleo. I don’t assign more value to my genetic relatives than I would say, to you.
And by the way, the Army doesn’t shoot deserters any more.
That’s it for me. Back in 2007. If Dan posts something he wants me to comment on that appears after I send this message, he can drop me another email
“Yes JD, if my brother was selling harmful drugs to schoolchildren, I’d turn him in to save an innocent human life.”
See, now I’d get my other brother and some cousins together, and give my drug-dealing brother a thumping. That is the paleo solution. I am responsible for my drug-dealing brother, and my responsibility to straighten him out precedes that of the State.
Mountain Man, Nevadamistermom, etc….
Consider this guy, who wrote this great “expose” of paleoconservativism. He spent a great deal of time fawning all over me and telling me how impressed he was about my taking a stand against racism.
Now, bang-O, because I say I wouldn’t hand my own brother over to the cops, all of that “respect” (respect like that I can do without) he insinuates that I am, of necessity, a Klansman.
Now, you might think my attitude wrong– but does saying, “I wouldn’t turn my own flesh-and-blood over to the cops,” justify calling me a racist?
What would you think of a mother who didn’t turn in her own son for selling weed?
That she is a Klanswoman?
That she needs to be re-educated?
That she needs to read Dr. Jackson’s fine essay on “the universal moral code”?
If a problem (like drug-dealing or anything else) gets beyond the level of the family, or the tribe, or the military squad, or the ship, and has to be resolved by higher authority– such as the State– then that means there has been a failure somewhere.
The family is the font of the values of the society, not the other way around.
And the society is most certainly NOT based on some calculated universal moral code of Kant, of Rousseau, of Descartes, of Hegel– or of the illustrious Phil Jackson of the University of Chicago.
“I don’t assign more value to my genetic relatives than I would say, to you.”
So I guess this means the good doctor is going to add me onto his will!!
Cool.
On one side we have Dr. Jackson’s universal moral code– a microwaved version of the Enlightenment regulations concocted by really-smart-intellectuals who got us to where we are today. The universal moral code always decays into liberalism.
On the other side we have Charity, which begins at home.
I realize I can be as sarcastic as the best of them, and it often detracts from the dialog rather than adds to it. I think Mr. Phillips has generally done the best here of maintaining the high ground in that respect (if anyone is keeping score).
So setting all sarcasm aside…
I must agree with Mountain Man’s use of the word “cultish.” I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that paleo thought, as least as it has been espoused by several of those posting here, is far more like a cult than simply one end in the spectrum of conservative thought. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a cult is that its practitioners never regard themselves as being in the continuum of anything. There is their way…and there is apostacy. No in-between.
I’m not sure what I expected in the way of dialog here, but I can tell you the one thing I never expected as a conservative having a dialog with a group of other self-professed conservatives: to be called a leftist. That pronouncement alone tells me much about how paleos view themselves. Far more, for example, than the 8 pages JD saw fit to pen for post #75.
If the goal of these various postings was to persuade others to a paleo world view, or at least convince us of the reasonableness of those views, I’m afraid all you have really done for at least a few of us is send us running for the hills, as Mr. Jackson suggested in the first sentence on this page. Perhaps I’m depriving myself of some very good thinkers by wanting to distance myself from paleo practitioners and paleo publications. But it’s a price I’m willing to pay at this point.
I have never been, and will never be, a neo-conservative, a centrist, and certainly not a leftist. I’m simply a conservative and don’t feel a compelling need to align with some sub-genre in order to have a political or intellectual identity. Perhaps this need for paleos to do so stems from their deep-seated sense of tribe and rootedness.
I do strenuoulsy take issue with the contention that all other variations of conservatism are merely shades of liberalism. Regardless of who penned it, the statement is just as absurd as suggesting that everything to the right of Ted Kennedy is simply a varying shade of conservatism.
One last post before bed.
For one thing, note that Dr. Jackson had to turn it into “selling drugs to schoolchildren”, and that naturally we know for certain that an innocent human life will be extinguished should he not snitch.
Much as he no doubt knew that the smoking-gun would turn into a mushroom cloud if we didn’t send American troops to die in Iraq.
