Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 24th, 2007

It’s time to see history as others see it.

Okay, I’m convinced. The President’s critics have made their case. The man is a complete and utter fool — and a dangerous one at that.

His shortcomings are almost too many to cite, but we can list the most egregious ones.

● It’s become all too clear that the President has used the war to proscribe civil liberties. The war is just an excuse to silence his critics and deny people their personal freedom. The man is nothing less than a tyrant hell bent on stripping us of all our Constitutional rights in the name of “protecting” the country.

● As far as the prosecution of the war is concerned, he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing. His policies are chaotic and confused at best, grossly incompetent at worst. We’re losing to a ragtag band of misfits who are cleaning our clock at every turn. There’s only one way this war is going to end, and that’s badly.

● What’s more, the people he’s placed in charge of the war effort are no better. They won’t listen to reason, lack vision, and haven’t the slightest idea what they’re doing. In occupied areas the local population despises them, and the only times they show any military success is when they use overwhelming power to brutalize and destroy. Yes our army is vastly superior to theirs, and in this sense we can clearly “win,” but again what price victory?

● And finally, let’s not forget about his reasons for going to war in the first place. He lied. There’s just no other way to describe it. Just when did “freeing the slaves” become part of our reason for attacking Georgia, or Mississippi, or Alabama for God’s sake? Besides, these people had nothing to do with the assault on Fort Sumter (a one-time episode to be managed; certainly not a reason for going to war!), and never fired a shot at us until we shot at them. We should redeploy our troops now.

I’m speaking of course of Lincoln and the Civil War.

The withering criticism of Lincoln’s effort to hold the nation together so a different political agenda could be advanced seems cruel and self-serving with the light history has shed on his actions. And yet, each of these arguments was treated with the utmost seriousness — as least superficially — at the time they were made. Lincoln was an incompetent tyrant who suspended habeas corpus, brutalized the South with his heavy-handed policies, killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent people (soldiers and civilians alike), and offered the original bait-and-switch reason for pursuing the war when he emancipated the slaves.

Yes, there are certain uber-conservatives and white nationalists who want to debate whether Lincoln actually had the Constitutional authority to prosecute the civil war in the first place, and will lament the implications of freeing the slaves instead of shipping them all back to Africa so we could keep the nation pure, white and Christian. But these represent the “out of touch” views today, not the actions for which Lincoln was so roundly criticized a hundred and fifty years ago.

And from this we should all take note. If your judgment about the President and his actions is based solely on the contemporary consensus of men and women with a vested interest in an opposing policy outcome, then be honest enough to admit that you’re not engaging in a reasoned analysis, but rather a partisan political hit.

When the issue is whether to build an unnecessary bridge in rural Alaska or another Robert K. Byrd memorial facility somewhere in West Virginia, the stakes are important — but not crucial. Lose the fight and your taxes go up, but your head still remains firmly attached to the rest of your body. But when the issue involves a fundamental clash of civilizations that threatens the present and future security of every American — if not every Westerner — then your support or opposition for the war against Islamic fascism carries with it a much greater implication.

As citizens of a free country whose opinions actually matter, we have a responsibility to do more than merely support or oppose an elected official simply because it dovetails with our own personal agenda. Republicans and conservatives in general have applied this principle to their actions. Those who support an aggressive war against Islamo-fascism of the kind prosecuted by George W. Bush have also opposed the immigration and domestic spending policies of the kind proposed or implemented by George W. Bush.

It’s the policy, not the person, that is the object of attention, unlike Democrats and liberals in general. The same people who supported a call for regime change in Iraq in 1998 opposed it (after initially supporting it ala John Kerry) when George Bush actually acted on the matter. From Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden, the same people who said that we needed more troops in Iraq before the election so they could criticize Bush’s war policy now oppose the introduction of any new troops into Iraq so they can criticize Bush’s war policy.

The simple fact is, if there was no invasion of Iraq, the same people who oppose the Iraq war but support our efforts in Afghanistan would now be virulently opposed to the death and destruction being wreaked throughout this innocent third world country which, by the way, never attacked the United States. Instead, we should be hunting down that rogue element that temporarily made its home in the mountains of Tora Bora and is now hiding in the mountains of Pakistan.

Of course, the moment Bush went after these people inside the Pakistan border, he’d be accused of invading another sovereign nation and thus radicalizing an entire generation of offended Islamo-fascists, so that any future attack on America under any future Administration could be traced to this seminal event — thus allowing us to forget about the appeasement and indecision of the Clinton years that emboldened our enemies to attack us on 9/11 and start this whole process in motion.

I’m not the first person to draw a parallel between the criticisms of Lincoln and Bush, and I suspect I won’t be the last. America’s willingness to take the fight to our enemies before they attacked us sent a powerful message throughout the world that there would be no safe harbor anywhere for those who intend us harm. It’s no coincidence that a certain Libyan dictator got rid of his nuclear program shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

But several years of relentless partisan Democrat attacks, gleefully carried by a willing national and international press, have undercut this message and instilled an exact opposite one. Bush will continue the fight until the day he leaves office, but after that all bets are off. Even if the Democrats don’t succeed in undercutting victory in Iraq, they’ve already shown that the U.S. — as a whole — has no stomach for a sustained fight.

Our enemies do, unfortunately, and it will take another 9/11 to wake the country up again.

Labels: Politics: General, Foreign Affairs: Iraq War

Phillip Ellis Jackson has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. In addition to his teaching and political experience, he has worked in the private and non-profit sectors. He is the author of several novels with cultural and political themes.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
Visit their website at: http://www.scifi-jackson.com/

Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson on IntellectualConservative.com

Responses to "The President is an Idiot"

you had me. good lead in.

Comment by George Shadroui | January 24, 2007
Why is it that every time Mr. Jackson offers a commentary, it quickly degenerates into a dispute over what "branch" of conservatism he allies with? Is it necessary to put everyone into clearly labeled boxes so we can then decide - without reading what they actually have to say - whether they are worth listening to or not?

I'm not going to defend or refute Mr. Jackson's position here. I'm simply going to point out that there seems to be an obsession by Mr. Phillips and those who share his views to put people in a neocon box or a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) box so they can summarily be dismissed as lesser thinkers.

Personally, I don't trace the pivotal moment for the systematic dismanteling of our Constitution to Lincoln, nor do I think this is an inescapable conclusion as Mr. Phillips seems to suggest.

I think the pivotal moment occurred long before Lincoln was born: Marbury vs. Madison.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 24, 2007
Dan,

Thanks for your comments. I had to chuckle when I read your first paragraph above. I wasn't commenting on when things in general began going downhill…merely when the Constitution started going downhill. But since we're on the topic, I'd have to say the pivotal moment significantly predated both the Enlightenment and the Reformation: it goes all the way back to the garden of Eden.

(rimshot)

I was pleased to hear your thoughts on Marbury. It riles me that we have such a national fixation on treating the symptoms (examing the personal views of Supreme Court nominees under an electron microscope) rather than the cause (the whole premise of Judicial Review). Has it never occurred to us that maybe their views wouldn't matter so much if we hadn't empowered them in a way that the Constitutional Framers never intended nor could be reasonably drawn from the document itself? I remember learning about Marbury in my poli sci 101 class in college. I thought Judicial Review was a bad idea then, and the intervening 25 years have only served to cement that belief.

As an aside, do you happen to know who originally quipped, "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is"? I've been searching for about 10 minutes, but can't seem to find out who to attribute those words to.

And as a parting thought, regarding Mr. Jackson, I'll continue to critique him solely on his politics - not his Alma Mater.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 24, 2007
“I agree labels can be the refuge of the simple-minded or the demagogue especially if used incorrectly or imprecisely. But labels, when used appropriately, are useful. Labels are merely a form of pattern recognition.”

For those of you keeping track, to date I’ve been labeled the following by people who disagree with my position: “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, Neocon, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, anti-Semitic, New Age Hippster.”

As I’ve written previously, as a public service to those who feel the need to categorize and classify their fellow human beings, I offer you a substitute way of viewing the world. It’s one that has served me well, and has allowed me to develop genuine friendships with many people from a wide variety of divergent backgrounds.

It all boils down to a simple formula. When we meet someone for the first time, we tend to put that person into a category (young/old, black/white, attractive/ugly, educated/uneducated, etc.) so we can have an initial frame of reference. We use that frame of reference to then begin a longer-term (and more precise) evaluation of them. The trick is to put each person in the proper fundamental category so that all of our subsequent evaluations are meaningful.

Now, most people divide up the world incorrectly. They want to hire someone "young," marry someone "beautiful," only listen to someone "from the right school," and so forth. Thus, for example, by focusing only on a young person for a new hire, they miss interviewing older, potentially better candidates. Not only do they limit the pool of people they could hire/marry/take advice from, etc., they maximize contact with someone who could potentially injure them or lead them astray.

I've avoided this by focusing on the proper fundamental question when I first meet a person. I still see the same young/old, pretty/ugly, etc. attributes as everyone else, but I base my initial judgment of their worth on another variable, the fundamental one. I ask myself the simple question: Is this person an a**hole?

A black jerk will screw you differently than a white one, a pretty one differently than an ugly one, and so on and so forth. But the net effect is that you will always get screwed. By dividing up the world properly, I limit the opportunity for people to do injury to me while, at the same time, broadening the possibility of having contact with positive, productive people.

It’s a formula that works every time it’s tried. I highly recommend it to liberals who feel a genetic need to categorize and classify, and to conservatives who are tired of getting Borked by people you thought were your friends.

