Paleoconservatism is more than a political philosophy. It is a religion.
To my ongoing surprise and amazement, who I am appears to be as divisive a topic of discussion at IntellectualConservative.com as what it is I write.
Now on one level I’m not surprised. I have a history of making extremely divisive and controversial statements like, “I don’t agree with that,” or “I think you’re wrong.” Usually, though, I reserve these for situations where I either don’t agree with what someone said, or what they said was so egregiously wrong that verbalizing the thought almost seems like a redundancy.
These red flags are usually followed with the equally confrontational statement “this is what I believe,” from which either too many or too few words follow, depending upon the recipient’s point of view.
But the thing that seems to get me in trouble the most, and is the reddest of all red flags that I’ve been prone to wave, seems to be the dreaded “why” question, such as, “you said X; why do you actually believe that?” For this there seems to be a special 8th level of Hell where I, and lately a few other commentators and contributors at IntellectualConservative.com, seem to have been consigned.
The controversy I’ve sparked is nothing new in my life, mind you. I’ve gotten in trouble plenty of times for opening my mouth. Usually though, the stakes were a bit higher; a half-billion dollar bond program, the closing of a municipal airport, malfeasance by a public official that had criminal overtones — you know, minor stuff like that.
For this I was routinely labeled as, well, now that I think about it, I wasn’t labeled at all; unless mutual references to generic body parts counts as a label. The object of my attention and I slugged it out publicly, privately, and often brutally. Our respective jobs were often at stake, as were the lives of certain employees caught up in the imbroglio.
But even when I was in a shouting match with a public official in front of the local TV cameras, or telling a room full of CEOs that their strategy for selling a mass transit system to the general public was fatally flawed, neither of us saw fit to launch into the endless stream of personal attacks and invective those who disagree with certain “true conservatives” are routinely subjected to.
As of today (and still counting), according to the folks who call themselves paleoconservatives, I am a “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist-sympathizer, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman.”
Since I’m already having trouble fitting all of this on my business card, I’ve omitted the “modernist,” “left-wing Jacobin” and other similar-such references that seem to apply to me as well as others asking the same questions I have. But you get the drift.
To be honest, I’d forgotten about a lot of this kind of stuff since I got my Ph.D. in 1981 and promptly left academic life to make my way through the real world. But like a bad mushroom producing that LSD flashback, I’ve once again been immersed in a world where the stakes aren’t real world options, but dogmatic political philosophy. The Constitution is an illegal document and we need to return to the Articles of Confederation, as well as throw out any ideas to which the word “Enlightenment” is attached.
Okay, as an abstract theory I suppose we could discuss this — that is, once we understand a few key issues like, exactly how is a person’s race treated in assigning tribe, kith, kin, and other crucial status that goes along with these prescriptions? But even assuming we ever get past this point and have an explanation that doesn’t require endless code talk, we quickly reach another loggerhead. As one observer (not me) framed the issue in the comments to my January 24, 2007 essay, paleoconservatism’s “quasi-intellectual tone is barely penetrable. No wonder paleos have such trouble expressing themselves. Even their preeminent spokespersons can barely do so themselves.”
This produced the following solution from a self-identified paleo: “OK. I’ll explain things to you. Read the articles ‘Where in the World are we Going,’ and ‘Jacobin in Chief,’ and then we’ll begin some lessons. We first are going to read the Greeks, and then the Romans, followed by some serious study of classical languages, the history of political philosophy, and then some modern history and modern thought, and the criticisms thereof. This will be a difficult path, but it will be worth its while in gold. It will take a few years.”
All that — and actually more, if you read other paleo posts — is necessary to answer any derivative question regarding what it is a paleoconservative actually believes.
It’s the same pseudo-academic double talk that we find in today’s universities. Life is too complicated to answer any question directly. It requires years of careful study (read: indoctrination) before we can give you a straight answer.
Oh, and when we finally do reply, forget about how the world actually is today. Forget about the fact that our banking and commerce system is X, our technology and communications are Y, our enemies believe and do Z. We’re going to wipe all these extraneous, distracting issues from your mind and talk about politics as if we still lived in Aristotle’s time.
Now this passage will immediately be interpreted by certain individuals as “forget about principles, just do the expedient thing today.” This is what I’ve normally attributed to the thought process of self-identified Liberals, as I explain at length in my Looney Liberal Chronicles. Instead, I’ve always viewed life (from a conservative perspective) as “Here is the world as it exists today. How do we mold it, shape it, or apply a different set of principles to guide man’s actions?”
In the first case — the paleo-prescription — we need to pretend, much like the Communist Manifesto, that the world can be returned to (or achieve) a near-utopian state if only we re-instate (or install) these principles. Forget about whether breaking the U.S. into 50 independent nation-states would result in its economic, political, or actual destruction. This is the goal. Don’t bother yourself with the practical implications of how to build this new kith and kin-based social order given the state we are in today. Just keep repeating the words, and label anyone who asks you to explain its practical implications regarding race-based policies a Leftist, Marxist, Neocon, New Age Hippster . . . well, you get the idea.
In the second case, we start with the real world, and like Reagan see how we can practically re-shape it. Want to destroy the evil empire of the Soviet Union? Isolate it politically, and spend a few hundred billion on strategic defense. Or, for a fraction of that expense, I guess we could send everyone in the politburo a subscription to Chronicles Magazine. Like Reagan, though, I think the former is the best way to proceed.
Because ideologues are less concerned with how to make something happen than with what ought to be the state of affairs, they focus on purely theoretical abstracts as a substitute for policy prescriptions. It’s why I never have, and never will, claim any affinity with political theorists. There is nothing quite as useless as arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or to relate it to the present discussion, whether the “one drop rule” of judging a person’s ancestry purifies someone enough to join my “tribe” or be required to start one of their own.
This is the world of the academic elite, for whom notions of reality and accountability hold a completely different set of judgments than for those of us in the real world. Don’t like the present state of immigration policy in the U.S.? You can vote for candidate A vs. B., support policy C. vs. D., or you can talk about kith, kin, tribe, genophilia, and a return to the Articles of Confederation.
Once again, I’ll focus on the former. And what will I use to help shape my policy judgments? The sum total of my life experience, education, and value system. All three components are indispensable. What I was taught in school has been put to a practical test in life. What I’ve done in life has been guided by more than my education. The values I hold, both religious and secular, shape my world view.
But because I draw from all three levels, I am not qualified to join the club of pure political theorists, which is just fine with me.
This personal and/or intellectual deficiency has, though, produced some interesting side-benefits. It’s allowed me to answer certain questions with a single word (“Do you believe that whites are inherently superior to other races?” “No.”) that after five months and 500+ comments paleos still refuse to address. It’s a “baited” trap, a discredited use of left-wing Marxist terminology, or a question that requires years of careful study and analysis to respond to.
This focus on life instead of theory has also allowed me to think and write about abortion and terrorism as fundamental issues built around the concept of a universal moral code, which says that “it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life.” Not an innocent white life, or non-Jewish Christian life, but life, period. As the self-described paleos see it, though, this means automatically advocating open borders and a communist system of equality. Or, to put it in their own words from the comment section to my "Paleo Bilge" essay, "The ‘universal moral code’ is simply a computer program by which twerps in think-tanks or party headquarters may micromanage society. It is not a substitute for real intimacy, for real knowledge of what’s going on."
Paleoconservatives want to define the entire conservative movement through their distorted lens. They borrow bits and phrases from respected bodies of literature (the works of Aristotle, the Bible, etc.), but like most dogmatic propagandists, they pick and choose only what they want. Did you know, according to Orthodox Christianity (the only “True” Christianity), that it’s only “murder” if you kill a fellow tribe member? The deliberate slaughter of other innocent human life falls into a secondary category.
And what about Aristotle? He supported slavery you know, so segregation must be okay. But he also supported infanticide, believed that women are inferior beings who lack the rights men do, said it was okay to impose governmental restrictions on the right to bear children, and had no problem with abolishing all private property. Do the same paleos who look to Aristotle for foundational guidance advocate bringing back the practice of slavery – not just racial segregation? Maybe they do, but they’re not promoting these same “principled” ideas publicly, even though these ideas flow from the same classical source.
No. They are simply looking for a good-sounding excuse to justify their segregationist bigotry. Aristotle supposedly provides the philosophical foundation for justifying slavery. But when you actually read his works, you see that support for “natural” slavery is not based on skin color, but on other human factors. It was a culturally-based application of logic to a “natural order” that believed in multiple gods, thought the earth was flat, that soil, wind, fire and water were the four basic elements, and arose in a time where people lived and died within miles of where they were born (apart from military expeditions), which also explains the focus of classical theorists on family ties and bloodlines. Supporting slavery wasn’t a principle as much as it was a judgment about certain aspects of the human condition based on various assumptions that, by the very nature of Aristotelian logic, would be overturned when mankind’s understanding of nature grew more sophisticated.
The process of logic and reasoning taught by these classical scholars is still the basis today for much of the way we scientifically evaluate information. But the conclusions arising from this process are only as good as the information upon which it is based. Modern day racists ignore the scientific method that today would factor in a wealth of more sophisticated variables, and rely only on 2,000-year-old “conclusions.” The modern day white supremacists pay homage to Aristotle’s conclusions, not the process he taught us to help decide an issue.