I would not let my brother “get away with murder”. Although better men than I have advocated this– a la Joseph Conrad’s short story “The Secret Sharer”. I know some of you have read it. The two characters aren’t blood kin, but they do have a personal bond that takes precedence over “the universal moral code.”
For another thing… anyone who describes his dealings with his brother or sister or children in terms of “assigning value” to “my genetic relatives” is lower than a dog.
“And by the way, the Army doesn’t shoot deserters any more.”
Thanks. After 5 1/2 years of military service I didn’t know that.
Note that he did another “sleight of hand”, as it’s called. Supposing they still did shoot deserters, what THEN?
Consider what sorts of societies have encouraged people to place the universal code ahead of personal bonds.
Even on a practical level, issues should be dealt at the level of the family, the tribe, the local community, etc. wherever possible. Rather than by really, really bright elites who have no personal knowledge of the people involved & the issues at stake.
The “universal moral code” is simply a computer program by which twerps in think-tanks or party headquarters may micromanage society.
It is not a substitute for real intimacy, for real knowledge of what’s going on.
The cops don’t know about your brother’s issues, how he got to be where he is, what he’s like– you DO.
YOU are responsible for him– if they must get involved, then YOU have failed him.
“Even in the 19th century, you can still see many instances of loyalty to tribe trumping blind obedience to Big Brother.”
Or even the 20th.
This is part of the parasitic nature of evil– at best it speaks condescendingly of personal human loyalties, and yet it is utterly dependent upon them.
Without tribal loyalty, who do you think all the neocons could get to fight their Woodrow Wilsonian global crusade for democracy?
Another Pop Quiz:
Soldiers show courage in battle because:
A) They want to serve the universal moral code
or
B) They don’t want to let down their buddies in the squad.
“If the goal of these various postings was to persuade others to a paleo world view, or at least convince us of the reasonableness of those views, I’m afraid all you have really done for at least a few of us is send us running for the hills…”
Ha ha ha ha!
Look at post #2:
“Knowing that this view of race is central to true paleo thought makes avoidance of that prefix all the more important to me.”
Gee, I feel awful bad that I caused nevadamistermom to “run for the hills”– since he was was so open-minded about paleoconservativism and all from the very beginning.
This is useful to establish the goal of Jackson’s essay– to make sure that people avoid paleo thought out of fear of being seen as the Other.
“I think Mr. Phillips has generally done the best here of maintaining the high ground in that respect (if anyone is keeping score).”
Trying to imply membership in the Klan, weaselly-imply that mtuggle and Dan Philipps are liars, “legion of little Dehrendorffs”, “run for the hills”, yes, that’s all on the high-ground. If you’re a sophist.
“Perhaps this need for paleos to do so stems from their deep-seated sense of tribe and rootedness.”
No, it’s because the word “conservative” has been co-opted and re-defined by believers in the Enlightenment’s “universal moral code”, and we need a term to make clear that we are not Weekly Standard zombies who think America is an ideological proposition.
Actually, let’s look at that again:
“…running for the hills…”
He is offended because he can’t defend his position and we won’t let it go. Sorry, I forgot– one truth is good for me, and another truth is good for you.
Let’s not get caught up in that nasty old objective truth– somebody’s sacred cow might get tipped over.
I think O.R. is right– this is the language of the Left.
If I push a point, rather than defend it they cry “Intolerant!”
[sound of crickets chirping]
JD said,
“Without tribal loyalty, who do you think all the neocons could get to fight their Woodrow Wilsonian global crusade for democracy?”
That brings to mind the example of the Soviet Union in World War II. This most noble of “proposition nations” proclaimed perfect equality, not only among races, but among all classes. But to defeat the Germans, Stalin had to recast the war effort not as a defense of the “ideals” of communism, but as The Great Patriotic War. Stalin even admitted to US envoy Averill Harriman that the Russian people fought “for their homeland, not for us.”
Basic human strengths and tendencies must be re-directed by sleight-of-hand, if not by pure fraud, into supporting the insane notions of leftists. What’s sad is when they’re able to package their agenda as “conservative,” such as the Wilsonians, as you mention, and the Neocons have done.