It will also have the additional salutary benefit of removing any and all PC considerations from your daily life, because in the final analysis I don't really care about a person's color, sex or other qualities. What I really want to know is the answer to that single, simple question. Understanding it tells me everything I need to know.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 24, 2007
Since Dan Phillips cannot let a Jackson article go by without accusing Jackson of apostasy, I think he's invited the questioning of his own conservatism. Phillips is no conservative at all. He is a reactionary. He does not stand athwart history yelling "stop!" He stands athwart history yelling, "Go back to the Articles of Confederation!"

The South's "secession," for what it's worth, was unconstitutional. A state can no more repeal its own ratification of a fully ratified constitution that it can repeal its own ratification of a fully ratified amendment. And, as James Madison (neocon, no doubt, and probably a graduate of the University of Chicago) argued, a state can no more "secede" from the Union than the Union can "secede" from a single state. The Civil War began when the South attacked Fort Sumter, a legal property (regardless of the "secession") of the United States Federal Government.

Lincoln did, I think, do unconstitutional things in the course of the Civil War, but the waging of the war itself was not one of them. We should also be more forgiving of his violations (though never deny that they were indeed violations) considering that he was faced with wholesale armed resistance to the Constitution and federal law from a section of the country.

When Phillips says that he "dectect[s] entirely neoconservative patterns of thought in Phil," we should ignore him, because he has no idea what neoconservatism is. The implication of his article is that no conservatives other than neoconservatives admire Abraham Lincoln. This contention too absurd to be taken seriously. Having read Phillips' post, I detect entirely historically illiterate patterns of thought in Dan.

Comment by Katzen | January 24, 2007
Dan, bringing up the doctrine of just war to slam the Iraqi war is silly.

Under the Catholic Church's statement of what constitutes just war, in 1993, the criteria is the following:
"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

So, in other words, under the Catholic just war theory, which you cited to slam the war, the war is perfectly acceptable. Saddam was a grave public evil who supplied terrorists world wide and violated human rights. A threat doesn't have to be imminent, no does it have to be retaliation.
However, under Saddam refusing to follow the terms of the cease fire, by shooting at our planes every day for a decade and by refusing inspectors access to the required sites, the war is justifiable alone on those facts.

Bush didn't claim that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11. You continue to put this forward even though you have been routinely and repeatedly corrected. He said that after 9/11, that we cannot wait for threats to become imminent. It seems like you continue to be mistaken because you like your version of the story better…even though it's incorrect.

It is a foolish cry when opponents of the war cite human concerns as a reason for not invading. Of course war costs lives, even innocent ones. But in a dictatorship that rapes, maims and murders it's own citizens, claiming that we're not liberating them for their own good is a really stupid argument. It's akin to a doctor refusing to repair a damaged organ for "the good of the patient". It falls flat, and it a really bad talking point.

You complain that we weren't attacked by a state, but by a rogue element. This is both true and false. We were attacked by a rogue agent that uses almost every country in the Middle East as a safe haven and a backer. Iraq was part of the problem. They funded, trained, and supplied terrorists, including al Quida. This is indisputable.

Bottom line: everyone of your justifications for NOT going to war fails.

Comment by WolvenBear | January 24, 2007
Let us thank OldRepublic for providing the perfect specimen of paleo-writing. It has all the essentials: paranoid conspiracy-mongering about a "neocon cabal," a gratuituous and ahistorical attack on Lincoln, a pseudo-intellectual reference to Jacobinism, an irrelevant aside about the "third-world invasion," and a hysterical call to try the head of state on dubious charges (nothing Jacobin about that).

I'm happy IC attracts not only conservatives and libertarians, but reactionaries like OldRepublic. I do wish, however, that he and his ideological brethren would occasionally add something new to their rantings and ravings.

Comment by Katzen | January 24, 2007
I'm sorry to come back to this in another post. I just read OldRepublic's post again, and I realized how utterly insane this sentence is: "If the left-wing dictator Lincoln is your role-model for sound policy, then you should also add Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao to your list."

Why? What if I just want to preserve the Union and end slavery, but I don't want to reorganize agriculture according to Marxist principles and thereby engineer a famine killing 40 million people in 5 years? Can't I favor one, and not the other?

Comment by Katzen | January 24, 2007
"The South’s “secession,” for what it’s worth, was unconstitutional. A state can no more repeal its own ratification of a fully ratified constitution that it can repeal its own ratification of a fully ratified amendment. "

This is true. However, using that same line of reasoning, the British colonies in America had absolutely no legal authority to secede from Britain and become independent. Their reasons for doing so were eerily similar to the cited reasons the southern states desired to secede from the United States too. And I believe there is some historical ambiguity about who fired the first shots at Lexington and Concord. Technically speaking, the only way the Constitution became a legal document was after an illegal act of what was, for all intents and purposes, insurrection. It's difficult to condemn the southern states for defying an existing government in defense of their perception of their rights when the very government they were defying came to existence in the same manner. And although there is no right of secession expressed in the Constitution, it is easy to make a case for that implication based on the founding of our own government and the nature of the Constitution itself. The Constitution came about to prevent the injustices that caused the states to secede from British rule. But if it is abused or misapplied and causes the same grievances it was meant to prevent, are the respective participants entitled to some guarantee of satisfaction? To what extent? And what recourse do they have? Historical context is important too. We aren't talking about modern, 50-state, centralized and socialized America like we have today. At the time, power rested mainly with the individual states (as the Constitution outlines), there was no welfare state, little centralized control, only one generally elected federal office (again, as per the Constitution), and fewer states taking up less geographical space. An affront of states' rights was a much larger issue at the time, because states actually still had rights at the time.
I suppose my stance on this issue makes me a racist white nationalist who wants the slaves back in Africa, or hanging from a tree on the front lawn next to the burning cross, because God knows that when it comes to conservatism, there are only two camps: The "Philip Ellis Jackson is right-ists" and the racist white xenophobes.

All that said, however, it's down right stupid to characterize Lincoln as a dictator (did we not have a House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court at the time? Can the President autonomously declare war, mobilize soldiers and fund combat operations?), and equally stupid, reactionary, inflammatory and naive to compare him to communist/Marxist totalitarians.

And furthermore, the "Neo-con war in Iraq" is not illegal, and in fact should have been executed at least 10 years before it was, when Saddam Hussein first violated the conditions of the resolution that ended Gulf War I. The very day that the resolution was broken, the United States, and in fact the world, via the UN, had not only a right, but an obligation to enforce the resolution conditions and restore order to Iraq. This shouldn't even be regarded as a separate "war", because the first one technically did not "end". Regardless of what grounds were used to get us there, the war was both legal and justified for that reason alone.
Quite ironically, my stance on these issues will surely garner me a "Neo-con commu-facia-list" designation from OldRepublic. I just can't tell who I am anymore.

Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 25, 2007
Katzen wrote:

"And, as James Madison (neocon, no doubt, and probably a graduate of the University of Chicago) argued, a state can no more “secede” from the Union than the Union can “secede” from a single state."

Durned if I can locate that quote. I would appreciate the source.

Comment by mtuggle | January 25, 2007
Er … popes always oppose war. The Vatican opposed WWI and WWII, and even opposed the unconditional surrender of Germany during WWII for fear of prolonging the fighting. The Vatican’s goal is to solve problems through peaceful means, because that is what men of peace are supposed to advocate.

What matters is the consequences the Vatican attaches to its pronouncements. Significantly, in 1949 the pope threatened any Catholic with excommunication who supported communism. However, no such threat of excommunication exists for anyone supporting the war against Iraq. That tells you everything you need to know about the issue from a substantive standpoint. Any Catholic knows this.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 25, 2007
Dan I assumed you'd remember your own comment so I wouldn't have to repeat it to you again. "So I guess that is why that Pope John Paul guy was against the war. What the heck does he know about Catholicism? Too bad he didn’t have WolvenBear around to set him straight." To set you straight, popes always oppose war, so citing this as a plank in your own argument against US action against Iraq is rather meaningless.

By the way, you (and the other paleos) need to unite around a common view of my academic background. You’ve all gone from dismissing my education as irrelevant, to saying I was too ignorant to understand what I was taught, to making me a card-carrying Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought. Please have a meeting, pick one, and stick with it, since the proper labeling and classification of another human being is critical to your line of thought. Ideas can only be evaluated once the person offering them has been properly categorized.

This is the problem with extremist ideologies (particularly those that need to classify everyone in some rank order of superiority). When one label doesn’t quite do the trick of shutting down an argument, you pull out another and see if that will work.

By the way, I wonder if Old Republic, mtuggle, JD and others understood the full implications of your comment that “I agree labels can be the refuge of the simple-minded or the demagogue especially if used incorrectly or imprecisely.” They’re the ones who contributed many of the labels I noted above: “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, Neocon, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, anti-Semitic, New Age Hippster.”

(How do you become an Anti-Semitic Neocon anyway?)

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 25, 2007
PS: I'm holding out hope that when the final consensus is in, the “New Age Hippster” designation will stick. My wife and kids have never said I was particularly “hip” about anything, so I was wondering if I could get some kind of certificate to go along with it. Nothing fancy, but it would mean so much coming from an official source that has the ability to classify and categorize people with absolute certainty.

PPS: There’s no need to validate the Sicilian-criminal designation. Since I am half Sicilian, that just goes without saying.

Thanks, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 25, 2007
Phillip,

Where you say “It’s time to see history as others see it.”

Do you mean those who are most often found to have been dead-wrong yet occasionally obtusely right - the Bush hating radical-left? Or, did you have in mind the drive-by-media and Democrat opponents, either of whom couldn’t give a fig as to truth, only what sells.

Next you say, “It’s become all too clear that the President has used the war to proscribe civil liberties. The war is just an excuse to silence his critics and deny people their personal freedom. The man is nothing less than a tyrant hell bent on stripping us of all our Constitutional rights in the name of “protecting” the country.”

