In Their Own Words: The Undisguised Racism of the Far, Far, Far Right
Phillip Ellis Jackson, Intellectual Conservative, September 11, 2006
Okay. Maybe I’m just a glutton for punishment, and like the guy who knows the twelve-day-old carton of milk in the fridge is probably bad, I still have to take a swig just to make sure.
Or maybe I grew up believing that it’s better to confront ignorance and duplicity wherever it is than let it slide just to avoid a fight.
Either way, I’ve been having a little conversation the last few days with so-called “Real Conservatives” that absolutely needs to be shared with everyone who visits this website. It says a lot about the Conservative movement in America, and a lot about ourselves, much of it disturbing. But it’s something we need to recognize and confront and call it for what it is, rather than pretend it isn’t there, or we risk going the way of present day Liberalism where the inmates have taken over control of the asylum.
So for those of you who haven’t been following the great Macaca controversy, or dropped in on the Racial Purity Quiz that came out of the discussion of that essay, please spend a few moments perusing some of the “Enlightened” political philosophy we’ve all been treated to by the whack jobs on the far, far Right who claim they speak for genuine Conservative principles. Everyone else is either a fool or a Marxist. You can see the full expression of their beliefs by visiting “Off to the Races: The Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness” and “The True Conservative Racial Purity Quiz.” These are just the highlights, or rather lowlights, of what these people say they believe, and what they actually stand for. And it’s all in their own words. [Editor’s note: many of these comments have since been deleted.]
To set the stage, the offending notion that started this all was the proposition I put forward that it’s better to know whether the person you’re dealing with is what has been euphemistically described as a “jerk,” rather than to embrace, support, avoid or oppose them simply because of their race, sex, age, religion or some other secondary characteristic.
So who’s going to argue with that? I thought. It’s one of those common sense notions that’s immediately apparent to anyone who stops and thinks about it for a moment or two. Maybe someone on the far, far Left would drop by and offer their own brand of insanity that would be good for a laugh, but other than that I figured the conversation would focus on Senator Byrd vs. Senator Allen, and we’d fight over the moral equivalency of “Macaca” vs. “white nigger.”
But then I did something very wrong in the eyes of The Radical Right That Wants Us To Believe They Are The Only “Real” Conservatives. I clarified a point I made in my original essay by saying, “I don’t judge the intrinsic value of a person by the color of their skin, their gender, their attractiveness, etc., which is why I said ‘in the final analysis I don’t really care about a person’s color, sex or other qualities’.”
This is where it started, when the first Real Conservative informed us all that, for “Traditional Conservatives … Race does matter. So does loyalty to one’s family, ancestors, region, blood and soil, kin and kith.”
Kith and kin? I hadn’t thought about that phrase since I heard grandpappy Amos on The Real McCoys hollering for “Little Luke” to fetch him a lantern back in the early 1960s. And race does matter? Sure, to the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world who’ve turned it into a weapon for their own personal political objectives. This was precisely the point of my original essay. Only instead of some clown on the Left trying to tell us we should all make our decisions based on race, I’ve got some guy who says he’s a “Real Conservative” saying the same thing.
And it didn’t stop here. It opened up the floodgate for a series of comments on why we needed to focus on race, bloodlines, DNA, etc. as the determining factor in any decision. They were all coming out of the woodwork, but it wasn’t the wacky Left. It was the people who said that they, and only they, spoke for True Conservative Values, and anyone who didn’t share their view was a Commie-lib apostate.
Like I said before, you can visit the comment sections of the two essays and see the full quotes from all the Real Conservatives, so all I’m doing here is hitting the key points. But what I want you to see for yourself in this essay is how the overt racism of this merry little band of True Believers is disguised at first in lofty, “intellectual” principles. When pressed, these principles begin to give way to personal claims of genetic superiority. And when the discussion is fully engaged, the true motives and intent of these miscreants is fully exposed.
So here it is in their own words — what it means to be a one and only Real Conservative:
● Unlike you, I am a real conservative. I’d never support a “color-blind society.” Obviously you have been brainwashed by crackpot Leftists. Not only does race matter, but I think that whites should promote their own racial interests. All other races do it, but whites think that it is wrong for themselves to do it.