I thought once that the discussion would end here. But thanks to another round of paleo bilge that’s drawn out a few more expressions of their faith, I’ve come to an additional conclusion as well. I thought I’d been having a practical policy discussion with people of a different frame of view. It turns out we’ve been having a parallel conversation. While I’ve been talking about paleo-politics, the paleos themselves have been talking about their paleo-religion.
When you get right down to it, and strip away all the flowery rhetoric about kith and kin and tribe, etc., paleoconservatism is much more than a simple 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, paleoconservative philosophy 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 implications that fly in the face of paleo thought. Paleos 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.
Paleoconservatism is a religion, and you don’t “debate” religious beliefs. 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 conservative 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.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Phil,
Interesting presentation.
Rather than commenting on it specifically, I'll simply be the first to indentify you as Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist-sympathizer, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman.
There. I have eliminated the need for any further posts, unless of course, a paleo wants to actually address what you've written.
I am absolutely sure that if a paleo really tries hard, they can write a response without using any invective or their paleo code-word descriptors.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 20, 2007
"Tom" from conservativetimes.org has re-directed y'all to another website to read an article about this article. I'm not sure what IC policy is about letting another website redirect its traffic, so in the event it is removed below are the words of paleo wisdom you need to see.
One note though. The “Bede” article is quite similar to another series of comments made a few months ago by a paleo using a different name at IC who objected to me constantly repeating their own words back to them. When you read the “Bede” comments, keep in mind that OldRepublic constantly tosses around the word “genophilia”, and has made the exact same comments in IC posts that “Bede” does in his commentary. As I wrote on September 11, 2006 in my “Racism of the Far Far Far Right” essay,
“This is who these people are. And they want you to be just like them. Remember this when you see them try to sound reasonable and thoughtful in other posts. What they say, and what they actually believe, are not the same thing. And look for the same speech pattern when new names suddenly appear as they change their email identity to mask who they are.”
Calling yourself “OR” here and “Bede” there makes it look like you’ve got a lot of different people supporting your cause, but it’s sad way to try and show the strength of your ideas. Have a look at the comments to Steve Sabin's essay on Conservative to Liberal in 12 Seconds. One paleo (who doesn't realize that every computer has a unique IP address, regardless of which new yahoo.com email account you activate), kept sending the same message under different names to show us all how paleos really love people of all colors. It's an interesting point, even for a person with multiple personalities, but from a policy standpoint it still doesn't address why a person's race (not values) excludes them from being a member of your "tribe"/country.
For those of you who find the comments below to your liking, please visit the other paleo websites American Renaissance and the neo-Nazi website Vanguard News Network, which draw almost identical conclusions about my work, background, and genetic deficiencies.
Anyway, here's what passes for a reasoned response from paleos —
PC Enforcer Phillip Ellis Jackson At It Again
Bede
Posted under Political Correctness
I have no idea who this dolt is, but the left-winger Phillip Ellis Jackson (aka “Mr. PC Enforcer”) is at it again. If you are unaware of Jackson’s unhinging obsession, he has one religion, one true love in his life, and that is adherence to political correctness.
It seems to infuriate him that some people may actually refuse to think in his little PC box, and when people do transgress the boundaries of political correctness, he goes off the deep end. He thus has appointed himself as the official enforcer of political correctness at the site “Intellectual Conservative,” always on the lookout for the politically incorrect.
His calling, his reason for living, seems to be to seek out those who violate the protocols of political correctness, and then damn them. I often picture him sitting frantically at his computer, scouring the pages of Intellectual Conservative, looking for any post or comment that might hint of anything politically incorrect, so that he can fly off the handle, hooting and howling, and castigate the author.
He has “written” dozens of articles and hundreds of posts on “paleoconservatives” (not on real paleoconservatives but his stereotypes of them) - well, ‘written’ is a strong word since each article or comment is just a bunch of non-sequitur cuts and pastes from previous articles. He seems to have a cache of paragraphs and sentences that he previously wrote, and he continuously copies and pastes them into new articles and comments.
And since all his articles and comments are copied and pasted from previous items, none of them really makes sense. His banal writing style, mixed with non sequitur passages, poor reasoning, and illogical (mentally unstable?) outbursts, leaves one wondering whether such a simpleton truly even has a Ph.D.
As I wrote in a previous post, he operates along this modus operandi:
(1) find those who think or say un-PC things
(2) ask them liberal baiting questions (about race, gender, etc.)
and
(3) when they give un-PC answers, or refuse to answer at all, denounce them for violating the strictures of political correctness.
Of course, he writes other things, sine substantia. He pretends to criticize paleoconservativism, but no one can really take his criticisms seriously. Other than quoting a few anonymous bloggers on message boards, and misquoting Russell Kirk, he has yet to provide a substantial argument.
In fact, he has yet to address any of the major tenants of paleoconservative thought, such as decentralization, regionalism, distrust of free trade, skepticism of mass immigration, anti-interventionist foreign policy, and skepticism of Jacobin democracy spreading and nation building, etc.
But he only wants to talk about “race.” 99% of his posts deal with race and condemn others for being “racist.” And then when paleos refuse to feed his obsession, and ignore his liberal baiting questions, he accuses them of “only caring about race.” Is this bedlamite for real?
He just simply does not get it. Paleoconservatives are not “racist.” They just simply refuse to play his liberal games. The very charge of “racism” was invented by NeoMarxists (Frankfurt School), used to undermine Western Civilization. Phil Jackson is doing the dirty work of Leftists, and paleocons refuse to succumb to his bullying.
Like most common-sense folk, paleoconservatives think that kith and kin, blood and soil, and genophilia are important, but who doesn’t? How many Americans are into genealogy? Who does not love his own family? Who is not proud of his own ancestors? But these are not their only beliefs, nor there most important beliefs. If you really want to get to what is “central” to paleoconservatism, it would probably be more in the ballpark of decentralization or veneration of Western tradition.
The truth is that Phillip Ellis Jackson hates Western Civilization, and he hates others who might show any pride in Western Civilization or any of Western man’s accomplishments. Like any PC emir, Jackson hates dissent from political correctness. Frantically rummaging through the internet looking for un-PC thoughts, he cannot wait until he finds his next violator of political correctness so that he can thoroughly reprehend and harass him.
3 Responses to “PC Enforcer Phillip Ellis Jackson At It Again”
Lawrence Talbot on 20 Feb 2007 at 9:19 pm #
Believe it or not, he does have a PhD. I looked up his thesis at the University of Chicago library. I thought the same thing you are. There is no way this concrete thinker could have a PhD, but he does. What is wrong with our higher education system? Phil is incapable it seems of complex thought, but he has a PhD in Poly Sci.? I think I knew more Poly Sci after Poly Sci 101 than this joker does with a PhD.
His only reference point for what is right and what is left is the last 20 -30 years or so. Maybe since Reagan. Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, he surely considers a racist.
Don on 20 Feb 2007 at 9:42 pm #
I can’t stand neocons: they are even further to the Left than many liberals in that they want to condemn any and everything that is politically incorrect.
Alexander on 20 Feb 2007 at 10:10 pm #
Phil Jackson is a complete nut job. I hear that he just sits at his computer all day waiting for somebody to posting something politically incorrect at Intellectual Conservative so that he attack him.
***
I'm sure there will be more paleo-love coming from this and other websites touting their religious beliefs. You'll need to check back on your own to see the requirements for joining their church.
Phil (The Enforcer, Neocon, white race hating … etc.) Jackson
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 20, 2007
My God. You really just cannot leave it be can you Phil? It's not enough to just say that you don't agree with these people. No, we all need to read the same material over and over and over again until we have sufficiently seen that you are the superior intellect (and don't worry, we didn't forget you have a Ph.D either). If you erect a bronze statue and we all agree to worship it, could we then have a break from the bi-weekly "Paleoconservatives are racist, dogmatic, backwards Neanderthals" update?
I really don't know why I'm going to write any of the following, as it doesn't have to do with accusing "Paleos" of being racist, or "Neos" of being Marxist, and is therefore not relevant to any discussion acceptable under the terms of the "Phil Jackson vs. the state of Paleoconservatism" rules, but just for the fun of it:
"In the first case — the paleo-prescription — we need to pretend, much like the Communist Manifesto, that the world can be returned to (or achieve) a near-utopian state if only we re-instate (or install) these principles. Forget about whether breaking the U.S. into 50 independent nation-states would result in its economic, political, or actual destruction. This is the goal. Don’t bother yourself with the practical implications of how to build this new kith and kin-based social order given the state we are in today. Just keep repeating the words, and label anyone who asks you to explain its practical implications regarding race-based policies a Leftist, Marxist, Neocon, New Age Hippster . . . well, you get the idea."