Dear paleos,
If you’ll look back to Mr. Phillips’ original article and my comments there, you’ll actually see that I was quite open-minded about your school of thought since it was new to me. I’m not new to conservatism, but I am new to the idea of various camps within conservatism. Mr. Phillips’ article explained to me for the first time what neocons, paleocons, and other conservative genres believe, although I contend that there were certain aspects of paleo thought that were conspicuously absent in that article. Regardless, I have gone on record on several occassions with my posts to that article, and Mr. Jackson’s article, that I agree with 80+% of paleo thought, and that I reject most of the pragmatism of neocons. I prefer a more principle-based approach, and that would seem to align me more with paleos than neocons. So that probably puts me somewhere more like 95% agreement with paleos.
But apparently, it is not sufficient to have 80+% agreement, or 90%, or 95%, or even 99.999%. Unless there is 100% acquiescence to every tenet, every dogma, every corollary, and every axiom you are just not fit to call yourself a conservative.
That, gentlemen, is what I call a cult. Not passionate belief. Not enthusiastic conviction. A cult. One that allows no dissention, no debate, no questioning.
In closing, I note that at least a few of you equate my silence on certain topics with an inability to articulate or defend my thoughts. The real reason can be found in Proverbs 26:4.
One last item to J.D. and OldRepublic,
If you are going to ask questions of me or critique my posts, kindly remember that I am an individual, not to be confused with Mr. Jackson or any of the other non-paleos here. My thoughts are my own, as their thoughts are their own unless I make an explicit point of agreeing with them.
You consistently blend my posts with those of Mr. Jackson into these strange hybrid remarks that are neither mine nor his alone, and then apparently expect me to reply to them.
It’s very poor form.
Dear Paleos,
I made a post earlier, but for some reason it didn’t make it to the server. If this is redundant, my apologies…
I’ve been accused here of being close-minded when it comes to paleo thought. But if you’ll look back to Mr. Phillips’ original article from a few weeks ago, you’ll see that in my comments I am indeed new to the idea of different strains of conservatism. Until Mr. Phillips’ article, I didn’t know what a neocon was, although it is bandied about regularly by the media, and had never heard of a paleocon.
I have gone on record repeatedly on this site as saying that I probably agree with 80%+ of paleo thought. After reading Mr. Phillips’ article, and learning more about the distinctions between the various genres of conservatism, I further went on record as saying that I don’t like the pragmatism of the GOP or neocons, and approach life from a principle-based belief system that aligns me in many ways more with the principle-based approach of paleos. So I’m guessing that might actually put me somewhere north of 80% alignment paleos…perhaps 90% or 95%.
But here’s the problem.
It seems that only 100% acquiescence to every tenet, belief, dogma, axiom, and corollary of paleo thought allows me to dare call myself a conservative. If I question any of them, I have been polluted with leftist thoughts, leftist methods, and leftist reasoning.
Whenever I encounter a belief system that cannot distinguish between essential beliefs and peripheral beliefs, I have a name for it: A cult.
So in closing, don’t confuse my silence on certain topics as an inability to articulate or defend my beliefs. There’s a much simpler answer. It’s found in Proverbs 26:4.
In the Ryn article that Old Republic linked to is this statement:
“The Jacobin is not interested in diversity, only in imposing his blueprint.”
I think that comes as close as anything I can think of to summarize paleo thought onto a bumper sticker. It was Edmund Burke who enunciated the conservative viewpoint as respecting and cherishing organic order as the hand of God in men’s affairs. The hubris of the Enlightenment made certain men believe they could create a better world. The Jacobins were the first to realize that to implement their blueprint, they first had to destroy the traditional order. It ended up a bloody mess, as Burke predicted.
The truth is that tradition is the accumulation of experience from countless generations, and therefore reflects human nature better than any contrived blueprint.