● Like my hero T.S. Eliot, I support segregation. And there is not a damn thing wrong with this.
● If you look at traditional philosophical conservatism (e.g. Weaver, Kirk, et al), there is much allowance for distinctions made on race, etc. Kirk, Weaver and Eliot all supported segregation — a very wise concept.
● Conservatives should rail against the meaningless abstractions of the Enlightenment (such as “we are all equal”), and harbour a more traditionalist outlook: kith and kin / blood and soil. As Cicero said of natural law in De Legibus, it is based upon traditions of the “ancestors.”
● Traditionally, blood and soil / kin and kith have been central to conservatism. Aristotle supported such a concept, borrowing the very phrase “blood and soil” from Plato. St. Augustine supported this as well.
●Blood lines are important and so are their proximity. In modern terms, the more DNA you share with someone, the more your obligation will be to this person.
● Only a left-wing ideologue or utopianistic neoconservative would say that race is unimportant. Race is important, and so is a proud and strong defense [of] segregation. If God wanted one race, he would have made us all beige. But he in fact created different races — distinct — and we should respect his divisions.
● According to recent DNA studies (see U. Penn Genetics Survey), about 95% of “white Americans” are of pure European blood. Probably about 5% would have one African ancestor out of about 256 ancestors. True, many blacks and whites had babies together, but there was the “one drop rule” and these kids would have been considered black, and never would have “crossed the racial line,” which is why you only have about 5% of whites with African blood.
● I know I am of pure noble blood. I have DNA proof, and I have my genealogy back to the 14th Century Europe, tied to noble homes. I suspect Phil Jackson to be of an inferior blood line — hence his anger and frustration. You can’t help but pity him. Poor guy.
● Like Kirk and Weaver (the “fathers of American conservatism”), I think that race does matter. It is natural for races to want to keep to themselves. It has always been this way (think of mandatory ethnic segregation in Ancient Greece or Rome, or in Jerusalem, or in Medieval or Modern Europe). This is God’s plan. I do not want to interfere with it.
● If all other races promote the interests of their race (you see blacks and Asians doing this every day), and whites do not, won’t this put whites at a disadvantage in the long run? This seems very straightforward to me. It is a matter of survival.
Note: This is where the Real Conservatives began to move away from Plato and Locke and traditional values that “demanded” racial segregation as a constituent part of Real Conservatism, and started to drift into some equally important (to them) related issues. We already had a brief foreshadowing of this in the need to talk about inferior blood lines and noble parentage — all validated by proper DNA testing, of course. But even when we were treated to the “one drop rule” to accurately classify “African blood,” it was still treated as a cerebral exercise.
● Trying to integrate with segregationist blacks leads to absurdities. After all, not even Martin Luther King, Jr. believed his own line about “the content of their character,” which he, after all, uttered in a speech in which he elsewhere demanded race-based affirmative action and reparations.
● Phil is even more of a saint, if that is possible, than MLK was. He manages to remain color-blind, in spite of having been singled out for brutal beatings and robberies; and having been arrested on false charges, and gang-raped in prison, based on the color of his skin; the women in his life having been singled out and raped, robbed, and murdered; and his young children having been cursed, threatened, their bones broken, and robbed; all based solely on the color of their skin.
Note: Uh, just to be clear here, to the best of my knowledge I’ve never been gang-raped in prison. It’s something I think I’d remember, just like I’d remember being in prison in the first place if that actually happened.
However, I did call for these anonymous Real Conservatives to actually identify themselves (as I do by using my full name) rather than hide behind a fictitious code name while taking their principled stand. I mean, if they’re so proud of their 14th-century genetically pure bloodline, and this is a critical element in their decision process about how to understand and implement Real Conservative values, shouldn’t we all at least know who our superiors are who are instructing us?
A few people accepted this challenge, including Sir Anthony who I’m sure was attracted to this philosophy because he’d given it a lot of critical, independent thought; the fact that it keeps the lower classes in place just a coincidental side benefit. But for the most part everyone still hid — including the guy with noble DNA-certified Class A white European blood.
