Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Racialism As Pseudo-'Science' Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/racialism_as_pseudo_science#26660 Post contents: Needless to say, the divide between paleos (both conservatives and libertarians) on matters of race and racialism are deep and real. Sam Francis, who has probably influenced my own thinking more than anyone, was a true believer in white nationalism and regularly contributed to American Renaissance, while his friend and Chronicles Magazine editor Thomas Fleming rejected the racialists, writing "White Like Me" (couldn't find a link, sorry). Fleming's piece remains one of my favorite on the subject. I even remember the first time I became familiar with the name "Llewellyn Rockwell," when he wrote in Chronicles - a magazine I had never heard of but became interested in because of the Pat Buchanan campaign of 1996 - that even segregation was more humane and better than the federal regulation that was to follow. No doubt, race matters. But neither Raimondo nor Epstein are completely wrong here. Let's pretend that everything Epstein, Jared Taylor and even the late Sam Francis believed concerning heredity, IQ and genetics pertaining to race is completely true. As such men often point out - there is much evidence to suggest it is. Let's pretend that Raimondo is correct - that science alone should be questioned because it changes so rapidly, and today's genetic determinism is akin to yesterday's professional medical opinions on the benefits of bloodletting. History provides much evidence to prove Raimondo's point. Russell Kirk (the man who took me from Dittohead to paleo, my eternal thanks Russell) frequently described conservatism as the absence of ideology. To paraphrase Fleming - for too many racialists and libertarians alike - faith dictates facts. As Raimondo (and Dylan Waco, who Raimondo references) points out, for too many on the paleo side there is an obsession with race, unhealthy in my opinion, where genetics determine everything. By the same token, too many libertarians of the paleo persuasion (as opposed to the Reason crowd, etc.) are so obsessed with free markets and stateless conceptions, that even the local constable is eternally the enemy and culture, identity and race "determine" nothing. This is absurd. The mistake in both camps, it seems, is the inability to see beyond their niche politics. Cannot there be a moral realm that overlaps the scientific realm on race? In other words, what would the racialists propose we do about their base assumptions? Reinstitute segregation? If their goal is to rid white Americans of their white guilt so they can make rational decisions - then I wholeheartedly agree - and I consider Jared Taylor one of the best speakers on the subject of multiculturalism. If racialists’ goal is to get rid of, or suppress non-whites, then I cannot agree, can't imagine the practicality of enforcing such a policy and can't imagine how anyone who describes himself as a "conservative" would even find this worthwhile. Such politics are morally wrong, from a humane standpoint. Science or no science. For libertarians, cannot there not be a practical realm that overlaps their base assumptions? Libertarians are absolutely correct that only decentralization and a drastic reduction of the state can truly solve the cultural, economic, political (and racial, frankly) problems that ail us. Raimondo, Rockwell, Rothbard and co. are often the best, and more importantly most practical, guides to a revolutionary brand of politics that might actually make some headway. Just ask Ron Paul. But is Wal-Mart really good for the American middle class? While police are indeed Tazer happy these days, is my friend's Dad, a 30-year police veteran, a storm trooper for the Empire? And does anyone really believe the gargantuan mass of Hispanic immigrants invading the U.S. will have no affect on our future, politically, culturally and racially? As I have said often - diversity isn't a "strength" - it's a bitch. The biracial history of the U.S. proves as much. It makes no sense to import another problem en masse. Instead of ripping each other to shreds at a moment in time when we might finally break out of the blogosphere - thanks to the Ron Paul campaign - can we concede that all camps of the paleo political world aren't entirely unreasonable, while resisting our own temptations to go off the deep end? A “no enemies on the paleo Right” policy might serve us well. Takimag is my favorite site currently because of the broad array of perspectives and healthy debate. Paul Gottfried is also invaluable in conceding points from everyone, standing firm in his convictions, and yet is never hysterical about his own facts. We need to debate. We need to constantly refresh, review and reinvigorate what we believe in. But paleos of all stripes agree on much more than not, especially when compared with the neoconservatives and their media might – our clearest and first enemy. To quote the great humanitarian ( and perhaps genetically questionable, c’mon, afford me one joke!) Rodney King “can’t we all just get along?” This might be a tall order, but certainly no more utopian than racial separatism or anarcho-capitalism. Jack Sent at: 2008 09 07