So, you are saying George Bush has no interest in winning the war; that it is merely a convenient excuse for stifling liberty. And what, exactly, is the benefit to him of doing that? It will not garner him another term in office or guarantee it will go to one of his cronies. It has cost him in the polls and was clear even before the last round of elections it would cost his party seats in the House. Seems to me he can have pursued this policy for one reason only - he fervently believes in it as the only practical course of action. Whether it is the right way to go about it is an entirely different matter and open to debate.

Let’s say, for a moment, you are right and Bush is a megalomaniacal power-grabber out to become dictator for life, end the republic, and doesn’t give a hoot about liberty. How would he go about it? Would he seek Congress’s blessing to his proposals and risk them tampering with key features that allow him to cancel civil liberties and guarantees. Would he limit his surveillance only to non-citizens and those shown to be actively abetting terrorists, or would he insist there can be no security without a free hand to bug anyone? Wouldn’t he demand unlimited power to intrude on anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any context as the only sure means to catch all the bad guys before they can launch an attack? Would his proposals be less intrusive than those enacted under previous Presidents in time of national crisis?

Roosevelt locked up thousands of American citizens for no greater offense than having an ethnic affinity with the enemy. In so doing, he netted a number of real subversives and would be subversives, but mainly he locked up a bunch of people with confused and divided loyalties. Bush limited his arrests to only those with demonstrated contacts, engaged in suspect activities, or having direct involvement in staging attacks. In so doing, he has limited the types of intervention to a pre-existing standard of police intervention, one long practiced by our FBI, intelligence agencies and local police; only refining targets to include foreigners unconnected with any government and as to means of communication, coordination, and transportation that are new to this age. FDR ordered the suppression of news stories, surveillance of citizens, and locked up of hundreds of suspected citizen saboteurs while suspending their due process. Was FDR then a megalomaniac with no preference for preserving our way of life, or did he genuinely believe his measures necessary and proper. Lincoln went even further than Wilson and Wilson further than FDR in their abrogation of civil liberties. Was it simply a power trip? Or was it taking action they saw as necessary and proper? How about LBJ? He used the FBI to spy on political opponents, manipulated tax code to exclude religious groups from political debate (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3abf823e2b7c.htm), and used the very wiretaps (including that of ML King) he so strongly condemned in others and with far less reason.

While no abuse of this kind of power ought to be condoned, Bush has not been caught once in an anything remotely smacking of abuse. If anything, he has been puritanical in his non-abuse of it, even to prosecuting agents who overstep bounds. It is not enough to say he is corrupt because he has demanded and received a power he is capable of abusing, he must be shown to have abused it; else all of our laws are meaningless, corrupt and abusive. I have disagreed with Bush on a number of things, but I respect Bush, the man, as one of the least corrupt politicians we’ve been subjected to. For example, I am strongly opposed to his open-boarders preference and oppose him granting citizen-to invaders, yet I recognize he has as legitimate a right to his view as I to mine. When Bush proposed his Patriot Acts I & II, I cautioned we scrutinize it for anything smacking of danger or excessively novelty; yet there is none of that and I was forced to admit as much. Say what you may about Bush’s policies and preferences, it is a cheap shot calling the man an abuser of power when he has, as presidents go, demonstrated unprecedented restraint.

Comment by Robert W. Stapler | January 25, 2007
Well, it looks like I won't be getting my New Age Hippster certificate anytime soon. I’m greatly disappointed.

It’s been almost 30 years since I completed my education and left the university to make my way in the real world. Perhaps that’s why I’m not as obsessed with labeling other people so I can properly classify their thought and assign them some rank order of Conservative Purity. [Talk about “moral superiority!”]

This constant obsession from the Radical Right with classifying and categorizing political thought reminds me of the self-described Marxists I used to come across from time to time back at Chicago. They were just as dogmatic in assigning value and status to people based on the views, and it was just as creepy to listen to them as it is to listen to paleo thought today.

To have a real discussion you need to have some common ground. Since Dan brought up the subject of race again, we spent 172 comments in my “Paleo Bilge” article listening to how paleos can’t answer questions about racism because the wrong word is used to describe the action. And when someone makes an egregiously stupid statement about white supremacy that avoids using this word, we learn that a good paleo can’t respond to that either because the man making it is Dan Phillips’s friend, and Dan doesn’t dis his homeys.

Now we’re supposed to take seriously a line of argument that by thinking Lincoln did a good thing in preserving the nation, it means that we all must love the New Deal and Big Government. And the American Civil War isn’t really a civil war contrary to our previous understanding, it’s a “War for Southern Independence”. And a genuine conservative must see Lincoln as a tyrant hell bent on imposing Big Government, not as a statesman. And two nations cannot have intersecting interests, so if you are an “American” you cannot support anything any other nation does or this makes you anti-Semitic. Oh, and for good measure, we’ll throw in mtuggle’s observation that the “illegal” Iraq war is a distraction to allow third world hordes to invade our country as part of a clueless, liberal, neocon plot.

There’s no way to respond to this bilge other than to highlight it, laugh at it, and then move on to the next paleo post where additional comedic relief will soon appear in defense of True Conservatism.

Once again, though, for those of you obsessed with classifying other people so you can feel better about yourselves, I offer you the substitute system I outlined in Comment #5 above. I applied it to the analysis I just offered, and as you can see, it has done more to clarify this discussion than any of the pseudo-intellectual True Conservative pabulum we’ve been exposed to in this or other postings.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 26, 2007
Dan:

You have described yourself as a paleoconservative, which is why I call you a paleo. The people in my Looney Liberal Chronicles have described themselves as liberals, which is why I call them liberals. I don’t simply apply a label (Neocon, Marxist, New Age Hippster, etc.) to someone who disagrees with me so as to denigrate their position by insisting that my position is the only “True Conservative” position.

You’ll also note that I’ve never called you a racist, which is another label. I’ve said that paleoconservative thought appears to attract white supremacists, and I’ve quoted their remarks about white superiority to illustrate my point. I’ve asked you if you believe these comments are an intrinsic part of paleoconservative thought. You’ve replied that you won’t answer such questions because you are not the one making the original comment, and that some of the people making these comments are your friends and you don’t want to “repudiate” your friends. I let people draw their own conclusions from your answer (or lack of it) without feeling compelled to attach a label to your personally.

When you do respond without using a personal label, you do so in a way that makes honest conversation impossible. If I support Lincoln’s efforts to preserve the nation during the Civil War, this makes me an automatic supporter of the New Deal and Big Government. The Civil War isn’t the Civil War because it doesn’t fit some “traditional” definition of a Civil War, so we must now all shift our focus to the War for Southern Independence. Why not call it the War to Preserve the Union? That would work just as well, but not fit your agenda. You take comments to their illogical or irrelevant extreme, and then expect us to debate those points with you — all the while refusing to answer any questions I pose because I used the wrong word, or it was a friend of yours who made the original observation.

You and other self-described paleos have an obsession with labeling and categorizing people along a True Conservative continuum. When I (or others) object to your classification system as being extremist, I’m now criticized for using a “label” to express my opinion. My comments are in reaction to the world view you created in the first place. They are not gratuitous efforts to misdirect or diminish your background, your education, or question your genetic background as paleos have repeatedly done to me.

In fact, I’ve known from the first time you and I privately communicated several months ago that you were an M.D. not a Ph.D. Yet I’ve never attacked you for expressing yourself because you somehow lack the “proper” formal training. Instead, I’ve complimented your work repeatedly, but said that I believed it did not go far enough in discussing paleoconservatism and race. Your response is to label me something less than a “True Conservative”, and to obsess over whose classes I took at Chicago. In one comment I’m a dolt who doesn’t know anything about anything, in another I’m the spokesman for the Neocon generation.

The simple fact is, we start from an entirely different value base. I’m comfortable with mine, you’re comfortable with yours. I challenge your ideas; but you mock my position without bothering to understand it. Your words from Paleo Bilge Comment #156: “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.”

My writings on morality have absolutely nothing to do with promoting Christianity. I respect those who find comfort and moral direction in the Christian faith, but I approached this topic from a completely different point of view. Your comments were simply a way to take a cheap shot at people who reject the notion that there is something greater than “Paleoconservative Philosophy” that guides our actions.

And this is my fundamental dispute with you. You — and the paleos who have chimed in on this debate — have no respect for any opinion that deviates from your own. What you claim to be “debate” is little more than personalized attacks against your opponents. There’s no value in responding to these absurdities. But there is great value in watching you continue to spout. The more you define who and what you really are through your condescending, self-inflated sense of superiority, the fewer people you attract. That is, except for the white nationalists who love to link your words to their websites.

So continue to have at it. I’m happy to be the guy who is an uneducated dolt, or the spokesman for the Neocon generation, whichever suits your need for that comment to work. In the end, you’re not convincing anyone, and simply showing us all who you really are.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 26, 2007
I made a mistake in attributing that particular argument to Madison (at least, I can't find it now). He did come out rather clearly against secession in this letter to Daniel Webster:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html

Sorry it's provided by the University of Chicago. I'm sure Leo Strauss personally altered its contents to perpetuate the Lincoln Myth.

Comment by Katzen | January 26, 2007
OldRepublic,

Your question isn't serious. You forfeited the right to be taken seriously when you compared Abraham Lincoln to Pol Pot.
Not having the immigration policy you prefer does not constitute either dual-loyalty or "plain ole treason" in the United States.

Dan Phillips,

I didn't make a dogmatic assertion. I made two arguments (one of which I incorrectly attributed to Madison–it was actually Lincoln's) neither of which you saw fit to address. I deal with the reservations of Virginia and others the same way Hamilton did: by emphatically denying that those conditions are valid. Similarly, a state can't add its own additions to a constitutional amendment in the course of ratifying it.