While we do live in the present time and have to deal with its implications and realities, is it unacceptable in your opinion to believe that one certain theoretical political system is inherently better than another? Is it inappropriate to believe in a certain ideology because it cannot be implemented smoothly under current conditions? For example, lets say that you and I live in France with it's socialist dogma and accompanying social problems, like unemployment and inflation. If I publicly and vocally advocate ending the socialist state and instituting real economic freedom, would you accuse me of being a pseudo-Marxist utopian because I believe that one particular political and economic philosophy is better than the one under which I currently live? Would you call into question my intelligence because I wish the system under which I live was different? Would you tell me that my ideas were invalid because they aren't compatible with the current status quo? Let's take another practical example. There was a time in American history when the idea of the government collecting tax dollars to distribute to retirees and poor people would have been thought lunacy. There was no practical way to implement that plan. And the what about the implications? Who would oversee this new collection of taxes, and who would decide who the money goes to? If the "progressives" of that day had taken your attitude, they obviously wouldn't have been able to affect the radical change that occurred that's resulted in the bloated welfare state and socialized government under which we currently live. But now that we live under this system that was impractical and unimplementable, we cannot go back to the way things were because of the practical implications of doing so, am I right? I'm not saying anything one way or another about whatever so-called "Paleoconservatives" actually believe, but your reasoning here for attacking their belief seems very, very flawed from a conservative standpoint, and it's even contradictory with what you said later in this very same article. You went on to say:
"…what will I use to help shape my policy judgments? The sum total of my life experience, education, and value system. All three components are indispensable. What I was taught in school has been put to a practical test in life. What I’ve done in life has been guided by more than my education. The values I hold, both religious and secular, shape my world view."
Experience and value system you say? What if your value system can't be properly implemented under the current way things are? By your previous reasoning, your value system would then be rendered a useless waste of time. A theoretical pipe dream not worthy of discussion. If you had been born 150 years ago you might very well be leveling that same charge against abolitionists, and the dreaded institution that inevitably becomes the central topic of discussion whenever you and your "Paleo" enemies reach an area of disagreement about anything would still be around.
"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."
Nor anymore than they will ever convince you that Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist totalitarian. So what you're saying is that you have two polar viewpoints that you both adhere to unwaveringly (and combatively)? Well fancy that! What an astute observation. Now that you've discovered this enlightenment (don't worry everybody, I'm not talking about "The" Enlightenment) and have revealed it to the rest of us, is there any conceivable reason to continue writing thousands of more words to try to convert a group of people that, by your own admission, are unreachable? Can't we all say that they are too stubborn and blind to see your clear intellectual superiority and leave the discussion with the clear intellectual high ground?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 21, 2007
Phil:
I disdain these types of discussions, and I apologize for saying so publicly, that includes the essay you have penned, at least its style and level of discourse. But having said that, I think I understand what motivates you to do so and so it is to that I make my little contribution here.
The point you make of ideologically driven rubrics and "group-think" as a new kind of religion is a cogent one but only insofar as "religion" can and should be so demeaned. Let's just say that when a man allows what ultimately is a dogma based upon physical or material predicates to control his Reason or the experience of his existence, it is an "ideology" or as Voegelin would term it a Gnostic derailment.
Your point about ignoring how we live in the post-Enlightenment West and the impact that Christianity had and continues to have for "natural law" and universality is also a cogent one which cannot be ignored.
However, the critique you raise about the empirically demonstrable fact that men have always ordered their family and political societies around what they perceive to be essential affinities, including race, seems wrong on its face. It is wrong not for the reasons you and others might suppose however.
A man might quite rightly say that his political society consists of those who share an experience of being, meaning the whole of existence (again quoting Voegelin) which includes the "Terms of Existence" as the participatory whole of Self, Society, G-d, and World. That this includes all sorts of things, some subject to articulation and some not, some based on demonstrable external characteristics of a person and some more inchoate, seems clearly the case.
You wish to argue that given the state of things in the modern post-Enlightenment world, the only or the main criteria for a political society that you would or could adhere to is how a man behaves, meaning does he meet your understanding of a good man per the universal moral code available to most reasonable men. You make the point that this is a prudential (and in that sense “conservative”) approach to improving political society generally and ours in particular.
Given this singular criteria, race itself and religion per se would all be non-constituent of peoplehood. Again, permit me to say that given the Enlightenment and the basis of society today — that is, on the one side of the Cartesian reciprocal a dedication to the cause of symbolic mathematics certainty, meaning as the basis of science and “rational” thought and on the other side a commitment to the notion that all other “Speech” of man is uncertain, that is, beliefs, opinions, superstitions, personal evaluations, all subject to a kind of Open Debate and methodological determination of Truth (i.e., the democratic vote) — your analysis is essentially iron-clad.
In other words, if there is no political (i.e., ontological) ordering of human existence outside of the uncertainty which grips all non-scientific reasoning, then you win the “debate” because just having the “debate” is to win it. And you have won it to be sure. That is why these discussions in the comment thread are about cheering to the choir (it is hard to call it song) on BOTH sides and “convincing” the unconvinced that one view or the other is persuasive.
But this leaves us with your particular brand of universalism based upon what you argue is demonstrably a universal moral code. Since your “demonstration” is really nothing more or less than Democracy, its content is of no real concern. That is, you argue that X is universally wrong behavior because if you add up all men over all of time most have held X. In other words, you wish to order your political society over an extended methodological search for truth. And, you disdain those who might limit or prejudice the results of your method by limiting the universe to a given People existing in a given Place. Thus, you most certainly reject the moral code of the founders in many if not most important aspects. Their view of black men, women, non-Christians is wholly anathema to you. Their view of Manifest Destiny (and although a later political doctrine, certainly it was at work in the earlier westward expansion) and the superiority of their culture and national existence over the native Indian populations you would also reject. One might suppose also that you would find any kind of quotas on immigration based on any aspect of a person other than his ability to be a good person and bring some value to America as a “universally” good man would be wrong.
It would be clear to you at this point of course that this is why your many critics accuse you of being in favor of a World State. While practically you most certainly reject such, conceptually there is little in the way of such a result given your articulation of political society.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | February 21, 2007
Phil,
I prefer the term traditionalist but don't use either paleo or traditionalist. I'm not qualified to state officially what paleoconservatism is; I suspect only Dr. Fleming or Dr. Gottfried should be qualified to do such a thing since they invented the term as a joke in response to neoconservatism which is a true ideology.
Paleoconservatism seems to be an attempt at defining traditional conservatism in response to neoconservatism. Wikipedia had a very good entry on it at one time. Words are needed to reduce confusion and to promote understanding, but I think there's also the risk of unwanted associations being included, e.g. paleoconservatism as code word for white nationalism. I want to say Dr. Fleming doesn't promote the usage of the word paleoconservatism, but I only read his articles for his ideas and wouldn’t parade around as a paleo or as anything else regardless.
—
I think the reason paleos don't have a clearly defined ideology is that it isn't an ideology. The paleo stance is simply to keep in mind who is important in one's life and to act in their best interests. Paleos have simply studied how best to go about protecting loved ones and ensuring they are happy.
I agree that a clear statement of principles should be helpful to paleos, but they, or I suppose we if I must have a label…, have been wary of ideology because it tends to oversimplify and hence distort reality. Besides, there seems to be considerable variation within paleoism; if these principles are grouped, there will probably be many ideologies created. So it's more of an alliance of folks with similar values I think.
"It is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life" — Who could disagree with that? I think the disagreement is over whether one should focus limited resources and time to one's family, friends, community, and nation or to attempt to help those as well as complete strangers. My take is that man ought to focus effort on those he cares for.
—
“True Conservative" is used, or should be used, in an attempt at preventing ambiguity. Sam Francis certainly left the paleoism as did Joe Sobran who became an anarchist. They still write/wrote for Chronicles after they officially left. There doesn't seem to be much fanaticism… Differing opinions seem to be welcome provided they are reasonable which is not code word for within the canon. Leftists, libertarians, and others are all published beside traditional conservatives or paleos (the two are the same as far as I can tell…).
—
"All other competing philosophies are thought to be 'inferior,'" — Wouldn't a better way of saying this be that the others are thought to be wrong? Surely there's nothing wrong with a little certainty if a man has reason to believe what he does and is willing to listen to other arguments.
"And what about Aristotle? — Why embrace a principle simply because it was stated by Aristotle? I certainly don't desire segregation or slavery.
—
"Want to destroy the evil empire of the Soviet Union? Isolate it politically" — wasn't it more communism than its being isolated the cause of its fall? Anyway, paleos are not all trade isolationists in the least, and the US did at one time enjoy a large degree of economic autarchy.
"Don’t like the present state of immigration policy in the U.S.? You can vote for candidate A vs. B., support policy C. vs. D." — What if A and B as well as C and D are all clones who will make changes that are strongly against your best interests? If the US seems to have a serious problem and to be moving in the wrong direction, I think drastic responses such as a return to the Articles ought to be considered, though with a grain of salt. A more reasonable solution might simply be a return to states' rights under the Constitution.
—
“Do you believe that whites are inherently superior to other races?” — No… what is "superior"? Racial differences exist but only as general tendencies (vast diversity among individuals), but to define a superior or inferior you'd need a test. Anyway, you're mistaken that paleos are white nationalists. Such a divide can be seen when white nationalists bash paleos for being concerned with religion, culture, and local community when they ought to be concerned with race. Such arguments between such tiny groups aren't widely known, so this isn't a big deal that you confused two tiny groups especially when the Occidental Quarterly white nationalists seem to have partly developed out of paleoism.
—
Some founding principles that come to mind:
Strangers can’t be trusted because they have no ties to you.
Tradition is a better guide than reason because life is complicated and it takes time for someone to understand the reasons behind a tradition.
Man cannot be entrusted with power so a rule of law not men ought of exist.
The family unit and not the individual is the smallest unit of a society.
