UNZ AND FRIENDS

Once again the American Conservative blue penciled a comment of mine. The post on which I commented was How the Right Defeats Itself.  The author's premiss was simply that by making unnecessary pronouncements about rape and such, women are scared away from the Pro-Life cause.  I tend to agree.  I also noted the many abortion enthusiasts commenting on this issue in a "Conservative" Magazine.  Chief among them was an cowardly idiot named Jenkins ( a pseudonym).  Hence the mysterious last two graphs.  It's noteworthy that a magazine calling itself conservative would censor a back and forth between an actual conservative and a notorious crank injecting personal invective into the midst of a debate.

This is now the norm at TAC.  Comments such as mine that are insufficiently deferential to the many leftist trolls commenting are not posted.  Indeed, as I have reported before, the authors of most TAC content have no control over comments at all.  A senior editor patrols the incoming comments, weeding out those not fitting into the tone of the magazine.  I leave it to you dear reader.  Is the comment below so offensive that TAC readers might lose their breakfasts over it?  Is pointing out sexual differences in political behavior equal to a literary atrocity?  Shouldn't TAC readers be acquainted with what all campaign consultants consider a given?

TAC has become the plaything of Ron Unz.  He uses it to trot out his private bugbears and policy preferences.  That is his right; he owns the rag after all.  But his desperate search for milquetoast respectability in the service of more readership has crippled TAC's conservative's identity.

As it stands today TAC seems to have no central point of view except to avoid Neoconservative influence to critique other conservatives and to be generally nice to anyone of any persuasion, who shows up in the comments section.  That is, except for Paleoconservatives like myself.  Odd, considering Paleoconservatives founded the magazine. If Unz and company cannot abide critiques of mass Democracy, critiques that were the meat and bones of conservatism the day before yesterday, they really ought to change the name of the magazine to Unz and Friends.

1. Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
   

   June 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm

   Underlying this debate about what Franks said is a deeper issue. What Franks said may or may not be true. What is true is that large segments of the public are not susceptible to facts at all. Public sentiment is what counts in a mass Democracy. Franks naively thought that some statistic affirming his statement had a bearing on how it was received. How dumb for a politician!

   Public policy touching on “women’s issues” always hinge on the emotional reactions of millions of women voters. They are among the least informed or rational voters in our populace. That’s why they skew Democrat in elections. They are also conformists, adopting the positions of other women in their circle more often than not.

   The only conservative response to this is for conservative women to create their own circles around which other women will gather. Homemakers vs sluts is the best we can do.

   “Jenkins,” wrote, “That’s rich coming from a man grotesquely proud of his naked armed intimidation of citizens exercising their right to vote…”

   You left out the word ILLEGALLY. And for the record most of us were sworn peace officers and were I assure you, fully dressed. It was November after all.

   
   

   NOTE: TAC FINALLY UNBLOCKED MY COMMENT TODAY.  WHY THE TWO DAY DELAY?  I HAVE NO IDEA.