There is nothing central to neoconservatism that calls for the centralized government favored by liberals. Charles Krauthammer, for instance, has frequently been critical of the federal government's tenth amendment violations. It is true that neoconservatives are probably closer to Hamilton and Marshall than Thomas Jefferson, but Hamiltonian federalism is a very different thing than modern centralized government. Every statement you have made about neoconservatism has been interpretive. You haven't presented any facts to dispute. I think your interpretation that neoconservatives "hate the South" is silly. That's why I said you know nothing about neoconservatism. In retrospect, I was probably to harsh. You may know something.

Comment by Katzen | January 26, 2007
In this article, in footnote 27, the author cites Henry Jaffa, whom I know palecons hate, for the following quote:

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/refight.html

"An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for."

Lincoln later repeated this argument.

Comment by Katzen | January 26, 2007
You know, I think I swerved into something with my last comment. Paleoconservatism isn’t a political philosophy — it’s a religion. It, not any other moral or religious foundation, provides the ultimate guidance for all the important aspects of a paleo’s life.

Like a religion, it orients them within the universe and is the only important guide they need to consult when conducting their lives. It tells them which people are important (i.e. their fellow tribe members), and which people aren’t. All other competing philosophies are thought to be “inferior”, along with the people who hold those views.

This explains why they can’t deal honestly or candidly with the issue of race, because like most cultish religions there are things you can say forthrightly to other cult members, but not to others outside your religion. It also explains why they feel compelled to classify and categorize everyone along a “True Conservative” (or True Believers) continuum. Most fundamentalist religions do this, assigning value to people’s lives solely in terms of how well they conform to the teachings of their religion.

Paleos see no distinction when I or others talk about Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Unless it’s the “right kind” of conservatism, it’s just another brand of liberalism. All fundamentalist religions do this. Islamic fascists denigrate all non-Muslims, but they also denigrate all Muslims who aren’t part of their particular sect. They regard them no differently than they would Jews or Christians.

And it also explains the paleos’ disdain for Christian morality or any other God-based or non-paleo frame of reference that might supersede the tenets of their “faith”. Believing that God created all men in His image carries certain political and social implication that fly in the face of paleo thought. Paleos can only understand this concept by equating equality with outcome (like communism does, where all people must have — in theory — identical assets, except of course for the elites). They expressly reject the notion that people should be judged by the values they hold and the things they actually do with their lives, rather than their genetic background and/or family ties, since this would remove the supremacy of “tribe”, kith and kin, and racial purity paleoconservatism assigns to people.

The paleos will protest, of course, that I’ve gotten it all wrong. But go back and re-read their comments here and elsewhere, and decide for yourself. How would you react if the subject wasn’t a political philosophy but rather the tenets of your faith, and someone was challenging the religious notions you believed were essential to leading a proper life? You’d be just as exorcised as the paleos over what others might consider to be minor or peripheral points (like naming the Civil War), but which your “religion” considers to be a building block on the path to Heaven.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 27, 2007
Yeah, I think I hit a nerve.

As I explained before to Dan, an honest conversation requires two way dialogue. Dan asked me several questions in the Paleo Bilge article to which I responded at length (Paleo Bilge comment #12). I then posed several questions to him, OldRepublic and other paleos about the paleoconservative position on race which they have categorically refused to answer because the word I used was incorrect (therefore the examples I cited cannot exist), or as Dan explained, some of the comments were made by a friend of his and he doesn’t “refute” his friends.

Two-way conversation is impossible until the paleos extend to me the same courtesy of responding to the simple, straightforward questions I’ve posed to them. [As an aside, one self-described paleo did actually reply to my questions, but when he found that his answers were identical to mine he immediately repudiated his answers, so I chalk this up as a net non-reply.]

I’m not holding my breath for an honest exchange, however. Paleoconservatism IS a religion, and you don’t “debate” religious beliefs. This is the problem I believe that has pervaded this and other posts. I and others have approached this as a political discussion, when in reality the paleos have seen it as an attack upon their faith.

Aristotle, Kirk and Weaver, etc. aren’t just political theorists, they are the Lawgivers much the same way as Jesus Christ is to Christians and Allah is to Muslims. They aren’t just putting forward ideas, they are laying down immutable truths that must be followed to hold the title “True Conservative”, and thus allow one to follow the true path of Righteousness. Anti-Enlightenment intellectuals are the Apostles of the Paleoconservative faith who round out the details of how a good conservative, which is to say paleoconservative, should behave.

I — or anyone else — will no more convince a paleo that any aspect of the Lawgivers’ or Apostles’ theory is incorrect than they will convince a Christian that Jesus was just “another guy” whose teachings a good Christian can take or leave as they see fit. And since tribe, kith, kin, and white supremacy are integral parts of paleoconservative thought, anyone who challenges these concepts is analogous to someone challenging the concept of the Holy Trinity in which Christians believe. Dialogue immediately stops, and the personal attacks begin.

In Christianity, the worst thing that you can do to someone is label them a heretic, excommunicate them from the Church, and condemn them to hell. Since Paleoconservatism is a secular religion, the worst thing you can do is label someone a Liberal/Marxist/Leftist, etc. (and relate that to their genetic inferiority or inferior education), excommunicate them from “True Conservatism”, and condemn them as a “traitor” (to their country, kin or race) for expressing their beliefs.

Now all the vitriol, obsession with classifying people, and insistence that paleos, and paleos alone, represent conservative thought, finally makes sense. These aren’t unintelligent or uneducated people. On the contrary, many of them are quite well read and express their thoughts quite clearly when they aren’t simply making a personal attack. They are just the Keepers of the Flame, the Protectors of the Faith, and the Defenders of the Word, and everyone else who pretends to hold lconservative beliefs that differ from their own is a heretic or apostate.

They are more to be pitied than ridiculed, because they can’t see that there is a Higher power than paleoconservative thought that teaches us how we should actually live our lives.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 27, 2007
Question by OldRepublic:
“Have you noticed how GW Bush and his neocon cabal are willing to spend billions of US dollars to police the borders of Israel and Iraq, but will not lift a finger to stop the third-world invasion of the USA?
Well, is this dual-loyality or just plain ole treason?”
A perfect example of how the mind of the Bush-hater is Manichaean. Either you are intelligent and well-informed because you attribute everything Bush does to some evil plan to take over the world, or you are stupid and ignorant because you accept that there could possibly be good reasons for him to intern unlawful combatants, use force to interrogate them, listen to their phone conversations, and look at their library records. There is no third option. With that in mind, let me propose the “Manichaean Truth Table” which will boil down almost any long, convoluted dialog about labels, et al, into a simple process (I hope the text editor an IC lines this up correctly):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes . . . . . . . . . No
(Enter Y/N political question here)?
I like Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .0
I hate Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 1
For example, we can determine whether or not Saddam had WMDs:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes . . . . . . . . . No
Did Saddam have WMDs?
I like Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .0
I hate Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 1

Comment by sedonaman | January 27, 2007
In spite of his detractors, or perhaps because of them, Mr. Jackson has hit the nail squarely on the head: paleoconservatism is a religion, not merely a branch of conservatism.

But I would go farther - it is a cult. I have watched, mostly from the sidelines, the dialog surrounding several articles that seem to be lightning rods for paleos. Anything to do with the war in Iraq. Anything to do with racism (ur, pardon me - racialism). And most importantly, anything authored by Phillip Ellis Jackson.

In many ways, it is not so much what paleos say as it is the flying spittle and clenched teeth with which which they denounce those who dare to disagree. There are apparently no such things as honest skepticism or thoughtful dissent. There are only enemies.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 27, 2007
I posted a couple of things last night that I see didn't make it. To quickly summarize what I meant to say, OldRepublic forfeited any claim to seriousness he might once have enjoyed when he compared Lincoln to Pol Pot. Here in America, not supporting his preferred immigration policy does not constitute dual-loyalty or "plain ole treason."

Of course, some might say his descent into madness occured sometime ago. Maybe when he realized Irving Kristol was a Trotskyite for one year when he was 19. Or when he discovered the sinister Neocon-Lincoln-Jacobin connection. Or when he went to a hotel, and his maid didn't speak fluent English, and realized that the "invasion" was upon us. It's hard to pinpoint the exact moment he lost it.

Dan Phillips,

The reason I said you know nothing about neoconservatism is your ridiculous claim that neocons as a group "hate the South." I can't correct your facts because you didn't give any. Your entire post is an "interpretation" of neoconservatism, based on God knows what. I'll know you are completely dispossessed of facts if you tell me that Robespierre or Trotsky is your primary neoconservative source.

I made no dogmatic assertion about the constitutionality of the South's "secession." I made two arguments, neither of which you addressed in your response. As for the reservations of Virginia and others, I take the same position Hamilton took: the states did not have the right to add their own "conditions" to the Constitution, and therefore any claim to have done so is invalid. Even if those reservations had meant something, they clearly would have applied only to the states issuing them, and not to every state in the South. But, to reiterate, I don't accept that those reservations meant something.

If you're happy with "reactionary," good for you. I brought it up only because you insist on turning every debate into feud over the word "conservative," always insisting that you embody that term. You don't, and I just thought I'd say so.

Mtuggle,

I don't have the direct source. This article quotes Madison, and cites Henry Jaffa (whom I know paleos hate) citing someone else. Feel free to check the original source and tell me if I'm wrong.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/refight.html

"An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for."

Also see Madison's letter to Daniel Webster (whom many paleos hate) here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html

I know, I know. University of Chicago. OldRepublic, of course, will recognize that Leo Strauss and Phil Jackson conspired to alter this document to support the "Lincoln Myth." In doing so, they covered up the last remaining evidence that Madison would have been an avid Jefferson Davis supporter.