Religion is the foundation of a nation.
Welfare ought to be the concern of loved ones and not entrusted to strangers such as the state. Doing so also promotes an active and moral citizenry.
Some tendencies: Instigating a war is wrong, technology is dangerous, women and men have differing roles, homosexuality is unnatural, life begins at inception, trade policy ought to be done in the best interest of the state doing the trading, the local environment ought to be protected, immigrants at best lose their former identity and fully become Americans hence no different than children of Americans, a rooted regional diversity is best.
To prevent lengthening this post, I'll refer back to a previous post for an explanation of how a rooted society is founded in Christianity. The first section of that post is the relevant part.
Comment by Frank | February 21, 2007
Patrick, I doubt anyone would argue that Lincoln was a Marxist though perhaps what you say is rhetoric since paleos do tend to group people who only adhere to parts of Marxism as Marxists?
Comment by Frank | February 21, 2007
Patrick:
I know you’ve been continually annoyed by this whole discussion. In my defense, I will point out again that I didn’t start it. I wrote an essay attacking liberals which said that we should look at what people do instead of what color they are. As a result of this, self-identified paleoconservatives told me that race did indeed matter, and began quoting an endless stream of bilge about white racial superiority.
It’s not in my nature, and never has been, to allow blatant stupidity like this to go unchallenged. When Dan Phillips wrote his essay about paleoconservatism, I asked him — as an expert — whether this was indeed an intrinsic part of paleo philosophy, or just the rantings of a small deluded group. Dan asked me several questions to clarify my thoughts, which I answered, just as I am going to answer your questions. I then asked Dan my questions again, which he absolutely refused to address because they were made by other people (among them his friends), and I used the wrong words to ask my questions.
So now, until I get the same courtesy of a response to my questions that I extended to Dan and other paleos whose questions I answered, I see no reason to respond to anything else they ask, since they are not interested in dialogue but instead in a one-way diatribe.
My quarrel isn’t with you, however, so I’m happy to address any questions you ask. I have no problem defending my positions, and if you point out an error in my thinking, I’ll change my view. But for this to be a dialogue, you’ll need to respond to any questions I may ask of you as well.
So here are my answers to the questions you’ve raised.
1. While we do live in the present time and have to deal with its implications and realities, is it unacceptable in your opinion to believe that one certain theoretical political system is inherently better than another?
*** Of course not. This country was founded on political ideals. However, if you want to know how the USA actually functions, you start with the specifics of government — the creation of a national, state and local government, judiciary, the workings of the free press, etc. You don’t simply re-state the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and say that answers any and all questions about judicial review, or the tax code, or any other policy related matter.
2. Is it inappropriate to believe in a certain ideology because it cannot be implemented smoothly under current conditions? … Would you call into question my intelligence because I wish the system under which I live was different? Would you tell me that my ideas were invalid because they aren’t compatible with the current status quo?
*** If the discussion is about abstract theory, then keep it at an abstract level. If the discussion is about actions and policies, then you have to move beyond theory. Communists believe in a worker’s utopia on Earth. If we’re not allowed to discuss how (and if) this utopia can actually come about, then we cannot look at how communism is/was practiced today in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Instead, all you could discuss is whether it’s a good thing to give someone more control over the means of production. This is a meaningless conversation unless it is grounded in reality.
Therefore, from an action/policy standpoint, I find little usefulness in discussing Communist theory (or any theory) without looking at how it is practiced. Or, if it is just a theory with no actual practice to date, then it’s a fair question to ask how it would work given the conditions we face today. If my philosophy is to rid the world of nuclear weapons, it’s a fair question to ask how this would be accomplished if France, England and Israel said “ok”, but Russia, China, North Korea and Iran said “no”. Should we unilaterally disarm and hope that others will follow our example, work through some failed body like the UN to accomplish the objective, or is this theory — as it is stated — simply not practical? If so, what could realistically be done to achieve the same objective? This thought process will lead to real, concrete actions. Just repeating the mantra that “nuclear weapons are bad and everyone should disarm” is meaningless.
Regarding paleoconservatism, I’ve been told repeatedly that “race matters”. Okay, how does it matter? To say that we have a natural support and affinity for our family is not an answer to this question. Telling me why a country or tribe can ONLY consist of genetically-related people will provide an answer to this question. It will tell me why the “theory” that “race matters” means that black people must form their own tribes and/or countries because they are black, even though they may hold identical values and ideas about specific political policies with whites.
By the way, despite having my intelligence repeatedly questioned by paleos, I have not questioned theirs. See the last paragraph to this present essay. What I question is their motives and truthfulness.
3. Let’s take another practical example. There was a time in American history when the idea of the government collecting tax dollars to distribute to retirees and poor people would have been thought lunacy. There was no practical way to implement that plan. And what about the implications? Who would oversee this new collection of taxes, and who would decide who the money goes to?
*** You are misunderstanding or misinterpreting my point. The “theory” of social security was a rather benign series of statements. When people raised the same exact questions you have about its practical implications, they were vilified for hating old people. This allowed the benign theoretical system to be put in place, and over the years the “details” were slowly worked out — so that today the SSI system bears no resemblance at all to what it was in “theory” (a modest retirement supplement, not an answer to the question “how will I have enough money for all my retirement needs”.)
Had we insisted that we look at the issues you’ve correctly identified in the 1930s, the lie that SSI was just a benign program would have been exposed. The program would have been scrapped or re-constituted as something else. Instead, the hidden agenda of SSI to allow for more government intrusion into our lives remained hidden because no one was allowed to discuss the practical implications of the theory.
4. I’m not saying anything one way or another about whatever so-called “Paleoconservatives” actually believe, but your reasoning here for attacking their belief seems very, very flawed from a conservative standpoint, and it’s even contradictory with what you said later in this very same article. You went on to say: “…what will I use to help shape my policy judgments? The sum total of my life experience, education, and value system. All three components are indispensable. What I was taught in school has been put to a practical test in life. What I’ve done in life has been guided by more than my education. The values I hold, both religious and secular, shape my world view.”
*** I said originally in my essay “Off to the Races” (which started this whole debate) that I’d rather know if a person is an a**hole than if they are young/old, black/white, male/female, because an a**hole will always screw you. The only difference is a black one will do it differently than a white one, a young one differently than an old one, etc. From this I was told by paleos that I was wrong because “race matters”.
Okay, so for these people race is the dividing point of all human action. And from this foundation, all policies are constructed. My contention is that we make judgments based on a combination of the three things I listed above. If looking only at “race” makes you a “True Conservative”, I happily relinquish any claim to this bogus title. I believe you can construct non-liberal policies by casting a much wider net in assembling the information to make your decisions.
5. What if your value system can’t be properly implemented under the current way things are? By your previous reasoning, your value system would then be rendered a useless waste of time.
*** Again you misunderstand. Pure political/social “theories”, almost by definition, do not reflect 100% of the way things currently are. The issue is, if your theory says X is critical (total nuclear disarmament), then how do you get there?
If the conditions today are impossible to implement your theory, then at that point you have two options. Continue to chant “disarm the nukes”, or look at the way things work today and see what practical steps can be taken to work toward your goal.
We know today that you couldn’t implement pure paleoconservatism in this country any more than you could implement pure capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. So the question then becomes, what foundational elements of paleoconservatism can be implemented?
Paleos say that kith, kin, tribe, etc. are key foundational elements. It’s a fair question to ask, then, exactly how would one go about starting to implement paleoconservative policies today, given the way the world is? Since I’ve been told repeatedly and endlessly by paleos that race matters in determining these issues, it’s a fair question to ask exactly what that means from a policy standpoint. Is the goal of paleoconservatism to work toward a white country? If so, just how do we get there? Even if it takes 1000 years, that isn’t the issue. It’s the policy actions/decisions that matter.
If kith/kin/tribe etc. are not related to race, then it’s a fairly simple matter for the paleos to say so. (But they don’t, which reinforces the fact that it is).
6. I’m not talking about “The” Enlightenment) and have revealed it to the rest of us, is there any conceivable reason to continue writing thousands of more words to try to convert a group of people that, by your own admission, are unreachable? Can’t we all say that they are too stubborn and blind to see your clear intellectual superiority and leave the discussion with the clear intellectual high ground?
*** I stopped trying to “convince” paleos of anything a long time ago, just as they’ve given up on me. If that’s all you think has been going on, you’ve missed the bigger picture, which Steve Sabin’s article pointed out.
A group of people have decided that their political philosophy is the only “true conservatism” (their words). People looking in on this debate who want to see what conservatism is all about deserve to know that there is much more to the issue of being a conservative (vs. a liberal) than swearing allegiance to one’s race.
I have no intention of letting anyone tell me that I must relinquish any claim to being “conservative” because I don’t buy into some race-based bilge. Unlike the Looney Liberal community I frequently write about, I’m not prepared to let a self-proclaimed group of True Conservatives define conservative beliefs for others to understand without showing that there is an opposite point of view about the core issue — kith/kin/tribe/race — that they themselves have stated.
The so-called damage I’ve done to paleoconservatism is to pose a question — based on their own statements — that they absolutely refuse to address. From this lack of response, others have been able to draw their own conclusions about whether paleoconservatism has hidden agendas or not. The way paleos have reacted has also led me to conclude that their’s is a secular religion more than a political philosophy, and I put forward my reason for believing so. The response to it from the paleos has been more personal attacks, which again tells those looking in important things to know about paleoconservatism.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 21, 2007
"Is the goal of paleoconservatism to work toward a white country?"
