I heartily disagree with your position that paleoconservatism is defined by "race."
To me, it is defined more by religion, or at least by a submission to the Great Western Tradition of political freedom emanating from a natural order ordained by God.
As a hard-core Buchananite, I vehemently dispute this statement
and condemn it as propaganda designed to smear paleocons as racists.
There are many hot-button issues that distinguish paleocons from neocons. Support for the "right-to-life" being one of them.
Furthermore, paleoncons have a stronger "America First" perspective on a variety of issues, including trade and immigration. The paleocon view addresses not only the economic implications, but also the social implications of these issues. But in adressing the social implications, it is in terms of American society vs. foreign, or economic stratification within American society. It is NOT based on racial divisions as many seek to assert.
When the world wants news about Richard Poe, it will definitely beat a path to your website. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be much point.
In any case, judging by other paleo-conservative authors, you're not a true paleo-con until you advocate splitting up the United States into smaller units. When you figure that out, doubtless you'll write a "Why I Am Not a Paleoconservative" or a "Why I Really, Really Am a Paleoconservative" article. Let us know so we can all make a point of not reading it.
I'm what would pass as a "neocon." But this label really doesn't do me justice (although as a neocon, I would be in great company). That's why I refer to myself as a post-conservative.
"Paleo" doesn't do it for me because they refuse to understand where our culture is today (no matter who is at fault for bringing it here) and accept it in order to establish a coherent philosophy on reversing the slide towards Leftism. I also find it woefully inept at politics.
"Neo" is better from a political perspective, but its compromising can be too grating for my taste. But I will credit the neo perspective for having actually moved and expanded the conservative spectrum.
Whites intermarrying won't kill off traditional American culture. But being swamped with third world immigrants who don't share our culture will. It would even if they were white (the Germans did a good job of killing off Roman culture).