Comment by Katzen | January 27, 2007
I seem to be having trouble with my posts. They show up on the board a few days after I submit them. Is anyone else having this problem?

Comment by Katzen | January 28, 2007
I submitted a post to this comments section 2 or 3 days ago that hasn't showed yet

Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 28, 2007
Katzen and Patrick,

Yes, I seem to be having the same problem. Some posts don't show up at all…others show up only after a 2-3 day delay… and still others show up immediately.

Not sure what is going on.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 28, 2007
I've alerted the IC editors about the problems some of you are having with making posts.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 28, 2007
"I am not saying I condone all kinds of slavery …"

Wow!

I know this is going to be a rhetorical question, unfortunately, but in the 21st century (or even the 20th), exactly what kinds of slavery does a good paleoconservative condone?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 28, 2007
Dan:

What I’m “up to” is simple to understand.

I made a statement several months ago that we should judge people by what they do and not by the color of the skin. I was brutalized by people claiming to be paleoconservatives and the white supremacists who came to their defense who told me that race indeed “does matter”, and that we would be “fools” not to believe that whites are superior to other races.

You have set yourself out as an authority on paleoconservatism. So, I asked you if this characterization of paleoconservative philosophy is true. For about four months now all I’ve gotten from you and other paleos is evasions and dodges.

I treated you with respect by answering the questions you posed to me in my Paleo Bilge article, but you refuse to answer any of my questions. Instead, you dogmatically assign a label to me (one of about 10 I’ve been assigned by paleos), tell me that if I don’t support your view on Lincoln I must automatically be a supporter of FDR and big government. And you just keep asking more questions as if conversation is a one way dialogue with no obligation on your part to respond to any of my questions.

So now you ask, “you couldn’t possibly believe, could you, that paleocons are hostile to traditional orthodox Christianity?” Well, despite your persistent refusal to address my questions, I’ll answer this one for you.

Thanks to Old Republic, we’ve now been told that paleoconservatives won’t condone “all kinds of slavery” — just certain kinds of slavery — because the Bible doesn’t specifically denounce slavery and Aristotle thought that slavery was a good idea.

The Bible doesn’t say anything specifically about in vitro fertilization, human cloning, partial birth abortion, and fourth amendment protections against domestic surveillance either. Yet Christians and/or paleos have no inhibition about taking principled stands on these and other issues.

And speaking about supporting something because Aristotle did, do paleos 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? Maybe they do, but they’re not promoting these same “principled” ideas publicly, even though these ideas flow from the same classical source.

Now we’ve been treated to the thought by Old Republic that the inherent logic of paleoconservatism allows for certain kinds of slavery because Aristotle thought it was a good idea, and the Bible doesn’t have the word “slavery” in it.

I’d ask you to comment on these pearls of wisdom, but I know you won’t. You’ll simply fall back on your previous stand that since you didn’t make this egregiously stupid statement you don’t need to reply, and OR is undoubtedly a friend as well, so that assigns an extra level of paleo-double jeopardy.

Of all the people participating in this discussion, you — and you alone — have held yourself out to be an “expert”. I haven’t. I’ve cited my education in the tag line of my essays, but I don’t claim to speak on anyone’s behalf other than my own — despite your efforts today to make me the spokesman for the Chicago Neocon School today, where yesterday I was just a brainless dolt.

Yet the “expert” runs and hides from answering questions about what other self-described paleos have stated are the core beliefs and principles of paleoconservatism. There are three logical conclusions that derive from this:

1. The first is that you are a phony who doesn’t know anything about paleoconservatism. While a logical possibility, I don’t believe this is true. I don’t have a litmus test for accepting another person’s scholarship, so I don’t denigrate your self-taught wisdom about paleoconservatism. If anything, I’ve consistently complemented your research and overall abilities. So let’s look at another option below.

2. You indeed know and understand all things paleo, which means that you are quite aware of its dark side. For all your conservative opposition to big government and support for individual freedoms, you recognize that, as I hypothesized a long time ago, the way you go about addressing and promoting these issues attracts white supremacists and other bigots. I thought initially that you would react with the same horror to this that I and others have and, as an authority on paleoconservatism, want to distance your philosophy from these creeps. But instead you’ve done the exact opposite. So I’ve concluded, quite reasonably, that paleoconservatism is not opposed to these beliefs. Which leads to point #3.

3. Because you won’t state forthrightly (and in fact support indirectly) what is patently obvious to all of us, then you/paleoconservatism not only find no problem with white supremacy, you embrace it. But you know that politically you can’t actually discuss this among non-paleos, so you and others won’t respond because a “Marxist” word was used to describe this behavior, and you don’t dis your friends.

This is classical cultism, to build upon what someone else said in refining my analysis about paleo-religion.

Paleoconservatism is a religion, and a very disturbing one at that. You and others may call yourself Christians, but that means nothing. Many Nazis believed they were “good Christians” too. Anyone who thinks that Jesus Christ — who according to the Christian faith died for ALL men’s sins — would condone any form of slavery in the name of Christianity is an utter fool, or worse. And any expert on paleoconservatism who doesn’t have the integrity to denounce this garbage for what it is is no different than the person making the original claim.

As I’ve said repeatedly, all we need to do to understand what paleoconservatism actually is, rather than what it pretends to be, is let the paleos themselves talk. What they actually say (or refuse to say) tells us volumes.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
One side comment —

I had the experience once of sitting through a deposition in a civil case. A company owed my partners and I a rather large sum of money but refused to pay. We had a very good paper trail supporting our case, including several letters from the client complementing our work.

When these documents were produced in the deposition, the VP who wrote them exploded in rage. He was a former professional football player and an enormously powerful man. He screamed, pounded the table, called me and my attorney unspeakable names, and at one point I thought he was literally going to come across the table and attack both of us for asking him the questions.

Our attorney sat quietly while the man raged, and then when he finally quieted, asked the same exact question again. We went through several rounds of this.

I learned a lot from that experience, the first lesson of which is not to let yourself get distracted by the insults, innuendos, false bravado and other chafe thrown up in the air to distract from the issue at hand. In the case of the deposition, it all started with a contract I signed. In the cases of this now five-month-old running conversation, as I’ve stated repeatedly, this all began with a statement I made that we should judge people by what they do and not by the color of the skin …

By the way, we won the case.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
Katzen, we're still waiting for the source of the Madison quote you cited that alleged the States could not secede.

Wouldn't it be odd if one of the Founders, who staked their lives on the right of self-determination, should believe Americans did not have the right to secede?

Comment by mtuggle | January 29, 2007
As a point of clarification…

When Irving Kristol first described the tenets of a conservative philosophy known as "neoconservatism" in 1980, I was 19 years old. My political philosophies were already intact at that juncture, and it wasn't from watching TV, listening to pundits, or exposing myself to Kristol's writings. My beliefs came primarily from discussions with my father and from my reading of the Bible. Indeed, in 1980, I couldn't have told you who Kristol was, or what neoconservatism was. I would have identified myself simply as a conservative. And that probably means that most of my views align with "old school" conservatism. Or, in other words, paleoconservatism.

However, just because I don't label myself as a paleo, that does not automatically make me a neo or conservative-in-name-only. It is not an either/or proposition. It is entirely possible for me to embrace most of "traditional" conservatism without embracing every iota of it, and to do this without being a liberal. For example, I don't necessarily agree that the only reason for war is if we are provoked or threatened on our own soil. Because I happen to share that belief with neos doesn't make me a neo anymore than believing the sun will rise tomorrow makes me a neo - we simply hold that one belief in common, not an entire ideology. It certainly doesn't mean that I automatically and necessarily share other neo beliefs such as a large federal government or the pragmatic acceptance of a welfare state and a department of Education. Nor does it mean that I just conveniently sidestep contentious issues in conservative thought so that I can be a self-styled centrist. It simply means that my beliefs don't always neatly fit into a box. And I know that I am not alone. Do we honestly believe that Phyllis Schlafly and Russell Kirk - both "traditional" conservatives - share identical beliefs? At what point can I be labeled a non-conservative in terms of non-alignment with paleos? 95% alignment? 90% alignment? 89% alignment?

Frankly, outside the beltway, I'm not sure the average guy knows what a neocon is. I certainly didn't until a few months ago. I just figured there was this big bucket called "conservatism" and that within it we everything from white supremecists at one extreme, to athiest libertarians at another extreme, to fundamentalist Christians like myself. The average conservative has his beliefs and doubt hie bothers to label them as anything other than "conservative." Most, I think, are intelligent enough to distinguish between their beliefs and a political party. Voting Republican for many of us ceased to be a vote for real conservatism a long time ago. It is merely a vote against radical liberalism.

Because I still do not know what paleos believe about race, I cannot state with certainty what extent of their ideology we might have in common. Do I think race matters? Of course I do. It is not a question of whether race matters or not - it is a question of HOW it matters.

From the little I've been able to extract, when it comes to race, paleos would be more at home in a world where we still had tribes and small colonies of like-minded people from similar ancestry…not the world in which we find ourselves where different races inhabit the same neighborhoods, where people with different colored skin may share identical religious and political views and are as thoroughly "American" as I am - a white, middle-aged male of mixed European ancestry. Is the cultural history of someone with black skin different than mine? Of course it is - at least if we want to go back far enough in time. But why should that matter in terms of how they choose to live today - am I supposed to feel different about Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Dinesh D'Souza simply because their skin is a different color yet we hold to similar religious/political beliefs?

German, Norwegian, and Latvian blood flowing through these veins. What makes it OK, for example, for me to have that particular mix of Scandinavian and Slavic and Germanic DNA, yet not Arab and African and Asian traits mixed in as well? Is it my belief system? My culture? My religion? Is it simply wrong to mix races, or is it wrong only when the mixing results in me adopting their culture and beliefs?