By that you mean to purify the US? Not in the least. Some including myself believe the US ought to limit the number of immigrants from outside the West, as well as immigration in general, though.
Reading people who have grown to see mankind as a gene pool rather than as living beings can be unsettling. Take this article for example. The author embraces designer babies (paragraph 4) because they are inevitable. The danger of meddling with genetics is probably self evident so I'll stop here.
Also, the paleo religion is Christianity not race.
Among some paleos a utopia might be a small nation state with zero immigration because such citizens would tend to maintain the traditions and religion their forefathers set down. Also, factions would tend more to remain united within the state against foreign threats. The state would have a better chance of enduring, order would be preserved, and the happiness and preservation of the founders' decendents would be more likely.
Comment by Frank | February 21, 2007
Frank:
I appreciate your comments. My response to some of your issues might be reflected in my last comment to Patrick.
I don’t doubt your sincerity in expressing the thought that “The paleo stance is simply to keep in mind who is important in one’s life and to act in their best interests. Paleos have simply studied how best to go about protecting loved ones and ensuring they are happy.” I think this is generally true of any political philosophy, however. In the West, we focus on the individual. In totalitarian regimes (secular or religious), they’d say the same thing about the state/political body, with the implicit assumption that the individual is part of the total group — the new “family”. The issue is how exactly this concept plays itself out in the policy arena.
You also said “I agree that a clear statement of principles should be helpful to paleos, but they, or I suppose we if I must have a label…, have been wary of ideology because it tends to oversimplify and hence distort reality. Besides, there seems to be considerable variation within paleoism; if these principles are grouped, there will probably be many ideologies created. So it’s more of an alliance of folks with similar values I think.”
This is probably the best way I’ve heard to think about paleoconservatism. It removes the insistence that we all adhere to the teachings of a particular set of individuals. I have an honest question for you, though. Is this opinion of yours fairly universal among paleos? From what I’ve been endlessly told, while some details may differ among paleos on this issue, the core principles are highly definable and immutable.
To address a couple other points of yours:
1. “It is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life” — Who could disagree with that?
*** Well, actually, Dan Phillips and the other paleos vehemently disagree with this statement. There’s an extended discussion in my Paleo Bilge essay about the “immorality” (according to paleo thought) of ratting out a fellow tribe member who is killing innocent children. The issue should be handled internally within the tribe. The killing of innocents continues until the tribe deals with the issue, because kith and kin are more important than non-tribe members. Then there were also statements that it’s only murder if you kill your own genetic kin, and that some forms of slavery are permissible, etc.
2. I think the disagreement is over whether one should focus limited resources and time to one’s family, friends, community, and nation or to attempt to help those as well as complete strangers. My take is that man ought to focus effort on those he cares for.
*** I focus the vast majority of my attention on my own family, as do most other people. This is human nature. The question is, are these the “only” people that matter? Can (or should) non-family/tribe members be part of my political union? Etc.
3. “All other competing philosophies are thought to be ‘inferior,’” — Wouldn’t a better way of saying this be that the others are thought to be wrong? Surely there’s nothing wrong with a little certainty if a man has reason to believe what he does and is willing to listen to other arguments.
*** “thought to be wrong” This is how I would say it. But what I’ve referred to is the way paleos have attacked me and others for deviating from the party line. Look again at the list of labels that have been attached to me for disagreeing with them.
4. “And what about Aristotle? — Why embrace a principle simply because it was stated by Aristotle? I certainly don’t desire segregation or slavery.
*** Frank, I appreciate your comments. I’m only referring to what I’ve been endlessly told. Aristotle is one of the founders of paleo thought. He said things about natural slavery that have implications for modern day segregation.
Not to stoke the flames, but read my essay “Paleo Bilge” and the comments that follow, and you’ll see why I’ve reached the conclusions I have.
I won’t draw this out any longer. As I read what you’ve said about trade, race, etc., you are clearly not cut from the same cloth as the only people to date I’ve been exposed to who identify themselves with/as paleoconservatives.
I’d like to believe that yours does in some way represent the mainstream paleo viewpoint (if there is such a thing, given your previous comment). From this we could all get into some useful discussion about issues of limited government and other conservative ideas.
The problem for me has always been that I could never get a straight answer on why “race mattered”. Until that issue is resolved in my mind, everything else will remain suspect.
If the notion of kith/kin/family is not a simple genetic formula to include some people and exclude others based on skin color or ancestral origin, then I’d love to see how these issues could be played out from a value-based policy perspective, rather than a genetic based one. But from everything I’ve been told to date about tribes and the proposition nation concept, I don’t understand how the other paleos who have been vocal on this issue could accept anything that you say about paleoconservatism.
Like I said though, I take you at your word, and this is a good start. Appreciate you getting into this discussion.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 21, 2007
David:
As always, I appreciate your comments.
Since I've already written two extensive replies to Patrick and Frank, let me just say that while I've put forward a lot of what I believe about man, society and politics, it's been done almost exclusively in reaction to a claim that race is the fundamental issue upon which all other issues are decided.
Once we get past the absurdity of this allegation, then if it still makes sense we can talk about the issue again in a proactive, not reactive way. But at the risk of allowing myself to be thought of as supporting a World State (which, if you look at my Looney Liberal Chronicles, you'll see that I do not hold this view in any form), I'll continue to leave that door open for attack if it means exposing the race-based core values of so-called paleoconservative thought.
I have some hope that other self-described paleos will come forward who hold views similar to Frank and distance that political philosophy from the race-based bilge its most vocal supporters (to date) have tarred it with. I'm just a little wary — based on experience — that we might get another round of what we saw in the comments to Steve Sabin's essay "Conservative to Liberal in 12 Seconds." One person using multiple identities tried to put a softer face on paleoconservatism without giving any specifics like Frank did, who seems to be a straightforward guy.
Regards, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 21, 2007
These extra long loquacious posts reveal more fog than substance. I for one am happy to put myself on the map as a Christian 'Catholic' Monarchist. I do not believe Democracy can last in either its' Conservative or liberal form. It is all a slippery slope to anarchy, revolution and dictatorship, since man without God and God's law, can only create a colossal mess on earth.
Comment by muscat | February 21, 2007
"Some including myself believe the US ought to limit the number of immigrants from outside the West, as well as immigration in general, though."
Frank, thanks again for your thoughts. A question for you, though. Do you use the term "West" synonymously with "Western values"?
Let’s say that 100 people wanted to immigrate to this country. 50 are from the "West" but support communism and socialism. The remaining 50 are from the non-west, but embraced capitalism, limited-government, etc. Would you (as a paleoconservative making policy) admit the Westerners but not admit the non-westerners? Is your fundamental decision based on values, or national origin?
I contend that the core of conservatism is a commonly shared system of values that has nothing to do with race, color, religion or ancestry.
The secondary issue is limiting/controlling immigration in and of itself. If the limits have to do with focusing on people who share our common core values AND have certain needed skill sets to produce a positive benefit for the country (black doctors vs. white drug dealers), this is a very different thing than saying the right skill AND the right color is essential (white doctors vs. black doctors).
Every country has a right, if not obligation, to control its borders. The question is, when they decide to allow immigration, do they limit people because of their race/national origin regardless of their fundamental values which are supplemented by their potential to contribute positively to the nation? Or is it all about where your ancestors were born?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 21, 2007
On the heading of National Soveriegnity, let it be said that once we totally dissolve our nation state borders, all governance will be conveniently out of our hands and into the hands of global corporate and financial powers, who hold no responsibility for the well being of Americans.
Concerning the issue of Ethnicity and who ought to be here, I can answer that for the best of the Nation's moral health, they should be of the seed of Abraham as shown in Galations 3:29, ie Christian men and women.
There are really only two races of mankind—- the saved, and the lost.
While the Popular Westernized artwork depicts our Lord with a Germanic Reddish beard and blue eyes, the Real Lord Jesus Christ was a child of the lineage of Abraham according to the flesh, ie a Hebrew, not a German.
But since the day of Pentecost, there is no pride of place to any race.
Comment by muscat | February 21, 2007
I would propose an explanation of terms is in order. Can anybody give a precise definition to the term "paleoconservative"? I for one hold to the notion of Christian Monarchy with the King and Soveriegn being anointed by the Bishops of the Catholic Church. In many ways there was more real day to day 'freedom under the Kings and a Catholic Church, than we now see in our dying republic, which is infected with the mythology of democracy and victim groups.
Comment by muscat | February 21, 2007
When a person holds themselves out to be an expert on paleoconservatism (at least enough of one to tell us all what paleoconservatives believe), it’s reasonable to expect that he could answer specific questions about those beliefs.
All I’ve gotten from Dan Phillips, unfortunately, is an endless stream of dodges, denials and invective as a substitute for conversation. He’s yet to answer a single question of mine after 5 months, but somehow everyone else is supposed to respond to his questions.
