← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Stanley

Francis re-fought immoral battles of 1964

Thread ID: 16966 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2005-02-25

Wayback Archive

Stanley [OP]

2005-02-25 17:52 | User Profile

I had never heard of the paper or the writer, but Nicholas Strakon at The Last Ditch describes him as a "P.C. conservative." Sniveling pipsqueak race-traitor spitting on a great man's grave, is more like it. Read the last sentence, and tell me, did even Linder get this vile? Vermin like this make me long for the Day of the Rope. :furious: :furious: :furious:

[url=http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/02/22/opinion/op-ed/01agoped.txt]Washington Examiner[/url] David Mastio

One of the last columns written by former Washington Times columnist Sam Francis, before his death last week, decried the positive portrayal of sex between men and women of different races. A commercial for Monday Night Football was really "an act of political-cultural subversion."

Francis went on, "Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family, and ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself."

"Breeding"? Those sentences define Francis as a man still fighting for causes in 2004 that were obviously immoral and rightly lost in 1964. Francis never understood that the idea of America crossed racial and ethnic boundaries and made "from many, one."

That inability to recognize equality between the races destroyed the potential for an influential career. In 1989 and 1990, Francis won Distinguished Writing Awards from the American Society of Newspaper Editors for his Washington Times editorials. Within a few years, Francis was being eased out of the Times and was ultimately fired in a flap over his writings about race.

His obituaries have pretended this never happened. Pat Buchanan calls Francis "a brilliant scholar, who had the courage of his convictions." A Washington Times editor called Sam a "scholarly, challenging and sometimes pungent writer."

In reality, Sam Francis was merely a racist and doesn't deserve to be remembered as anything less.

Having come up in academia, where he studied national security issues, Francis' first big Washington job was on the staff of North Carolina Sen. John East. From there he worked his way into the apparatus of Washington political advocacy, eventually landing in the opinion department of The Washington Times. He got his big break in 1991, when Buchanan resigned his syndicated Times column to run for president and hand-picked Francis to take over his column.

All this time, Francis kept his more vile racial ideas carefully under wraps, knowing that the organized conservative movement would kick him out the moment it learned what he really was. But, while he was writing his nationally syndicated column, he also quietly contributed to underground white supremacist publications, like the ominously named racist newsletter "American Renaissance." He led a double life -- by day he served up conservative, red meat that was strong but never quite out of bounds by mainstream standards; by night, unbeknownst to the Times or his syndicate, he pushed white supremacist ideas.

He wrote that whites should embark upon a "reconquest of the United States," though he was careful to say it should be a "cultural" rather than armed reconquest. He wanted to "end the political power of non-white minorities." He wanted to mandate birth control for welfare recipients in order to control the increase in the black population.

As time went on, he also began to push the limits in his syndicated column. He raised eyebrows in 1995 when he attacked the Southern Baptist church's official public repentance for having once supported slavery.

It was not long after this that Francis was finally exposed and disgraced. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza uncovered Francis' double game while doing research on racist groups, and noted it in his widely debated book "The End of Racism." Few liberals bothered to read D'Souza's book before denouncing it, but some influential conservatives did read it, and they began pressuring the Times to drop Francis. Before long, it did, as did virtually all the papers carrying his column.

Francis, apparently unrepentant to the end, continued to publish intellectual fodder for racists, mostly in obscure outlets, up until his death. Samuel Francis was the intellectual tribune of the remnant of America's white supremacists. America is a better place without him

Texas Dissident

2005-02-25 18:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Stanley]Read the last sentence, and tell me, did even Linder get this vile? [/QUOTE]

Well, yes. Nevertheless, ultimately that's inconsequential.

What is interesting is that Dr. Francis is reviled and attacked by both the hard-core racialists and the hard-core anti-racialists. That's the same tack I've always tried to maintain for this board. A good place to be, all in all.

AntiYuppie

2005-02-25 18:24 | User Profile

"Breeding"? Those sentences define Francis as a man still fighting for causes in 2004 that were obviously immoral and rightly lost in 1964.

"Obviously immoral?" The only thing that seems "obvious" to me about American race relations is that forcing civilized whites to live, work, and go to school among savages is what's truly immoral.

If racialist ideas were so "obviously" immoral, one would think that people would have caught on to those great moral truths well before the 1960's, and without any necessary coercion or propaganda from either PC activists, coordinated mass media, or government. I suppose that the immorality of racial separation is "obvious" to the liberal and neocon mind in the same way that the historical inevitability of a proletarian dictatorship is "obvious" to Marxists.

N.B. - There is something especially despicable about militantly anti-racist "conservatives." I can't quite pin down what it is, but somehow they seem even more sanctimonious and shrill than anti-racist liberals. It's almost as though GOP types have to overcompensate to counter their "racist" reputation by being ten times as self-righteous as any liberal in order to prove their PC bona fides.

grep14w

2005-02-25 18:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well, yes. Nevertheless, ultimately that's inconsequential.

What is interesting is that Dr. Francis is reviled and attacked by both the hard-core racialists and the hard-core anti-racialists. That's the same tack I've always tried to maintain for this board. A good place to be, all in all.[/QUOTE] That's a game anyone can play; you can always find two "extremes" between which you can place yourself as the happy medium.

I agree with you, though, that this writer, though predictable, is not nearly as vile as Linder's usual rhetoric.

Linder is at least sometimes entertaining, though.

Stanley

2005-02-25 19:05 | User Profile

Okay, TD, Linder does get that vile, and worse. This character merely celebrates the destruction of Francis' career and his death -- no doubt while calling all of us "haters."