This is what eludes me about the kith and kin verbiage I see used by paleos. If I have white skin I pass the smell test for racial purity? There are at least 3 races flowing through these veins, with little in common other than the amount of skin pigmentation they share. Nobody can tell me that Latvians, Germans, and Norwegians are more alike than different. It depends on how far back we want to trace ancestry. Shall we start with Scandanavians as marauding Vikings whose beliefs were distincly pagan and not Christian? Shall we start with Germanic tribes before they had been thoroughly Anglicized? Cultures change and assimilate many of the traits of those that conquer them, so that the German culture of 1950 is emphatically not the German culture of 1150.

I don't care to turn this into a discourse on the ways that race matters - not because I'm afraid to share my beliefs, but because it takes us way off topic from Jackson's essay and because I don't care to write an essay of my own - this post is already too long. Suffice to say that I think race matters, but not in the way that paleos seemingly suggest that it matters.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
mtuggle,

Further to post #42, I believe Katzen already addressed that in post #24 where he said that he incorrectly attributed the statement to Madison - it belonged to Lincoln instead.

I realize, of course, that many of the paleos here view Lincoln as a font of liberalism, destroyer of states rights, usurper of the Constitution, and abuser of executive power. As such, there's really no point quoting Lincoln to a paleo - it would be as well received as quoting FDR.

I'm not going to debate Lincoln here because I think there is general agreement that he stepped outside the lines. However, as Katzen points out, Lincoln was in a crisis no other president has had to contend with. Had Lincoln not done what he did, what kind of country would we have today? I believe we would have something approaching 50 countries and an AU similar to the EU with little in common other than currency and perhaps a postal system.

And yes, I realize that most paleos would consider that to be a good thing. Perhaps it's why a number of them probably fly the confederate flat atop their pick-up trucks.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
Re: post #43

typo in last sentence…should have read "flag" instead of "flat."

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
Good to see Katzen came clean. I knew none of the Founders would utter such a sentence, which would've been a complete contradiction on this country's founding principles.

You asked, "Had Lincoln not done what he did, what kind of country would we have today?"

Answer: Smaller, more representative government, based on voluntary association rather than conquest. No income tax. No consolidated bureaucracy in DC running our lives. A peaceful republic rather than an empire. You know — all the things liberals and Neocons despise. That's why Marx and his latter-day cronies such as Eric Foner fully approve what James MacPherson calls "the Second American Revolution,” which overthrew the first.

And we would have had the 600,000 + souls that Lincoln's War snuffed out.

Comment by mtuggle | January 29, 2007
mtuggle,

Another post I made which did not appear on this board (yet) found that Madison did, indeed, make the argument I suggested he did. The article I link to below quotes Madison and cites Henry Jaffa (footnote 27). Feel free to check the original source (since I am aware Mr. Jaffa's intellectual integrity is disputed among paleoco and let me know if this quote is falsely attributed.

Link: http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/refight.html
Madison Quote: "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for."

Comment by Katzen | January 29, 2007
Hey OldRepublic, I quoted YOU — a self-identified, self-professed paleo telling us all what paleoconservatism is all about!

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to tell us all exactly which kind of slavery a good orthodox "Christian" paleoconservatism finds acceptable in the 21st century.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
mtuggle,

Oh, and if the quote is indeed accurate, I hope you'll "come clean."

Comment by Katzen | January 29, 2007
Some of the comments/responses are appearing out of order.

I just read OldRepublic’s convoluted A-C, I-IV analysis. Does anybody have a clue what this guy is saying?

OR originally stated: “Paleos, however, reject much of the liberal baggage that has been added to Christianity since the Enlightenment. For example, the modern notion of ‘equality’ is an Enlightenment concept. Prior to the Enlightenment no such concept existed. The modern concept of equality does not exist in Classical Hebrew, Classical Greek, nor Classical Latin. The same is true of slavery. I am not saying I condone all kinds of slavery, but no where does the Bible condemn the institution of slavery.”

Now maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that a guy who

1. describes himself as a committed paleo, and

2. has no problem telling us what paleos believe, and what “Paleos reject”, and

3. who then proceeds to tell us that there are some kinds of slavery that are acceptable and some kinds that are not based on what Aristotle (i.e. the paleo Lawgiver) said and the Bible allegedly didn’t say —

— can’t now weasel out of giving us an answer to the question that if some kinds of slavery are in fact condoned by paleoconservatism, tell us what they are?

Old Republic wasn’t just offering an unrelated personal side comment like, Paleoconservatism stands for A-B-C and oh, by the way, I like vanilla but not chocolate ice cream. He was enumerating the principles and practices of paleoconservatism as a good paleoconservative perceives them.

But now, when he realizes how egregiously stupid and bigoted the statement is, he wants to weasel out of any responsibility for making the comment — let alone providing an answer — by saying that “anyone who has had basic logic knows, you cannot derive what ‘paleoconservatives condone’ from what I myself do not condone.”

Okay. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the slavery remark was a gratuitous, unrelated side comment about “vanilla ice cream” thrown into an otherwise 100% focused discussion of paleoconservatism. To which I still ask, exactly what kind of slavery do YOU, OLD REPUBLIC, PERSONALLY CONDONE? You said that you don’t condone “all”, which means that you must condone “some”. So what’s the answer?

May I remind you that you are the one making the original statement. No one put words into your mouth. If you don’t want to answer as a devout paleoconservative, just answer as a human being.

But you won’t, because you can’t, because to reply would be to expose you for what you really are. So you’ll just ignore your own comments and go on to with another rousing defense of white “Christian” paleoconservative orthodoxy.

This is why honest conversation with paleos is impossible.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
Katzen,

See comment #12. Here was what you alleged:

Katzen wrote:

“And, as James Madison (neocon, no doubt, and probably a graduate of the University of Chicago) argued, a state can no more “secede” from the Union than the Union can “secede” from a single state.”

Madison said no such thing. That was Lincoln, as you agreed later. So don't try to change the subject by switching quotes on us.

By the way, the Founders knew secession remained legal. Washington, Jefferson, and Adams acknowledged that fact, and the Constitutional mechanism of secession was taught at West Point. No party to the Constitution intended to create a consolidated nation.

Comment by mtuggle | January 29, 2007
Mtuggle,

Explain to me the difference between the argument I initially attributed to Madison, and the argument made by Madison in the quote I later provided. That quote, by the way, was the only one I provided, so I clearly didn't "switch" quotes. It seems to me that Lincoln later repeated Madison's argument. I apologize for being too quick to have judged myself mistaken.

Can I have a source on Washington, Jefferson, and Adams acknowledging that secession was legal?

Comment by Katzen | January 29, 2007
OldRepublic,

Poligamy was prevalent in the Old Testament. The New Testament, in contrast, does speak about "being the husband of one wife." Some have used this to denounce poligamy. Others, divorce. Although nowhere do we see poligamy explicitly denounced, the lack of denouncement does not equate to implicit or explicit support of the institution.

I view slavery in much the same way. Paul wrote letters, such as Philemon, that talk about slavery because it was a fact of his culture. The lack of an emphatic proscription against it should not be interpreted as support of the institution.

However, I'm confused as to why you find it important to bring slavery into this discussion at all.

Is there a point you are trying to make?

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
Mtuggle:

If the Constitution is an illegal document, and the power to tax the population derives from it, do you pay income taxes to the Federal Government — since doing so would be to recognize and therefore legitimize an "illegal" insitution?

Or do you just make bonehead pronouncements that you don't even believe yourself, as demonstrated by your actions?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
"There is no general 'consensus' among paleos on issues. Paleos often disagree with each other."

If there is no consensus among paleos on what they do or don't believe, how can paleoconservatism be the one, the only, True Conservativism? It's just a collection of people believing different things.

This isn't a philosophy. It's a hen party.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
Phil,

To say a word (and only a word) in defense of OldRepublic, he's technically right that "I'm not saying I condone all kinds of slavery" does not necessarily mean "I condone some kinds of slavery." That's it. That's as far as I'll defend him. He still has to answer, though, why he chose to write that ridiculous sentence if he doesn't condone some kind of slavery. Why bother saying "all kinds of"? Why not just say, "I'm not saying I condone slavery." That's how a normal, anti-slavery person would express that thought.

Or better yet, "I don't condone slavery of any kind." Does he agree with that sentence?

Comment by Katzen | January 29, 2007
Nevadamistermon:

I was very impressed with your comment about race. It seems to me what you are saying, fundamentally, is that "values matter" as the determining factor. Race, religion, kith, kin, pants size, right or left-handedness, etc. are all secondary issues that may shape certain actions, but the fundamental point is the values that unite or divide us.

Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 29, 2007
Phil,

That is exactly what I am saying. Values are far more important to me than skin color or ancestry. The Bible itself allowed Jews to inter-marry as long as the "grafted" individual to Judaism renounced their culture/religion of origin and adopted Judaism. The New Testament is even more replete with this concept by allowing "everyone else" (i.e. Gentiles) to become grafted in provided they adopted the theology of Jesus Christ, regardless of their ancestry. The issue was not one of keeping blood lines pure. It was one of keeping ideology and theology pure. Rahab the harlot was part of Jesus' lineage. So was Ruth. Neither were Jews.

Again, I will not go into a lengthy dissertation on the ways that I think race matters - it really has more to do with diversity. I believe in a God that created diversity in the human species just as he created diversity in plant and animal life. Personally, I love this diversity of creation, including human diversity across ethnicities. I just don't think that this diversity matters in terms of the make-up of our nation. To the extent that someone of different ancestry and ethnicity is willing to come to this country, accept the core elements of our culture, and abide by our system of government, I cannot see that race matters in that sphere.