I have a philosophical and moral difficulty with a political philosophy that assigns value to people based on the color of their skin. Discussions of kith, kin, tribe as the basis for a political union cannot help but translate into distinctions based on race. If a black man holds 100% of the same values and policy beliefs as a white man, he cannot be considered part of the white man’s “tribe” (read: country) because his skin is a different color. He must start his own tribe. The self-identified paleos who profess this belief can complain all they want about being mischaracterized, but the simple fact remains that as they describe paleoconservatism genetics, not values, is the most important mechanism that binds people together.
This provoked a question from a paleo to me a while back about a person’s responsibility to stop someone from “selling drugs”. Earlier I had written an article about a universal moral code that had, as its basis, protecting innocent human life. The example I used to illustrate this was a 5 year old child. So to avoid any relativistic double talk about consenting adults and libertarian rights, I posed the question back to this paleo about selling drugs to schoolchildren. These children represent innocent human life, and thus the moral issue is clear.
Dan doesn’t want to remember this (but you can find it all in the comments to my “Paleo Bilge” article. Instead, Dan wants to resurrect the discussion as an abstract idea about generic drugs that could/might bring possible harm to a hypothetical adult. As he framed the issue above — “Your ethic seems to me to be an ethic entirely of the head. Selling drugs is bad. Selling drugs could bring harm to someone. Therefore informing the authorities is the correct thing to do, any obligation you might have to the friend or family member (love, loyalty, they did you a favor in the past, etc.) is just trumped.”
So to set the record straight, if my brother was selling aspirin (a “drug”) to a 45 year old man, I wouldn’t call the police. But since there’s a reasonable expectation that this is not what the paleo had in mind when he posed the question “Would you turn your brother over to the cops if you caught him selling drugs?”, I put it in terms where the issue involved selling illegal harmful drugs to innocent human lives (using schoolchildren as an example). The conversation that followed took place built around my rephrasing of the question.
Rather than just take my word for it, you can go back and look at the Paleo Bilge comments. Or have a look below at the back and forth (minus the gratuitous insults from JD) and see if this was just about the abstract ethical issue of doing something the state disapproved of.
What started this off was my reacting to a series of paleo comments where I characterized the way paleos view the world as follows: “It doesn’t matter what a fellow tribe member does, whether they act morally or immorally, do or say something despicable or admirable. If they are a member of the tribe, you defend them, period.”
To which JD (a self-identified paleo) replied: “So if you caught your brother selling drugs, you would turn him in to the cops?”
Phil answered: “Not if I was a paleo, apparently. I’d just let him destroy other people’s lives to make a fast buck because, well, they’re not a member of my tribe! We now have another great illustration of paleoconservatism in practice. I wrote an essay not too long ago about the universal moral code that says it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent human life. It didn’t say ‘white’ life, or my ‘tribe’s’ life. Apparently if you are a paleo in good standing, the only lives of any value are those of your Klan.”
To which JD replied: “Actually, what Iiiiii would do is get some of my cousins and sit my brother down for a little talk, which would possibly include an ass-whipping. But that’s just the primitive tribalist solution to things– solve problems at the lowest level possible, and try to handle things within the family, or the unit, or the ship, or the office, etc., whenever possible. … [Y]ou still didn’t answer my question! Would you turn your brother over to the cops if you caught him selling drugs?”
To which Phil replied: “Yes JD, if my brother was selling harmful drugs to schoolchildren, I’d turn him in to save an innocent human life. I’m not a paleo. I don’t assign more value to my genetic relatives than I would say, to you. “
To which JD reaffirmed: “See, now I’d get my other brother and some cousins together, and give my drug-dealing brother a thumping. That is the paleo solution. I am responsible for my drug-dealing brother, and my responsibility to straighten him out precedes that of the State.”
Even when I elevated the discussion to selling harmful drugs that could injure an innocent human life, the paleo response was that allegiance to one’s “tribe” triumph’s everything else.
Equating a concern for protecting innocent life — even when the person doing the harm is a family member — with Soviet-style state-sponsored efforts to turn children into informers against their parents is just a lot of bilge. Like I said above, if all this exchange was meant to be was a discussion of consenting adults using marijuana, it wouldn’t have been the basis for drawing any conclusions about the paleo philosophy and the protection of innocent, non-tribal human life.
If a paleo wants to believe the State is the enemy regardless of the issue, let him come out and say it forthrightly. But even when a statement like this is made, and I then draw a conclusion from it, my experience to date (reinforced once again by Dan’s latest post) is that avowed paleoconservatives can’t be honest about what was actually debated, but must resort to mischaracterizing this entire discussion as something it was not so as to ‘disprove’ my characterization.
It’s just another reason why having an honest discussion with paleoconservatives about what they actually believe has been so difficult.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 21, 2007
Phil,
I remember very well the way this whole line of discussion started, and I understood the first couple of articles you wrote in response to the subject. But I think at this point what is going on is an ego contest between you and a select few "Paleos" who want to try to take the intellectual high ground from each other and "win" the argument for your respective ideals. The only reason why these types of articles bother me is because they go nowhere and simply restate the same conclusions over and over again. There is nothing constructive happening here. Anyone interested in the subject of "Neo" vs. "Paleo" conservatism can easily go back and read the thousands of responses to the dozens of articles already written. I think the only reason you continue to bring it up at this point is to stir the pot and for this intellectual self-gratification that always seems to take place whenever one of these subjects comes up. I know you say you haven't questioned anyone's intelligence, but I'm sure we're all able to pick up certain inferences whenever this topic comes up. There is clearly nothing new to be discovered in re-examining this issue. The comments thus far go to prove that. You've gotten the same set of responses from the same set "Paleos" that always follow these articles. I thought it was actually quite humorous the first several times, but it's just boring and obnoxious now. I could literally copy and paste virtually identical postings on the last 5 articles of this nature to every article that will ever be written on this website about this subject. I think you've more than sufficiently proven your point. At this point though, these articles are a lot like stabbing yourself in the arm to prove that it will bleed. Now that it's been proven, it just seems useless to repeat the experiment.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 22, 2007
For me an immigration policy that sought to maintain America's current ethnic mix would be ideal. I'm not an advocate of social engineering via immigration or government policy.
Certainly those accepted in should demonstrate an ability to speak English and a knowledge of American history, culture, and law. Dual citizenship ought not be allowed.
I'll address the rest of this writeback later today. I should have waded into this debate on weekend and appreciate your patience.
Comment by Frank | February 22, 2007
Frank: In re-reading your comments (many of which I find quite reasonable, even where we might disagree at points), I need to ask: do you consider yourself to be a paleo (even if you use a different word — traditionalist — to describe that philosophy)? Or are you just someone with a great deal of knowledge about paleoconservatism? Either way I appreciate hearing what you are saying from a substantive point of view. I just need to know if you are speaking as someone who embraces the tenets of paleoconservatism (but obviously sees it in a different way than other paleos I've spoken with), or just know a lot about that philosophy. Thanks.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 22, 2007
Patrick:
I understand the point you are making, but this long journey has produced a lot more than just a series of ego-gratifying points, not the least of which is another individual (Frank) has entered the discussion who seems to have a fair amount of knowledge about paleoconservatism that differs quite markedly from what we've been told previously. I’d like to hear more of what he has to say as a counterbalance to the bilge I’ve been exposed to previously.
As far as future essays go, lately it seems that whatever I write turns into an attack by the paleos, so don’t hold me completely accountable for unnecessarily prolonging this discussion. I wrote an essay “The President is an Idiot” comparing the criticism of Bush to Lincoln. Here’s how the second comment to that essay began: “Phil, you say you are not a neocon. You protest that you don’t even know that much about neocons. But every word you write reeks of neocon ideology.” And it went on at length from there.
The fact is, many people who call themselves paleos or paleo-sympathizers have made outrageous statements about “True Conservatism” (which they define as paleoconservatism), and I refuse to let these assertions stand without being questioned.
The fact that I can raise the same policy questions for 5 months that they still refuse to answer is still instructive. In refusing to answer, they’ve tried half a different approaches (it’s a joke — but we won’t say specifically which statements were jokes; you used the wrong word so the situation doesn’t exist; he’s my friend so I can’t reply; I can’t reply to what other people said anyway; etc.). Lately we’ve now gotten into ‘the quotes given by paleos to support claims to white genetic superiority, which we paleos defend but have refused to elaborate on, are now not really paleo quotes after all.’ And then finally we get to ‘hey, we don’t hate anybody.’
This last sentiment is particularly nice, but it still doesn’t address the policy question about why blacks can’t join a white person’s “tribe”/country even if they share the same values. My dog is genetically inferior to humans, and I certainly don’t hate my dog. But I also wouldn’t give him the right to vote. I want to know why the non-hating paleos who say race and genetics are not the driving forces behind their philosophy still divide the world up along lines of kith/kin/family/tribe/race, where these factors — not what people do or the values they hold — are the most important elements in their calculation.
As a side note, by late Sunday I’m scheduled for a two week trip that will give me only limited email access during that time, so I won’t be involved in the comment discussion much after that.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 22, 2007
And Hitler invaded several neighboring countries to forcibly "reunite families" under German rule. This has nothing to do with the conversation about why a black man cannot be a member of a white man’s country/tribe even though they share the same values. But as long as we’re talking about dead dictators, I thought I’d mention him too.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 22, 2007
The only "enforcing" that's being discussed is a political philosophy that advocates conditions whereby people of like values could not/would not/should not unite politically to form a country because they are the wrong color.