● But I do have one question for St. Phil. Given that whites who publicly make statements (e.g., that race matters or even much milder ones, such as “we should teach all black children Standard English”) using their real names that show less saintly enlightenment than he does risk being fired from their jobs and whitelisted from their professions, while blacks who make the same sort of statements are rewarded with prestigious, high-paying jobs and book deals, why does he reserve his ire for whites? After all, I know that given his own moral purity, he would never call on whites to sign their real names to a defense of segregation, while hoping — and helping — that their lives will be destroyed. Right?
● I definitely support segregation. It is a part of human nature. Only a utopianist tries to undo human nature with Big Brother projects (racial integration, busing, etc.).
Note: I guess some of the Real Conservative opinion leaders were becoming Real Concerned at this point that the naked face of racism was beginning to peek out from beneath their lofty political rationalizations, and the only way to maintain the fiction that they were acting on principle was to redefine the argument. So the noblest of the noble blood spokesmen jumped back in to, as they say in Congress, “revise and extend my previous remarks.”
● I never said that a belief in segregation is a necessary condition for being a conservative. On the contrary, I meant that opposing segregation cannot be a necessary condition for being a conservative, especially if you recognize that many of the “godfathers” of conservatism were supporters of it.
● NeoMarxists created the charge of ‘racism.’ They realized that they could not win the war on ‘class’ alone so many in the Frankfurt School decided that using the charge of ‘racism’ to attack whites would be a good way to break up European solidarity. Phil, to use your NeoMarxist classification of ‘racist,’ I am not a racist at all. I just find pseudo-intellectuals like you amusing.
● I do not support Locke, who is mostly a rights-based theorist. I question any strong reliance of “rights” because they are largely a fiction of the liberal Enlightenment.
● [Regarding] the importance of kin and kith / blood and soil when considering tradition. Yes, Phil, tradition. Since these concepts have been very important for the past 2,000 years at least, probably since the beginning of time, it would be (as Burke would say) a little dangerous just to dismiss them.
Note: Well, the memo didn’t get circulated in time to steer the discussion back to Classical literature, although even that was beginning to fall apart from its own weight. When the only way you can support your position is to say that the notion of “rights” are a pre-Communist plot to mix the races, you’ve already taken the first sip of kool-aid, and are now asking for seconds. So it wasn’t much of a surprise to see the following comments rally to support the Real Conservative Cause. Not factoring in race from the outset when assessing the intrinsic value of another person or their ideas, as my original essay proposed, now meant “hating white people.”
● Avoiding race/skin color as the singular means of determining ‘intrinsic worth’ would be foolish on massive scale, ignoring it altogether is equally foolish if not stupid and ignorant.
● Whenever did being ‘tolerant’ require self-hatred and denigration of one’s own racial identity, and history? Why does it only become a requirement if you’re white? Why is the reverse encouraged (if not mandated) for one is anything but white?
● Is it not sad that being PROUD TO BE WHITE nearly always earns one a title of ‘supremacist’ or ‘bigot’?
● IF one evaluates EVEN JUST A SMALL PORTION of the copious data in articles such as the one titled “The Color of Crime: Ground-Breaking New Study Released” … (there are many such articles [and research] by the way … ) then attention to — and respect for — DIFFERENCES IN RACE must be recognized.
● Being ‘created equally’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’ DID NOT MEAN, and SHOULD NOT MEAN that patterns of speech, behavior, family interaction; appetites and inclinations to conduct one’s self in a respectful/ respectable, law-abiding, civilized, and dare I say patriotic (?) COULD NOT or WOULD NOT correlate generally to race or that there WOULD NOT or MIGHT NOT be ‘interference’ to behaving in such a manner because of one’s ethnicity
● Traditional conservatives (paleoconservatives) reject the abstractions of the Enlightenment. They reject Enlightenment “rights theories,” and prefer a tradition modus vivendi of “natural hierarchies.”