If paleos want to consider such a position "non-conservative" so be it. I still cannot figure out what kith, kin, blood, tribe, and their other nomenclature means. It seems to be a language unique to their belief system. I'd be pleased if they'd be willing to exlain that language to me, including its plain-language definitions and implications.

We've now been waiting a couple months. I'm not holding my breath.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
Nevadamistermom:

Yes, this debate has always been about values. Paleos will claim that they are value-oriented, not racist (or whatever word we're permitted to use), and as evidence point to the long list of abstract values OldRepublic cited. But just ask yourself an interesting question:

If a white man held every single one of the positions OldRepublic does, would he be permitted to "join the tribe" or be part of OR's country? Absolutely. If a black/brown etc. man held all these same positions, would he be let into the tribe or could he be part of OR's country? No! He'd have to start his own tribe and/or country. Why? Because for all their lofty pronouncements, race — not values — are the fundamental building blocks of paleo thought.

As an aside, I got a chuckle out of OldRepublic's characterization that Paleos are "opposed to 'ideology'". Like the New York Times that thinks it isn't ideological because it's views are the supposedly normal, mainstream ones, paleos aren't ideological because their views, and theirs alone, are the only correct ones, so by definition everyone who disagrees is an ideologue — or to use Dan's favorite phrase, "PC".

By the way, did anyone pick up on the fact that "PC" can mean "Paleo-Conservative" as well as "Politically Correct?" I wonder if this is a subconscious Freudian slip?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
Dan on January 24:

** “I agree labels can be the refuge of the simple-minded or the demagogue especially if used incorrectly or imprecisely.”

Dan on January 30:

** Phil slavishly embraces liberal political correctness. [Liberal, PC]
** Phil is obviously in favor of thought slavery [Thought Slavery]
** Phil’s doctrinaire embrace of political correctness is prima facie evidence of his moral rectitude/superiority. [More PC, moral rectitude/superiority]
** I suspect you are a Lockean.”

For those of you keeping track, I am now a “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, anti-Semitic, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean.”

Looks like I’ll have to get a bigger business card.

By the way Dan, there’s nothing “de facto” about your self-described “moral reprobate” positions. They are very clearly expressed by you and the other paleos.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
The Founders were all secessionists who understood that liberty depends on a people’s right to voluntarily withdraw, otherwise, they are held against their will, and made a number of statements that show that their understanding of the system of government they had created remained voluntary, as opposed to being an empire based on coercion.

During the Constitutional debates, James Madison addressed the issue of coercing a State: "To coerce a State would be more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts."

(from the Records of the Debates on the Federal Constitution of 1787)

Washington in his Farewell Address described the Union as an “experiment” that should be “given a fair chance.” That is not a description of submission of the States into in inescapable consolidation.

In response to the passage of the Tariff Act of 1816, Jefferson expressed his opposition to emulating the British Empire's mercantilist policies, and argued that a sovereign State should secede rather than being party to a policy of "licentious commerce and gambling speculation for a few, with external war for the many." Jefferson announced that he "would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war" and allow the other States to "confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." [John Taylor of Caroline: Pastoral Republican, Robert E. Shalhope, pp. 194-5]

John Quincy Adams said this in commemoration of the Constitution’s fifty-year jubilee:

"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint."

Alexis de Tocqueville described the general understanding of the relationship between the sovereign States and the Union when he wrote that the Union "was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so."

The Declaration of Independence is a secessionist document. Nothing in the Constitution surrenders the right of self-government, which Jefferson described as the right of “… one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” Both the Ninth and Tenth amendments preserve that right.

And to Phillip Ellis Jackson — whatever gave you the idea that I said the Constitution is an illegal document? Flashback from the '60s?

Comment by mtuggle | January 30, 2007
Interesting how a guy who won't comment on whether white people are inherently superior because he doesn't want to "repudiate" the friend who said it, labels the person who referred him to the comment as the "morally-superior thought police."

And of course, the same guy (who says he is an expert on paleoconservatism, and says that ad hoc labels are the last refuge of a simple mind) continues to call people who ask him questions about how paleos treat the issue of race, immediately labels the person posing the question "PC" and lumps them in with Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson for daring to pose the question.

Just another example of paleo "courage" (as Dan describes above) to tell us all what paleos actually believe.

Irony is often lost on the ironic.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
Dan,

You wrote:

"Navada, you can believe that America is a PN if you want to, but do you disagree with Brimelow’s assertion that it is a recent concept? Do you disagree that it is a fundamentally left-wing concept? Is the PN thesis a concept that it is inherently “racist” to dispute? Is disputing it “immoral?” Was it right to fire Brimelow for writing against it?"

You ask five questions above. I'll address each of them below by number.

1. "Do you disagree with Brimelow’s assertion that it is a recent concept?"

I neither agree nor disagree with it because I have not had time to research the historical aspects in detail. I was simply stating my understanding of the premise of America.

2. "Do you disagree that it is a fundamentally left-wing concept?"

That depends entirely on how you define "left-wing". What has become abudantly clear to me in the various dialogs here on IC is that to a paleo, left-wing is exactly synonymous with non-paleo. There is never much debate - it is stated as immutable fact. Non-paleo = liberal.

3. "Is the PN thesis a concept that it is inherently “racist” to dispute?"

Of course not. If the fundamental purpose of a sovereign nation is to establish a constituency of people of specific ancestry, religion, and political beliefs, then we are not debating the merits of ancestry or race, simply the premise on which the nation was founded. However, nothing in my upbringing or reading of history has led me to believe that ancestry was a major factor in the American experiment. Religion and political ideology, yes. Race, no. This was a British colony for heaven's sake…populated exclusively by emigrants from England. Of course it initally consisted of only a particular race. That doesn't necessarily equate to to a nation that cannot and will not work with injections of different ethnicities. The key is whether those ethnicities will embrace our religious and ideological underpinnings. If they won't, the nation fails. Not because of skin color, but because of beliefs. If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but the burden of proof rests entirely with you. Citing Franklin and Jefferson is interesting, but is not exactly a preponderance of the evidence. Nor is stating a rather short-lived political party (the Know-Nothings) who appeared on the scene 50 years later. I am certainly not arguing in favor of lax immigration laws or larger quotas. I was also unaware that we had laws limiting immigration to only certain ethnicities. I thought it was simply a numerical quota, regardless of country of origin or ethnicity. If I am wrong, I welcome your rebuttal.

4. Is disputing it “immoral?”

Dan, it's beginning to feel like you're putting words in my mouth here. Please refrain from that. I've never asserted that discussing this matter is either racist or immoral. It feels as though there is a huge chip on the shoulder of yourself and fellow paleos - that anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist and will immediately resort to leftist tactics such as cries of "racist" or "immoral" in order to shut down further dialog. Is there anything in my posts that can substantiate this? I've said that I view paleo thought as more like a religion or cult than a political point of view, but that doesn't mean there can be no further dialog. It simply means that I view the paleo school of thought as exhibiting the passion I would normally associate with religious adherence. I have done some reading of Russell Kirk in the last few days; namely, his preface to the Dictionary of American Conservatism by Filler. It strikes me that his requirements for what constitutes a "Conservative" are far less onerous than the requirements than you and your fellow paleos would proscribe.

5. "Was it right to fire Brimelow for writing against it?"

I'm dubious that National Review fires anyone for being too politically incorrect. I think they fire people when the consider their views to be outside the boundaries of traditional conservatism. Dan, if we want to cite "traditional conservatism" as the litmus test of what should be espoused and discussed in conservative publications, then we should be endlessly rehashing the arguments of Abolitionists and citing slaveowners such as Washington and Jefferson as proof that the Founders did not consider those with black skin to be individuals encompassed by the protections of the Constitution. Perhaps I'm a heretic, but it's entirely possible that the Founders were WRONG about certain things, is it not? As long as we remedy those wrongs in a Constitutional manner (which does not include Judicial Activism), I have no problem. Your brand of conservatism seems to elevate tradition and history to a position that is absolute and unquestionable. It smacks almost of British aristocracy. If my rejection of certain aspects of that make me a liberal in your eyes, then again - so be it.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 30, 2007
"What is de facto is your assumption that positions not in line with political correctness are morally reprobate."

Dan: You are the one who labels disagreement (or just the fact that a question not to your liking is posed) "politically correct", and you are the one who introduced the term "moral reprobate." You are the author/originator of both terms in this discussion, but somehow this is now my phraseology???

Irony is indeed lost on the ironic. And more irony, it appears, is lost on the moronic.

Keep on defining paleoconservatism through your own words.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
"I just very specifically criticized the proposition nation thesis and partially explained why … ."

How about doing the same thing regarding the specific questions about how paleos view race, the ones I and others have posed for several months but you and the other paleos refuse to answer because the wrong word was used, or your friend made the comment and you don't "refute" your friends?

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
Dan,

While you did specifically criticize the proposition nation thesis, I did not see anything approaching an even partial explanation. I saw the opinion of one guy: Brimelow. That isn't an explanation, it's a sound bite. Then, you went on to equate national identity with cultural and ethnic heritage, and extrapolated this equality to John Jay's thinking. I have no reason to believe Jay had your definition in mind when he talked about national identity. He may have, but without evidence of his own thinking, it seems to me that you are projecting your ideals onto him rather than allowing him to speak for himself.