“Whenever I encounter a belief system that cannot distinguish between essential beliefs and peripheral beliefs, I have a name for it: A cult. ”
This is a good point; and also good to have a definition for the term. As to the admittedly polemical tendency of paleos, keep in mind that whenever paleoconservativism comes up in a forum like this, it is always with these sorts of serpentine, indefensible insinuations like of “Hmmmm… maybe they’re racists, maybe not.” The National Review never tires of hatchet-jobs labelling paleos as “unpatriotic conservatives” and “defeatists” for being opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
I understand your aggravation about orthodoxy & dogmatism. From our POV, the Republican Establishment acts as if Iraq is a litmus test for deciding who or who is not a “true conservative”. Either agree with the Party line on the matter– or you are dubbed a bleeding-heart liberal pacifist.
Constant treatment like that tends to make one somewhat defensive and more than a little prickly.
I’ve frequently been called a “liberal” myself– as well as a “traitor”– because I believe the invasion of Iraq was a strategic and moral mistake.
This is, as I mentioned, after my having spent several years in the military, a half-year of which included a deployment to the Persian Gulf.
It’s a little hard to speak softly when you are constantly being whacked with a big stick.
Anyhow, I can only reiterate that the whole point of this little article by the doctor is to establish an orthodoxy of his own– either you accept “the universal moral code”— or you are labeled “racist” and cast by Grand Inquisitor Jackson into the outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
“The hubris of the Enlightenment made certain men believe they could create a better world. The Jacobins were the first to realize that to implement their blueprint, they first had to destroy the traditional order.”
The conservative aims to preserve and (very slowly , very carefully) perfect tradition.
The Enlightenment thinker aims to replace tradition with a rational system, an algorithm.
We can see the results of the latter all around us.
Mtuggle, have you ever read the novel “Demons”, by Dostoevsky? While naturally I think it is important to focus on Burke’s philosophical critique of “Rationalism”, it broadens the perspective by considering the Russian experience of the matter, and from a literary perspective.
Dostoevsky predicted the insanity of the Bolsheviks to a T– and pinned the cause on the “enlightened rationalism” in which Bolshevism gestated. He compared the “inspiration” of enlightenment ideals as akin to demonic possession– and interestingly enough that novel is the source of the term “fire in the minds of men.”
No, I never read Demons, but do recall an op-ed about how Bush (or his speechwriter) had borrowed that very un-conservative phrase from Dostoevsky. Imagine how Dostoevsky would feel if he learned that someone used his denunciation of radicalism as a positive statement!
But then, consider how Madison would feel about how the Constitution is mis-read today.
I agree with Old Republic’s recommendation of the Morality of Everyday Life. I suspect Phil’s nemesis he is arguing against by promoting a “Universal Moral Code” is moral relativism, but those two are not the only options. Someone once commented to me that they had never met a real moral relativists. That the “moral relativists” they had met were all “rights based absolutists” insisting on “freedom of conscious” or “freedom of choice.” In some cases this is perhaps accompanied by an unwillingness to condemn. The only people I have ever met who approach being moral relativists are young, green college kids fresh out of philosophy 101. I think a bigger problem these days is too much moral certainty, but moral certainty that is wrong.
I have found that Christians are easily swayed by “universal moral code” arguments. This is unfortunate. Christianity asserts that it is the universal way of salvation and it asserts certain non-negotiable moral norms such as the prohibition against fornication, but it is not universalistic in the manner that some believe. It does not mandate a universal social order or necessarily require that all traditions and customs be overturned. (As an aside, Islam is universalistic, hence the drive to dominate and convert or else.) I probably would not go as far as Dr. Fleming does, as he has a more Catholic understanding of certain things than I, a Protestant, do, but his book is a good anecdote to the appeal of the “universal moral code.”
Can I poke another hornet’s nest? I am not as comfortable as some at drawing the line of American conservatism back to Burke. There are many reasons for this that would be great fodder for several essays. But if the conservative beef is with Locke then why not embrace someone who is more clearly an anti-Lockean. Filmer for sure or too some extent Hume. A more recent American example would be Dabney.
Open to discussion re. Burke and the virtues and draw-backs of Filmer.
I also agree with J.D. that moral lessons are often best explained and taught in narrative and not in text books. Narrative allows for the emotional component of right and wrong not just the head component. In narrative it is easier to demonstrate for example why the intuitive revulsion to “snitching” that we all feel, especially us males and even more especially us Southern males, is protective of society and the established order not a danger to it.