● I am in agreement with folks like TS Eliot and Richard Weaver that Western Civilization made a wrong turn during the Enlightenment and we still have not recovered from it. The very fabric of our civilization is being ripped apart by cancerous abstractions such as “equal rights.”
● I work in computer programming and I’ve worked with a ton of Asians and Indians, and it’s amazing how racist they are. They are always talking about how they are racially superior to whites and how one day we’ll be their slaves.
● The other day I heard some Asians talking about how they are going to eventually “wipe out” all the whites. All other races do it. It’s about time whites get their act together.
● Whites have been trained by PC goons not to promote their interests. If all other races promote their interests, but whites do not, you might as well put the white man on the endangered species list.
● Today racial identity among whites is stronger than it was in the 1960s / 1970s. And when whites become the minority in 2030 — 2045, the identity will be very strong. I am not saying this for hyperbole, but there really are a ton of non-whites looking forward to “the year” (2040?) when it will be “payback time.” Some racial identity among whites might actually be a healthy thing.
● Regarding race and philosophers, I just dug up these quotes by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant:
— “strong smell of the Negro which cannot be avoided through any hygiene”
— “the Negro is strong, fleshy, agile, but under the rich supply of his motherland, lazy, indolent, and dallying”
— miscegenation “gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind”
● Listen, folks. A great race war is coming. Each race will fight for its own survival. Each race will fight bravely. But in the end, only one race will survive.
Note: Fearful that their message was not getting out, Sir Anthony directed his cohorts in an open post to archive the comments and place them on the website of American Renaissance. This way the world would not be denied access to the wisdom and knowledge imparted by Real Conservatives in their replies to those of “inferior blood” like myself.
I visited the site, and wholeheartedly concur that this is a must-read for everyone who has even the slightest doubt that all the talk about tradition and classical views of politics is nothing more than a subterfuge for their racist, self-promoting agenda. This is exactly what these people are — and what they want you to be as well.
These so-called “Real Conservatives” aren’t interested in the hallowed past when they quote Plato and Aristotle. Do they also support infanticide, believe that women are inferior beings who lack the rights men do, seek to impose governmental restrictions on the right to bear children, want to abolish all private property, and advocate bringing back the practice of slavery — not just racial segregation? Maybe they do, but they’re not promoting these same “principled” ideas publicly, even though these ideas flow from the same classical source.
They are simply looking for a good-sounding excuse to justify their segregationist bigotry. How many people reading this essay have ever had a DNA test performed on them to validate the genetic purity of their bloodline? And who in the 21st century gives even a moment’s thought to the “one drop rule” that allows you to rationalize away any impure blood you might find in your own family’s history?
Is this the “Conservatism” we all aspire to?
The truth is, these whack jobs want to hijack conservatism, and they mask their true motives in a reverence for “tradition.” But they have been completely exposed by their own words. I didn’t have to invent any silly-ass statements and apply it to them. All that was necessary was to let them speak, and watch how a reverence for Plato transformed into a White Pride rally to deal with “cancerous abstractions such as ‘equal rights.’”
Real Conservatives, if we even need to use this term, are not the same kind of self-serving bigots you find on the extreme Left. I’m happy to let our dirty laundry air for the world to see just how perverse these people truly are. It only shows the world that we are not them.
So each of us has a choice. We can either stand up and tell these people, and anyone else who’s listening, that we have no more interest in their brand of “Real Conservatism” than we do in any of the racist theories on the Left; or we can just allow pseudo-intellectuals with superior blood lines to tell us all what to believe because T.S. Eliot and God told them to.
The Left lost its moral compass to the bigotry of its extremists. Now it’s our turn to join that club, or expose these people for who and what they really are. If we allow Conservatism to be defined by the worst examples of humanity, we’ll end up where Liberalism is today.
Maybe, then maybe, I can get back to making fun of Liberal lunacy. But until we look under our own rug and apply the same standards to those who purport to speak on our behalf, we have no right to criticize anyone else if we, fundamentally, are no different from them.
[Click to go to original article’s comments section.]
(Posted on September 12, 2006)
Phillip Ellis Jackson, PhD