I'm afraid I have always taken national identity when it comes to this country to mean its political ideology. After all, D'Toqueville chronicled a people who were thoroughly English in their ancestry and thoroughly Christian in their religion and legal tradition, but yet were very different from the residents of their mother country. Why? Certainly not skin color, DNA, religious beliefs, or even culture. Those things were identical. It was their political ideology and their political ideology alone that made them different from their English brethren. So are you insisting that the only way for the American experiment to work is to keep everything the same in terms of race and ancestry…that if we change these variables but still hold moral, religious, and political ideology fixed, the whole thing crumbles? It just doesn't follow for me. It also puts me squarely outside the founders in terms of DNA. There isn't a drop of English blood in me. I can't trace my ancestry to the Mayflower. It was a boat that landed at Ellis Island instead.

Even if it can be shown that the Founders had a specific genetic recipe in mind, and that they assumed the American experiment could only work with that genetic recipe, I would contend that the Founders were not infallible. In spite of their brilliance, they were also the product of their culture: these are the same men that were in favor of slavery and opposed to women's sufferage. I am not saying that changing with the wind is an admirable quality, but your brand of conservatism seems to be so deeply rooted in tradition and history that it is truly inflexible. Am I to conclude that Abolitionists and Sufferagists were liberals simply because their positions were neither historical nor traditional?

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 30, 2007
"Among most early Christian communities, the act of killing was only considered ‘murder’ if it involved a person killing someone of his own tribe."

We're now getting into the scary face of paleoconservatism that they've managed to keep hidden up to this point:

** Certain (unnamed) forms of slavery are condoned.
** Murder isn’t really murder unless you kill your own tribe member.

Dress it all up with allusions to states’ rights, anti-federalism, decentralism, local rule and the like, tell people that this is what a Good Christian must believe (i.e. one whose mind isn’t polluted by left-wing universalism that was injected into Christianity during the Enlightenment) and we now have the prescription for what Jesus Christ really meant when he said “love thy neighbor”.

What Christ obviously meant to say was don’t kill or enslave your genetic relatives, but all bets are off when it comes to people of another “tribe”. Christ died for the white man’s sins, but if you’ve got some impure blood in your background (the “one drop rule” notwithstanding), God doesn’t really think about you the same way.

You just can’t make this kind of stuff up.

Paleoconservatism may not be a secular religion after all. We’re way beyond anything that has to do with the notion of humanity, and deep into venal self- interest disguised as principle.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
OR,

I'm not sure where you have gathered your facts regarding Christianity, but it goes far beyond lacking - it is dead wrong. You're going to have to come up with something far more credible than the interesting little narrative above. It's downright laughable.

1. "The early Christians were tribal people and valued loyalty to their tribe above all else. For example, St. Augustine says that loyalty to those closest to one in blood and location is greater than to others."

What tribe are we talking about here? The early christians were quite a mixed bag of ethnicities. Many of the churches Paul wrote to in his letters were in major metropolitan centers consisting of a huge cross section of peoples. You have made a statement without one shred of proof, and then quoted St. Augustine who lived several centuries after the first century Christians. This hardly constitutes Christian support for paleo tribal notions. And, who would argue that most people feel a greater sense of responsibility to their family and community than to wider spheres of influence. The Bible teaches God, self, family, and neighbor - in that order. Did I miss something?

2. "A very illustrating example is murder. Among most early Christian communities, the act of killing was only considered ‘murder’ if it involved a person killing someone of his own tribe."

You've truly outdone yourself here. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about regarding "early Christian communities." Exactly what kinds of "tribes" did they form themselves into? Are you confusing the OT with the NT? Is there some paleo corollary to the 6th commandment that I and other followers of Christ have missed for the last 4000 years? The four words in Deut 5:17 seem pretty clear to me: You shall not murder. I don't think early Christians struggled with any hidden nuances. But honestly OR, this doesn't surprise me in the least coming from you. This is the man who won't come out and oppose all kinds of slavery, just some kinds. This is a man who apparently thinks murder is only murder if you kill another brother - not someone outside your own tribe. This is a man who exhanges high-fives with JD when JD scorns anyone who would report a family member to the police because it's "disloyalty to the tribe" even if that family member were selling drugs to children, committing rape, or killing. I guess tribe trumps all in your world.

3. "Genealogy for early Christians is very important, and thus the recording of their posterity, thanks to which we today possess many of the manuscripts that we do."

Geneology was extremely important in the OT, but for the life of me, I don't see any living descendents of the Apostles or Joseph or Mary walking around boasting their creds. Did I miss something? Are these archives kept somewhere that the rest of us aren't privy to? What manuscripts are you talking about? The ones we saw in the DaVinci Code?

It truly gets scarier by the minute with you guys. And thanks for once again asserting that I'm left wing and using big words like universalism. I make no apologies for having certain views that are universalist, applying to all people at all times in all places. I guess absolute truth such as the 6th commandment has no place in your universe. Oops…I almost forgot. Your universe is only as big as your tribe.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 30, 2007
Dan has got to be sitting in his office reading OldRepublic's musings on slavery and Christian murder and pulling his hair out (assuming he's not bald), thinking to himself "every time I make a point that paleoconservatism is about abstract notions of rights and responsibilities, this clown chimes in with it's okay to enslave and murder people who aren't part of your tribe because it's not really slavery or murder if they aren't white like me."

Dan and other paleos have spent 4 months avoiding any discussion about white supremacy, and now some self-professed paleo says it's all about white genetic purity after all.

Some people just can't catch a break.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
This entire forum should be called the "Phil Liberal Baiting Forum," where Phil is Mr. Political Correct and he condemns anyone who violates any of the strictures of political correctness.

Since Phil is not a scholar, let me explain something. I never said that I condone the murdering of people of other tribes. I do NOT.

Furthermore, I never said that I condone slavery. Actually, I personally do not. But I refuse to succumb to Phil's liberal baiting.

I was using murder t as a historical example to show the importance of tribal mentality among early Christians.

Regarding the tribes of early Christians, there were many. There were thousands. And each had loyalty to itself before to others.

Just read any of the letters of St. Augustine. He says numerous times that loyalty to one's tribe and family trumps obligations to strangers.

If you want a really good account of early Christianity, read the first few chapters Thomas Fleming's _Morality of Everyday LIfe: An Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition_. (Dr. Fleming has a Ph.D. in Classical Greek and Latin.)

Comment by OldRepublic | January 30, 2007
OR,

It occurs to me that your version of early Christianity bears more resemblance to inner-city gangs than to reality. Do you think they had tats? Matching jackets? Spinner wheels on their donkey carts? Did they hold their swords in that defiant you-want-a-piece-of-this stance?

Yup, somebody diss's you, looks at you wrong, crosses your turf, you smoke 'em. It ain't murder, it's a declaration of war baby … a man standin' up fo' his tribe. Per your first statment, there ain't nothing more important than that tribe. Nothin'. After all, those early Christians valued loyalty to their tribe above all else - above reason, above moral law, above civil law, above the Scriptures, above Christ's example.

I'm beginning to understand kin, kith, tribe, and blood. Thanks for the education.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 30, 2007
Nevada,

I myself did a quick search to find some source for OldRepublic's claims, and I could find none. Maybe he'll provide us with one.

To add to your last point, I understand that paleocons and the cosa nostra have very similar rules regarding loyalty to kin, kith, tribe, and blood.

Another point on the rhetoric here. Referring to his tribe is a very odd thing for a modern creature of Western Civilization to do. OldRepublic has no tribe, unless he is an Apache, which I doubt.

Comment by Katzen | January 30, 2007
On the radio a few minutes ago, I heard a male voice condemning "racism" almost word-for-word as one of Phil's previous posts. I thought to myself, "Phil?" But no, it was Barack Obama.

I often feel as if this forum is some king of left-wing gulag where Phil is the PC enforcer ready to lay down the hammer on anyone who violates the Right Think of Political Correctness.

But I shall not be intimidated.

I love Western Civlization, Christianity, and my European-American heritage, and I refuse to announce it.

I don't care how many left-wing inquisitions the Phil Jacksons of this world put me before, I refuse to succumb to this liberal nonsense.

Comment by OldRepublic | January 30, 2007
Katzen,

Don't forget to read Chronicles magazine while you're at it. That will clear everything up.

Comment by nevadamistermom | January 30, 2007
Katzen:

We addressed the tribe-name issue in comments to my Paleo Bilge article. Indians are the wrong gene pool, so it’s got to be a ceremonial thing, like on Survivor.

By the way, I just about fell out of my chair laughing at Nevadamistermom’s “Chronicles” remark. Next to Mountain Man’s “sounds of crickets chirping”, it was one of the funniest — and most prophetic — things I’ve read. I’m extremely jealous that I didn’t come up with either of them.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 30, 2007
I was in no way endorsing murder, but rather making the point that even still in the late Roman Empire / Early Medieval Europe tribalism was still rife, and that it permeated many aspects of Christian morals.

I furthermore have never endorsed slavery. I find much of it distasteful. I, however, didn't make a definitive statement because I just simply refuse to succumb to Phil's liberal baiting.

I often feel that this forum is some left-wing gulag where Phil is Mr. PC Enforcer ready to condemn anyone who violates the rules of political correctness.

Comment by OldRepublic | January 31, 2007
From Dan: “He never troubles himself to answer the arguments of an opponent. . . . It has never occurred to him . . . that when an objection is raised, it ought to be met with something more convincing than “scoundrel” or “blockhead.”"

Irony is indeed lost on the Ironic. According to him and the other paleos, for daring to question whether paleoconservativism attracts a certain form of, shall we say, white nationalism, Phil Jackson is a [the list keeps growing] “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, anti-Semitic, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer .”

Amazing how the paleos can wax poetic about what they believe, unless of course it is to address an issue — offered by other self-professed paleos and their supporters — that insists that race (not values) is the key factor in assessing human worth, and that only a "fool" would think that white people are not genetically superior.

And of course, whenever an issue is raised about the acceptability of certain forms of slaver