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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

** 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.”

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.

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.

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.]