I know the op-ed you’re talking about– it’s in American Conservative, and is sort of a quasi-review of the book The Origins of the Revolutionary Faith.
The book’s premise (TOOTRF, not Demons) is that revolutionaries (like neocons and Bush’s democratic crusaders) regard the American War for Independence as having been not a war for independence at all, but rather a remaking of society and a reinvention of human nature — akin to what would later take be attempted in France.
As to Dostoevsky, he would probably have some dour Russian saying on the matter.
BTW, I don’t agree with him on everything, of course– he was extreeemely phobic regarding Western Europe. But then again, in his time all the fashionable avante-garde Russians were falling all over themselves to espouse the latest and greatest from an increasingly rationalist and universalist West, and he obviously had a premonition of what that sycophancy would shortly lead to– so one can hardly blame him.
He was one of those xenophobic bigots who thought the Russian people should nurture & cherish their own identity & heritage (grin). Too bad he was hung up in his prejudices, or he could have written something worthwhile, like an essay on the universal moral code.
Instead of, oh … say, Crime and Punishment.
“In narrative it is easier to demonstrate for example why the intuitive revulsion to “snitching” that we all feel, especially us males and even more especially us Southern males, is protective of society and the established order not a danger to it.”
Right. The film Scent of a Woman is a good modern example– the protagonist at a prep school refuses to snitch on his classmates, while the school’s dean gives him a two-pronged attack: A) Snitching is the “honorable” thing to do, in accord with the Baird code of conduct, and B) Snitching would serve his own interests.
Pacino’s speech at the climax of that film is beautiful.
The play Antigone by the Greek poet Sophocles is another example. Antigone’s brother betrays the city of Thebes, and so Creon, king of Thebes, orders that the brother’s body be left outside the city’s walls to be defiled by the vultures and dogs. Allowing his body to be defiled like this will “serve the greater good” by providing an example for any future would-be traitors, thinks the king. And so anyone who attempts to bury him will be executed.
Antigone defies this order, and buries her brother. The tragedy pits Creon’s megalomania & delusions of godhood against Antigone’s passionate devotion to her kin, as well as to her respect for the traditions of the Greek belief system which did not allow for leaving kin to rot in the open without a decent burial.
“Filmer for sure or too some extent Hume.”
Although Hume is problematic in many ways, I’mmore familiar with him than Filmer and I think he does say a lot of good things. His skepticism towards the ability of human reason to supplant tradition is certainly valid, although he goes pretty nearly toward discounting rational inquiry into reality altogether. He was supportive of the monarchy during the English Civil War, as I recall.
“I suspect Phil’s nemesis he is arguing against by promoting a “Universal Moral Code” is moral relativism, but those two are not the only options… I have found that Christians are easily swayed by “universal moral code” arguments. This is unfortunate.
Very good point. My own view is that the spiritual/intellectual blight we are confronting could be seen as Binary-Think. A series of EITHER-ORs…. the oversimplified pseudothinking of a machine.
I get the impression Jackson does not regard it possible that I can possibly recognize as significant BOTH A) A man’s ethnic heritage and cultural identity and B) What the man does. It’s EITHER A) or B), to Jackson.
Per Jackson’s simplification, either I care that a man is my brother OR I care about his behavior.
BOTH is… inconceivable. Per Binarythink, I can’t POSSIBLY regard my bond to my brother as something having real consequences in the real world– unless I am the sort of the guy to stand on the sidelines and twiddle my thumbs whilst my brother sets up an opium den by which to kill Tiny Tim.
In reality, of course, it’s the other way round. The fact that a man is my kin makes me MORE concerned about his behavior, rather than less so.
Or, per binarythink, EITHER I regard my grandfather as “superior” to other human beings by “assigning a higher value” to him (Good Lord, was Jackson hatched from a pod?) OR I accept that per the universal moral code we’re all just abstract undifferentiated atoms, and hence the grandfather-grandson relationship is utterly superficial.
That I view my grandfather as simultaneously a human being AND my grandfather to whom I have obligations is… inconceivable!