Equating a challenge to this genetic/family/tribal/race-based view of the world only seems like coercion to someone who views the world this way. Which again is why paleos need to brand every challenge to their myopic view that “race matters” as a return to a Stalinist or Communist system. Honest debate would expose their ideas for exactly what they are (which, by the way, have become increasingly clear to everyone despite your best efforts to put lipstick on that pig).
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 22, 2007
From : John
Sent : Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:50 PM
To : Jackson-ic
Subject : Re: The Multicultural Obsessives
New Article: The Multicultural Obsessives
Great new post that references those left-wing / neocon radicals Phillip Ellis Jackson and his cheerleader Steve Sabin.
I don't know if you've heard about them, but they basically are starting a Gulag where they denounce
anyone that strays from political correctness.
***
More paleo-love from the guy who likes to send multiple private emails using different yahoo-address pseudonyms.
Keep the love coming from the philosophy that speaks about the importance of kith/kin/family/tribe, etc., but defines it to mean a that a person with the same value system — but different skin color — can't/shouldn't be a member of their country because, well, you know … they're not the same color.
Toss in a few comments about political correctness for raising the issue, keep asking additional questions while never responding to the questions you're asked, invoke Stalinism as the only alternative to a race-based view of the world that promotes a whites-only America (actually, white Europeans only; and only the right kind of white Europeans at that!), and bingo, you have the makings of a political philosophy that calls itself "True Conservatism".
Sign up sheets can be found in the nearest mens room. [Aristotle didn't think much about women in politics.]
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 23, 2007
While I'm waiting for my previous post to pass the censor, I'll add an argument I read the other day:
Females are attracted to dominant males. So, in a society where males are dominant, even nonalphas will appeal to females. And so, monogamy is encouraged. In a monogamous society, fewer resources are spent on attracting mates and more are spent on providing for children.
So, while females have similar abilities to males, a male dominated society does have its benefits.
—
I also need to add that though Aristotle was not politically correct neither was most every other philosopher, including Marx. Aristotle deserves credit for his contributions despite his errors on elements and such.
Speaking of Marx, I forgot to mention in the previous post that Marx favored free trade because it breaks down traditions and nationalities and paves the way for a global society. I had wanted to add that in somewhere to emphasize that traditionalism is a major anti-global alternative.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
Skin color and scientific race does not matter.
What has been said time and again is the ethnic identity of the immigrant is what matters. Religion also matters. These are what primarily direct the formation of values.
America is not a white nation, hence immigration into America based upon such a principle as I have espoused would not be made up entirely of whites but would reflect our current ethnic makeup.
Billions are starving in the world, and they'd love to come here. If all they need to say is that they agree with whatever America's current ideological fad is, then they'll do it just to get in and eat.
To allow in anyone as you argue is to pursue social engineering. It is recreating the American nation - electing a new people so to speak.
You can continue to call this racist, but there is a very significant distinction that is being over looked. White nationalists want white immigration and the expulsion of nonwhites. Paleos, or at least this paleo…, want the current mix of ethnic heritages preserved.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
“I also need to add that though Aristotle was not politically correct neither was most every other philosopher, including Marx. Aristotle deserves credit for his contributions despite his errors on elements and such.”
** There’s a difference between “political correctness” and “errors”. It’s politically correct to not call quota systems a form of race-based politics. It’s just plain wrong to say that white people are inherently superior to black people. These are two different issues.
“Billions are starving in the world, and they’d love to come here. If all they need to say is that they agree with whatever America’s current ideological fad is, then they’ll do it just to get in and eat. To allow in anyone as you argue is to pursue social engineering. It is recreating the American nation - electing a new people so to speak.”
** To say that anyone who shares fundamental American values (not the fad of the moment) is automatically entitled to US citizenship is a gross distortion of any point I’ve ever made. I set these shared fundamental values as a necessary, but not sufficient condition, tying actual immigration to such additional considerations as the skills possessed by the potential immigrant. For the paleos, race/ancestry/genetics is the necessary condition. Shared values is not.
“White nationalists want white immigration and the expulsion of nonwhites. Paleos, or at least this paleo, want the current mix of ethnic heritages preserved.”
** Just so you know, you are in direct contrast to Old Republic (or whatever other name he goes by) who stated previously “One can respond that ’well, they brought over slaves from Africa.’ Well, yea, slaves, and just that, not at the time potential citizens. And those around at the time of the Convention, like Jefferson, believed in ‘inevitable deportation to Africa’ should the slaves ever be freed. And even later, the left-wing Lincoln is on the record 15 - 20 times saying that he, after the slaves are freed, supports the deportation of them to Africa. This doesn’t sound like a proposition nation to me. It sounds like the traditional conservative concept of a nation.”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 25, 2007
The former slaves are now well integrated into our society, so I think it absurd to remove them now. Old Republic can have his opinion, but I wouldn't say this is a typical paleo stance.
I'm not sure what American values are, but I probably don't have them. My point is that the desperate would put down the desired answers to value questions whether such answers were true or not. Anyway, most black and latino politicians are Democrats and vote democrat. Both tend to favour larger government. What they are influences their values. Paleos tend to be of two groups: white southern protestants and white catholics though I've seen Jews and nonwhites post and write for Chronicles as well. I'm a southern wasp.
Also, "values" aside, those who can blend in and identify with the current ethnicity are going to identify as "American" more quickly. I'm part immigrant (few generations back) part native (1690), but because my ancestors are all British/French I readily identify with the Southerners who were of this stock. We come from the same backgrounds and worship the same sects of Christianity. I identify with blacks as well, but blacks and whites still identify as being different though both Southern.
Marx was racist and called his part black son in law a gorilla. However, he also welcomed the mixing of the races.
"It’s politically correct to not call quota systems a form of race-based politics." Fine, it's race-based… What I was attempting to distinguish this from was sheer scientific race-based without regard to country of origin, more specific ethnicity, and religion. I'm just not trying to hide anything…
My longish post doesn't seem to have made it past the censor. This post I'm finishing up now is by far my most scandalous, so I think the missing post was just lost. I'll repost it because it clears up a few loose ends and took me a while.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
Phil, here’s my phantom post:
I hate to disappoint you, but I’m definitely a paleo. However, I hope I can fill in some of the disconnects that seem to be occurring before you leave.
My system of values arises from Christianity, human nature, and Western tradition. I try to keep what is most important to me in focus, and this does seem to be a trend among paleos. So in answer to your question: “Is this opinion of yours [that there is a diverse variety of paleo opinions] fairly universal amongst paleos?” Since it is left for individuals to decide for themselves based upon some generally shared values, I must answer with a resounding yes! Excluding the “paleolibertarians,” there does seem to be a wide variety amongst the paleos: some want to return to the Constitution, some the Articles, some wish to secede, some wish for a monarchy. In typical paleo fashion, I’m open to considering all of these alternatives. However, I prefer at present to defend the American nation state’s sovereignty, push for decentralization and less government, and to return to rule under the Constitution.
A. Paleos don’t tend to be particularly utopian. Rather they tend to sound like a character out of Candide seeking the “best possible society” for their loved ones in a society of mere humans.
Also, paleos tend to believe society is an organic growth built upon years of tradition. Similarly, different cultures/races/religions/environments could have different ideal societies. So it is best for people to mind their own societies and leave others to their own.
B. It is a small step from a proposition nation to a world state because all of humanity is included in a proposition nation whereas a traditional nation is a birthright only to those born into the nation. The same arguments used in denouncing the US nation state as opposed to a greater North American Union as “racist” are the ones used against smaller nation states as opposed to the larger US. Also, if the values of the US are universal, isn’t it “racist” to not seek to spread those ideal values to the rest of the world?
Some negatives of a proposition nation are:
-the issue of what is to be done with those born into the nation who develop a different set of values? Are they to be expelled, arrested for thought crimes, or reeducated, for example?
-religion is the only “proposition” strong enough to hold a nation together so you are left with a theocracy and one that lacks nationalism to fall upon for the less devout. Well, that or sheer force… Ties of nationalism can lead to bad things against those outside the nation. However, they can also lead to great good as even the not so religious are motivated to help their fellow citizens.
- In a traditional nation, the present generation works for the future generation and builds upon the past. However, a more transient nation of “individuals” is going to live only for the present. CEOs vying for golden parachutes are going to attempt to maximize profits by bringing cheap labor into the country, building plants overseas, and pursuing short term goals for the corporation. Government officials likewise will seek office for personal gain rather than for the betterment of the society.
A reason communism does not work is that humanity is imperfect. That is to say it does not wish to voluntarily work for the betterment of the whole (neither the workers nor those in charge). Likewise, lacking nationalism, humanity is less likely to work for others. While it is true that I see paleos as generally being the antithesis to communism, I’m not implying that you’re anything like a communist other than the small parallel that you both do not properly understand human nature. Nationalism, as has been said elsewhere, is similar to a much weaker bond of family.
The government is not as good at parenting as the family, the community is not as good at managing property as the individual, and a universal nation is not as good at caring for its people as a nation-state.
However, in a monastery, deracinated communism might be possible on a small scale because of the religious tie.
C. “Race Matters” primarily because of identity: Italian-Americans identify as Italian and with other Italians simply because they are Italian, and the same is true for most any other ethnic group. Similarly, South Africans don’t like Australians, (even secular – children of) Muslims don’t like Jews, and Southerners don’t like Yankees.
