Part I finished with the lack of protection of what needed to be protected.
# Paleoconservatives question the supposition that European culture and mores can ever be transplanted or even forced upon non-Western cultures, due to separate cultural heritages. As a result, paleocons are most distinctive in their emphatic opposition to open immigration by non-Europeans …
Once again emphasizing that a paleo is into respect in a big way and it cuts both ways – we have enormous respect for other cultures too, rather than trying to construct some new abomination of a melting pot. I’ll sit down with a Zulu and learn about his past, his traditions, will adopt his ways whilst I’m his guest and I bet I am better accepted than any a Ted Kennedy or Hanoi Jane .
He will know I do not badmouth my own traditions and am careful what I say in badmouthing the way things have sunk. I’ll do that in front of my own people, say on this blog, but not in front of a guest in another land.
There is a thing called etiquette, protocol.
# They are also strongly critical of neoconservatives and their sympathizers in print media, talk radio and cable TV news.
Paleocons often say they are not conservatives in the sense that they necessarily wish to preserve existing institutions or seek merely to slow the growth of modern big-government conservatism.
They do not wish to be closely identified with the U.S. Republican Party.
Add our left Tories to that.
Rather, they seek the renewal of “small ‘r'” republican society in the context of the Western heritage, customs and civilization
It’s not always easy to point to exactly where we are on issues:
# On some issues, many paleocons are hard to distinguish from others on the conservative spectrum. For example, they tend to oppose abortion on demand and gay marriage, while supporting capital punishment,handgun ownership and an original intent reading of the U.S. Constitution.
Over here, it would be positions as in the UKIP manifesto.
# Paleoconservatives argue that since human nature is limited and finite, any attempt to create a man-made utopiais headed for disaster and potential carnage. Instead, they lean toward tradition, family, customs, religious institutions and classical learning to provide wisdom and guidance.
Remember that classical learning includes the pantheon and that is difficult for Jesus’s-way-or-the-highway exponents. Though many of us believe that Christianity, as expressed in the gospels, is by far the best way socially [and in the view of some of us the only way into heaven], that is not to the exclusion of learning of all kinds, appreciating architecture from other traditions.
We need just as much to study the classics, the renaissance, the history of Islam etc. In other words, not being ignorant of the past.
I think you see this theme running through of respect for others. It’s a core position, for upon that has been based the tolerance, in our land, of other ways, other ideas. It is a core strength which has a downside, and because of the misunderstanding among many of what it means, has been misinterpreted as an open slather invitation to come in and wreck all we have, to create melting pots, to destroy all which had been achieved.
There is very deep resentment among us for people like Jack Straw who have zero respect for that which even let him take his position and show his disdain in the first place without being burnt or throat-slit. He has zero understanding of what western truly means.
I really must labour this point by coming at it in another way:
# Historian W. Wesley McDonald explains the opposition to ideology this way:
In a humane social order, a community of spirit is fostered in which generations are bound together.
According to [Russell] Kirk, this link is achieved through moral and social norms that transcend the particularities of time and place and, because they form the basis of genuine civilized existence, can only be neglected at great peril.
These norms, reflected in religious dogmas, traditions, humane letters, social habit and custom, and prescriptive institutions, create the sources of the true community that is the final end of politics
# Along these lines, Joseph Sobran, in his “Pensees”, argues that Western civilization relies on civility at the center of the society:
Civility is the relationship among citizens in a republic. It corresponds to the condition we call “freedom”, which is not just an absence of restraint or coercion, but the security of living under commonly recognized rules of conduct.
There’s no point me going any further on this topic unless these last points are understood.
Therefore, I can sit down with a civilized Muslim or Buddhist, a Chinaman and eat, drink and have a convivial time, whereas I’d not give the time of day to our own “modern” feminist women I go on about, our Brands and other lowlifes who have zero respect or civility.
On the surface, it looks as if I’ve been advocating a “small englander” position. Not a bit of it. Brexit is far more than that.
That’s why Nigel can go to the Roma and eat with them over in their land, as he did … and no other political leader did. He went over with an attitude of respect, something Cameron, Clegg and Co have precious little of.
Similarly, I can love my family ahead of yours but still get along with and deal with other families.
In trade, we would trade with the world, not sit in a little insular island and keep to ourselves. The paleo tradition has seen so many of us exploring the outer reaches of the world – we are most certainly NOT blinker-eyed.
We just don’t want alien cultures dictating to ours. If I read James Wilson right, he is proud of his Americanism and all it means but I’m also proud of my English and Northumbrian roots. Yet even with those differences, we get along well because there is respect and civility as a default position.
# Many paleocons also say that Westerners have lost touch with their classical and European heritage, to the point that they are in danger of losing their civilization.
That of course follows on.