(Somehow I am starting to get the image of Jackson as the little bald Sicilian criminal from The Princess Bride.)
The problem with the universal moral code from a Catholic viewpoint is that it attempts to render all human relations faceless and anonymous. I once taught a seminar for a Jewish senior citizens’ group.
An analogy is the feminist attitude toward the question of gender: EITHER you view women as subhumans, OR you view differences of gender as utterly superficial.
Add this to the John Jay quote:
“Democracy has always emerged in distinct communities; there is no record anywhere of free, unconnected, and calculating individuals coming together spontaneously to form a democratic social contract ex nihilo. Whether we like it or not, nationalism is the historical force that has provided the political units for democratic government. ‘Nation’ is another name for ‘we the people’.”
Ghia Nodia, University of Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia
And let’s not forget that the mighty Soviet Union was brought down by culturally based political movements that led to secession. They resisted Soviet rule not in the name of any universal code, but for the independence and well-being of their respective ethnic group. Blood is thicker than ideology.
“The problem with the universal moral code from a Catholic viewpoint is that it attempts to render all human relations faceless and anonymous. I once taught a seminar for a Jewish senior citizens’ group.”
Woops, I forgot to complete my thought on this. Mtuggle, your point about the critical value of a people’s solidarity in the face of oppression is very apropos.
My point was that I think that I would have gotten along very poorly with the Jewish students of my seminar group — had I been insensitive to their cultural background, and insensitive to their heritage as Jews.
The “view every man as a culture-less abstraction” approach of Dr. Jackson’s universal moral code would demand that when I engage with Jewish folks, I utterly dismiss from my mind the fact of the Holocaust — and that I act as if the Jewish people have had no history of suffering, tribulation, and triumph.
Indeed, Jackson’s universal-moral-code demands that I pretend as if the Jewish people simply do not exist as a people — that to be Jewish means nothing of importance.
This hostility toward tribalism goes all the way back to the hostility leveled against the Tribe, I think, yes?
The Jewish people were often resented for holding fast to their own customs and ways, yes?
And they were condemned by the Dr. Jacksons of their day, for acting as if their ethnicity was an essential part of their identity, yes?
Hmmm….
Now, I’m not saying Dr. Jackson himself is an anti-semite– but there are definitely anti-semitic strains implied in some of his ideas …
… I mean, I suppose we may take it that he condemns the Israeli government for being partial to Jews, right?
(grin)
Although it is a serious point, smart-alecking aside — the logic of Jackson’s calculus would declare that the state of Israel has no right to exist.
And I’M the one who has to worry about being seen as intolerant.
All,
I’ll write an article on the pros and cons of Filmer and another article on the issues I have with Burke.
RESPECT FILMER. He was anti-Locke before anti-Locke was cool.
In anticipation of Phil returning to this thread after New Years, I post this.
Phil, my objection to the term racism is clear, but I don’t think you answered my question. I will give you credit for trying. The objection is not just to the term, but to the PC laden definition. So replacing it with another term that still has the PC laden definition doesn’t help. I say the word should be thrown out of conservative’s vocabulary, but barring that rosy scenario, if it is going to be used it should only mean hate. You clearly do not agree with that. So what do you think the word racism means? Do you agree with the modern dictionary definition? If not what part of the modern definition do you object to? How has the dictionary definition changed over time? Do you agree with the change?
In anticipation of objections, this is not being evasive or dodging the issue. How racism is defined is an essential issue? For example, is it “racist” to consider race when making certain decisions such as where to live, where to send the kids to school, where to go to church, etc.? Another example, is the well documented phenomenon of “white flight” inherently racist? It puzzles me a little bit that you ask for objective evidence that people tend to associate with their own. Doesn’t just looking around a little provide ample evidence? Look at the re-segregation of schools. Look at neighborhoods, and the well documented “other side of the tracks” phenomenon. Look at church on Sunday. These things do not happen by chance. They are clearly the result of people making conscious decisions based at least partially on race. Are all those people and all those decisions inherently racist?