Race also matters because of genetics: there are small differences among ethnic groups as a whole. This can become troublesome when different ethnic groups average different levels of achievement and blame such on discrimination… This is partly due to genetics as well as culture as I see it. Also, see point A.
Regarding slavery and a similar inherited class structure, for simplicity I’ll leave it at: due to the diversity of humans as individuals, I believe a meritocratic system is preferable. However, that is not to imply that the rich and powerful ought not to spend on their own children; such ought to be encouraged because they will do more good for their own than on the children of strangers.
D. A way of advancing towards a community oriented society is to return power to the states. You can also return some freedom of association by businesses and individuals to buy and sell to whom they please provided they do not have too much power in a particular society. With concentrated private sector power ought to come government regulation; the size ought to be reduced if it does not provide a reasonable economic benefit of scale. Anyway, greater freedom of association and decentralization would lead to a more community oriented society. Also, the rising cost of fuel will eventually lead to such.
Simply raising a border adjusted VAT for the US as a whole would also help. If paleos must have a mantra, it is “Small is Beautiful.”
E. Dr. Phillips’s point about not turning in a friend or family member is very good for smaller crimes. However, murder is a serious offense, as is the selling of crack. I would argue the dangers of crack justify betrayal but mere robbery, for example, does not.
F. Paleos are not quite stereotypical bigots. I thoroughly opposed the Iraq War because I thought it would lead to needless suffering of Iraqis as well as of American soldiers and tax payers. Some of my friends (Southern blacks and whites), who do not read anything political, didn’t seem to mind if foreign Iraqis were harmed.
G. If immigration levels are drastically reduced, America can begin to absorb and build upon its new population. What this means is that, over time, an ethnogenesis would occur and a new nationality born with new regional variations. If immigration is not reduced, Americans will continue to identify more with their pre-American ethnicities and America will divide along ethnic lines. This is a view I’ve heard Buchanan express among others.
That is to say that America ought to work on healing its national identity rather than “purifying” it. I’m not interested in a pure Nordic society that might never have existed and that, having never known such, I have no ties to. This is the profound difference that separates many paleos from white nationalists… this and the fact that, BNP excluded, WN tend to be more in favor of centralized government and less in favor of tradition/religion and such; not entirely so but a clear trend in my limited experience towards such differences. They’re like leftists though labeled extreme right to make the right look bad of course… It’s easy to draw a straight spectrum with ‘ultimate good’ on one side and ‘ultimate bad’ on the other despite the small annoyance of the two having so much in common.
That said, a traditionalist could certainly be racist, but the paleos at Chronicles seem to have always rejected racism. They have done so honestly I think because they have nothing to lose if they said otherwise. Birchers are included as paleos in the wiki article; they are most certainly not racist.
And… to answer your question: the ethnicity, nationality, and religion of the potential immigrant should be more important than the values he professes. However, communists, fascists, and other nuts ought to be excluded as well. I’ll add again that he should learn of our history, culture, law, and language and should appear to love America. Also, immigrants ought to reflect the ethnic mix of the US.
An important disclaimer: I’m not an intellectual; I’m an accountant. However, this post should give you a better idea of the paleo arguments.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
Frank:
What you’ve done, which I believe is extremely important, is talk about paleoconservatism from two points: opinion and philosophy.
The reason I point this out is that previously it’s been suggested that there are certain core beliefs, produced by certain writers, that must be accepted for anyone to claim the title “conservative”. What you’ve done is talk about certain ideas without suggesting that only these ideas hold any legitimacy. This allows for a discussion to take place instead of simply trading insults or quoting passages from a book as if that’s all there is to the discussion. And just as significant, you’re willing to take the principles you espouse and attach them to specific policy suggestions. Unless a philosophical principle can be put it policy terms, it means very little. Everyone has an intrinsic attachment to their family. It’s how this attachment expresses itself as a policy that’s important, not the general, abstract expression.
You said “I’m not sure what American values are, but I probably don’t have them. My point is that the desperate would put down the desired answers to value questions whether such answers were true or not.”
The emphasis isn’t on the right answers to a test as much as it is an examination of the person as a whole. The Declaration of Independence set out our nation’s underlying values in a pretty clear fashion. How a person has conducted themselves before applying for citizenship is the true “test” of whether they actually accept these values. Entering the country illegally is a clear disqualification, no matter how much they want to be an American citizen. Practicing fascism (Islamo fascism or any other variant) is another clear disqualifier. Embracing anti-capitalist, anti-freedom of religion, etc. policies or beliefs is yet another. And then we supplement this by allowing in only people who have a useful skill or will be productive citizens (doctors vs. drug dealers, as I cited in an earlier example).
Ascertaining whether a person falls into this category or not is difficult, and requires more than a simple test on US history. But that it precisely the point. It should be difficult to become a US citizen, and the burden of proof should be on the potential immigrant to demonstrate that he really does buy into our collective value system. In none of this, though, have I suggested that the color of their skin, their ancestral home, or their genetic background is important. Allowing in a white European drug dealer because he’s white, and disallowing an African doctor because he’s black, is not conservatism. It’s a race-based decision.
You also said “What I was attempting to distinguish this from was sheer scientific race-based without regard to country of origin, more specific ethnicity, and religion. I’m just not trying to hide anything…”
Regarding this point, some people have used IQ tests to demonstrate some kind of genetic superiority/inferiority among the races. Many of these studies have been criticized for not taking things into account like nutrition, as well as ignoring the fact that these tests are created by Western social scientists. If an Islamo fascist was to give the people of the US an “IQ” test to reflect our reasoning abilities, I’m sure we’d all fail.
Even assuming that there are no structural problems or inherent biases to these tests, even among white populations there are significant variations (Mississippi vs. Maine). The problem with using these types of indicators to determine immigration policy is that you can’t necessarily categorize an individual based on a “group’s” score. I’d rather have a doctor of African descent educated in Kenya take out my appendix than a fellow white European used car salesman.
My argument is that we need to focus on the individual, not the group, when making decisions. If we allow the group average (however determined) to be the fundamental basis for making a decision, then we are picking the wrong indicator. Also, regarding country of origin issues and an inherent acceptance of American values, I wrote my last novel with a man who was originally born in India. I can tell you first hand that he embraces the values I referenced above more than the average Harvard university student who can trace his family’s US roots back several centuries.
I appreciate you entering this conversation and giving us your thoughts. As I indicated a couple of days ago, I’m headed out of town for the better part of two straight weeks, and not sure of my email access during this time.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 25, 2007
Frank:
I checked in one last time before shutting down for the night and your missing post finally appeared.
"I hate to disappoint you, but I’m definitely a paleo." On the contrary, I'm quite glad you are! We differ on some isssues, and not on others, but I find you to be a reasonable fellow who puts forward thoughtful comments.
I wish I had the time to address more of your ethnicity vs. values comments, which is where we seem to disagree the most, but I've covered a lot of my position on this before. Even though we disagree on this issue, we seem to agree on the general idea of returning more power to the states and completely re-vamping our immigration policies (assuming we can even say we have one today; I'd argue that we have virtually no policy at all). I'm sure there are more common points too, but I don't have the time to elaborate now.
If I can I'll write more in the next day or two if I get a moment. Thanks again for offering your thoughts. It's given me as better feel for what paleoconservatism actually is.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 25, 2007
Oh good. That sounds like the post (it's older and that was a response to your question of "do you consider yourself a paleo or traditionalist?"
When people refer back to books, I think that's usually just a sign of laziness or that a person didn't learn the material thoroughly rather than an attempt at indoctrination.
While it is preferable to have someone actually read Aristotle, Weaver, Fleming, Cicero, Hume, Lewis, etc. and have that person learn concepts more fully as well as to develop a love of Western culture, the concepts and ideas can certainly be discussed on their own even at the risk of distortion. Ideas don't have consequences if no one hears them.
One final point, the way China maintains its control of Tibet is by having colonised it with Han Chinese. Tibet is now home to more Chinese than Tibetans, and China now has firm control over it. The Han Chinese are scientifically of nearly the same race, but they identify as Chinese and remain loyal.
I don't like the idea of focusing too much on the potential economic benefit of an immigrant because I'm doubtful a good worker who is willing to leave his home country for the promise of money (albeit often to support his family) is going to become a loyal US citizen. Also, we'd be taking the best of foreign states - the people who would be capable of leading to positive change for their native states.
However, our economy would be incredibly strong if all of our immigrants were skilled. A negative would be that they would lower wages for any jobs they would take causing Americans to decide against splurging on education costs, but the overall economic impact would certainly be positive. As things are, the unskilled immigrants just lower wages a bit, don't give much back to the economy (costing more than they give back first generation), and of course the jobs they take are done mostly by Americans already. Imagine an America where wages are high enough that people no longer demand more wealth redistribution… which I think can be done with trade protection and immigration reduction alone though your idea would help the economy as well.
Comment by Frank | February 26, 2007
"we seem to agree on the general idea of returning more power to the states and completely re-vamping our immigration policies" then you're an ally of traditionalists, racists, libertarians (like Ron Paul, not the open border types), etc. =p
However, we'll still growl at each other.
As America becomes more multicultural, your ideas are more readily acceptable to the average American than mine.
Comment by Frank | February 26, 2007