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.