If you say yes, then can’t you see how adopting this leftist definition plays into the hands of the left? The left constantly tells us that America is a society where racism is ubiquitous, and the obvious inequality of results that we see is the result of this systemic societal racism. Well, if the things above (and I could give many more examples) are racist then how can you object to the leftist characterization? If “white flight,” for example, is racist then the leftists are clearly right. We are all a bunch of racists. However, if people in America are behaving just as people have always behaved throughout history, then we are not racists. We are just human.
A question that is very important to this discussion on paleoconservatism is, “Is rejecting proposition nation thinking inherently racist?” Many think it is. That is why I said paleos can’t flatly reject the modern connotation of the word racism because many believe that a core part of paleo philosophy (as J.D pointed out it would be better characterized as the rejection of philosophy in favor of tradition, history, nature, Revelation, etc.) is inherently racist. Do you believe that?
Now you have already said that you don’t care what people think privately or how they behave privately, but that should not be reflected in the law? Fair enough. But current law is not neutral toward private behavior. Private discrimination is against the law. So would you be comfortable with the libertarian position on civil rights? Banning active government discrimination, but allowing private discrimination?
Here is my unsolicited two cents on how you should proceed. Instead of writing columns and posts implying that paleoconservatism attracts racists however you chose to define that, why not write a column defending proposition nation thinking? If you think rejecting proposition nation thinking is inherently racist then so argue. Also, since you are better educated in political science theory than I am, please trace modern proposition nation thinking (and the related ideas of American exceptionalism, color-blindness, etc.) back to the French Revolution, the primordial left/right distinction, and demonstrate how they belong on the right. If they actually belong on the left, then admit that and defend why you as a modern conservative support some leftist ideas. The fact that they are from the left does not inherently discredit them. As an American I am not defending absolute monarchy, even though I like Filmer for other reasons, and I agree with limited popular consent. So I accept some liberal ideas as good. But I do believe we need truth in labeling.
I intend to write a column defending the rejection of proposition nation dogma. I think all here would agree that that sort of debate would be very helpful in making distinctions and finding similarities between paleoconservatism and neo/mainstream conservatism.
Well, it looks like the paleos have been busy these past few days talking to themselves. And what a conversation it was!
Not only do they reject the notion that all men are equal in favor of assigning racial superiority to their own “tribe”, they reject the notion that there is a God-based universal moral code. The proposition that it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life — any life, not just a fellow clansman’s life — becomes a multicultural trap to deny the superiority of Western civilization and shoot military deserters. And further, in a twist of logic that only a paleo could appreciate, supporting this notion makes one an anti-Semite — even though my original essay discussing this universal moral code (“What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”) also focused on the rationalizations of Islamo-fascists to deny Jews their humanity so as to justify their slaughter.
Nothing illustrates the moral bankruptcy paleo thought better than to just sit back and allow the paleos to tell us who and what they really are, particularly as it relates to their true position on race. Through direct statements and deliberate omissions, the paleos have told us everything we need to know about them. The only question that remains is, why do they feel the need to do this by hiding their opinions instead of expressing them forthrightly?
I came across another conversation about paleos and race posted by Lawrence Auster that helps shed a lot of light on this subject. The question is asked: “Why should the paleos be terrified of being called racist? They’re not terrified of being called Israel haters.”
The answer is found in the very essence of paleoconservative thought. “To defend ‘white America’ is to defend a larger American identity that 200 million European Americans would potentially belong to. But paleos are against any larger American identity. A larger American identity would mean an American nation. The paleos are against the American nation. It was the American nation that the ‘bloodthirsty tyrant’ Lincoln defended/created and that the heroic South sought to dismember. The paleocon idea is to undo the work of Lincoln. Belief in a white America—in an American nation—stands in the way of that.”
Auster continues: “For most paleos race issues are the third rail. The liberals and neocons would finish them off, or so paleos tell me, if they even touch the race question. … However, it occurs to me that another possible factor in their silence on race is that they don’t know how to talk about sensitive subjects like this other than in a rancorous, menacing way. Inchoately realizing that they don’t have the ability to discuss race in a civilized and rational manner, and that they would be harshly attacked if they did discuss it, they stay away from it.”
Remember, this entire conversation began 4 months ago in “Off to the Races: the Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness”, where I condemned the Left for using race as a political weapon, only to be told by paleoconservatives that “race matters”, and more importantly, the white race is the superior race. I’ve tried to determine whether this thinking represents an aberration or mainstream paleo thought. Dan Philips has confirmed that it is in fact a mainstream paleo belief (comment 122).
What the paleos resent is not the belief in white supremacy, but the fact that it is spoken of so directly. They prefer to keep the conversation at a higher level of “tradition”, “tribe”, and “kith and kin” where they can talk about a universal love for one’s own family that everyone shares and can identify with. But this is not policy. To use JD’s own example, believing that anyone outside your tribe is an enemy (this includes the police), and acting accordingly by allowing your kin to continue selling drugs to schoolchildren until you’ve had a talk with them, is policy.
And, if your powers of persuasion are not sufficient to quickly and permanently stop this harmful activity, or the relative in question lives in a different city or state and you or other tribe members don’t have ready access to him, you keep that knowledge to yourself and allow the destructive activity to continue until the tribe, ultimately, handles it internally. Injury to fellow U.S. citizen but non-tribe members is not the focus of paleo policy; promoting the common good of the clan is.
As to Dan’s latest questions, we have another shining example of paleo logic at work. He can’t respond to any of my queries because it would violate his self-imposed paleo-code to do so, but somehow everyone else is expected to answer his questions. It’s a fruitless exercise, but an illustrative one in that it exposes the shallowness of their ideas. Their beliefs can’t hold up to public scrutiny. Questions are met with gratuitous insults designed to deflect the issue instead of address it, or in this case, with other questions that must first be answered before the paleos will again avoid answering mine.
By the way, for those of you keeping track, by asking paleos to explain why “race matters” and why white people would be fools not to believe that they are superior to other races, their basic position has boiled down to this. They can’t answer the question because it is a “Leftist trap” using the wrong word. And for posing the question I must therefore be a Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, Neocon, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, anti-Semitic, New Age Hippster.
Follow these people at your own risk.
Phil, you made one of our points for us, but I’m not sure you realize it. Lawrence Auster is a white nationalist of sorts. He doesn’t like paleos because they DON’T FOCUS ENOUGH ON RACE. Instead they focus on regional differences, like the South, for example. Paleos consider modern nationalism an ideological construct and hence artificial and potentially of the left. That is why many white nationalist don’t like paleos and many like Lincoln. Because he “saved the Union.” On the question of nationalism the white nationalists and the neos have more in common than do white nationalists and paleos. Perhaps you should do a little research. What is the difference between a paleo, a white nationalist, and a “racial realist?” And please defend proposition nation dogma and prove to me, with reference to the French Revolution, how it is not a leftist concept.
As I said before, discussions of paleoconservatism seems to attract white supremacists, even those “of sorts”. And he was candid enough to explain why paleos can’t deal honestly with the issue of race, which is why I quoted him.
By the way, thanks for the new term to put a happier face on paleo-racism: “racial realist”. It does the same thing that “Ethnic Cleansing” did for “The Final Solution” — makes it politically acceptable to extremists and ideologues.
For the rest of us though, it still stinks.
Phil, Auster is not a paleo airing paleo dirty laundry. He is a nationalist, outside of paleo circles, criticizing paleos for not being willing to talk enough about or focus enough on race. Auster is very straight forward in his criticism of paleos. You seem to be missing that point.
Dan: And you seem to be missing the point that regardless of who or what Auster is, his comments about why paleos will not forthrightly address the issue of race is right on the mark. “… they don’t know how to talk about sensitive subjects like this other than in a rancorous, menacing way. Inchoately realizing that they don’t have the ability to discuss race in a civilized and rational manner, and that they would be harshly attacked if they did discuss it. …”
I see you’ve been busy spreading paleo-good will in other posts to other articles of mine. Why am I not surprised that you’re not attracting many new converts to your point of view, other than those I previously mentioned from the white nationalist websites.
Popularity is not a measure of right. It is very easy to echo the party line. It is harder to stray from it.
NOTE: This discussion has now moved to my January 24, 2007 essay “The President is an Idiot”.