Obviously, AY, I share your opinion of these "conservatives." Although in calling Mastio a race-traitor I made an assumption that may not be true. Perhaps he is just an enemy.

Texas Dissident

2005-02-25 19:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=grep14w]That's a game anyone can play; you can always find two "extremes" between which you can place yourself as the happy medium.[/QUOTE]

Before the knives come out, let me clarify that a bit. The happy medium is not always applicable in all things. I was speaking only in this particular case concerning racialism within greater conservatism/nationalism. I think it is the most responsible position with the best chance at effectiveness and long-term success.

Outside of that, we're all extremist in some way or another. For example, I would certainly say I'm an extremist on 'sola fide'. Just ask Walter or Quantrill. :)

Hugh Lincoln

2005-02-25 20:49 | User Profile

Mastio is/was on the edit board of USA Today and he's written here and there. Don't know his ethnicity. If he keeps this up, his "conservative" star will surely rise.

il ragno

2005-02-25 22:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Mastio is/was on the edit board of USA Today and he's written here and there. Don't know his ethnicity. [/QUOTE]

Why play coy? He's a race traitor of Italian origin; he's got plenty of company among whites of every ethnic stripe. And he's playing the game "cons" play these days - not [I]tell them what they want to hear [/I] but [I]tell them what keeps you off the breadline[/I]. Vide:

[QUOTE]Francis, apparently unrepentant to the end, continued to publish intellectual fodder for racists, [B]mostly in obscure outlets[/B], up until his death. [/QUOTE]

Everybody knows what that means: [I]he was writing for free[/I]. On his own dime. In a country where everybody pays unending lip service to God, then gets back on their knees to salaam before the Almighty Dollar, and the Stuff It Buys, nothing could be more damning. And frightening. The idea that one could set pen to paper for no reason other than having something you are internally compelled to say, [I]that nobody will pay you money for, [/I] induces the most nervous laughter imaginable from bottomfeeders like Mastio. That's not a smile you're wearing, Nick - it's a [I]rictus[/I].

These days, nothing rings the dinner-bell for the piranha like [I]skepticism of white anti-racists[/I]....which Francis dwelt more on than he did the blacks anyway. Especially when vocal anti-racism is the handstamp that gets you back [I]into[/I] the disco after you've left to buy a pack of cigs at the corner deli. May his wife be carjacked while he angrily responds to email from "racists"....assuming he's not one of these New Conservatives with a "longtime companion" named Serge, picking out a wedding corsage in expectation of the amendment finally passing.

What nobody around here seems ready to acknowledge, though, is that Mastio, far from flanking Alex Linder, has unintentionally [I]validated [/I] him instead. Much of Linder's message re his savaging of Francis is centered around the idea that you can't be a part-time virgin, or a little pregnant: that Sam Francis was doomed to be reviled as a racist pig by every mainstream pundit and respectable news outlet in Christendom no matter how carefully he pulled his punches. In a perverse way, Linder was doing Francis a favor: anybody interested in refurbishing Sam's public image can certainly point to Linder's relentless flamethrower work as "proof" that Francis was nowhere near as vile as the Nick Mastios of the world paint him as.

Do you really think that would make a dent in the mentality of the authors of cowardly attacks such as this? Not a chance. The Nick Mastios of this world are fully aware that - should they rethink or rewrite a single word - there's no shortage of up-and-coming Jonah Goldberg 'conservatives' ready to throw [I]them [/I] into the shark tank housing what's left of Sam's carcass. You think Comrade Sandalio would ever give up his book deal and lecture fees to go back to writing obits without a byline for some goddam newspaper while wearing a Che beret?

So don't make the mistake of equating Linder with Mastio. Linder's admittedly-confrontational style masked an argument that was essentially true: if you write accurately about race in guarded half-measures, it will not matter to your detractors, who will seek to destroy you anyway....thus you lose nothing by going full-on, because what you imagine you are preserving has already been lost to you. On the other hand, Francis' response to the Linderites is also true: it's gotten beyond the Jews; conservatism cannot preach personal responsibility and accountability and yet give every gentile race-traitor a walk because they're merely brainwashed tools of Almighty ZOG.

But the Nick Mastios of our world are several sub-basements below an Alex Linder, who at least risks the wrath of the semi-convinced with his zealotry, which may or may not be counter-productive but is at least [I]sincere[/I]. Mastio and his ilk believe only in their Barcaloungers, their bylines and their book deals: he's simply a modern-dress, media-savvy version of the sort of people that Shirley Jackson populated "The Lottery" with.

Oklahomaman

2005-02-26 00:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] N.B. - There is something especially despicable about militantly anti-racist "conservatives." I can't quite pin down what it is, but somehow they seem even more sanctimonious and shrill than anti-racist liberals. It's almost as though GOP types have to overcompensate to counter their "racist" reputation by being ten times as self-righteous as any liberal in order to prove their PC bona fides. [/QUOTE]

That's my working theory: PC conservatives stridently proving they can be just as anti-racist as the best liberal.

Okiereddust

2005-02-26 04:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno] Everybody knows what that means: [I]he was writing for free[/I]. On his own dime...... What nobody around here seems ready to acknowledge, though, is that Mastio, far from flanking Alex Linder, has unintentionally [I]validated [/I] him instead. Much of Linder's message re his savaging of Francis is centered around the idea that you can't be a part-time virgin, or a little pregnant: that Sam Francis was doomed to be reviled as a racist pig by every mainstream pundit and respectable news outlet in Christendom no matter how carefully he pulled his punches. We are all struck by Sam Francis's obscurity, compared to where he should have been. But to accept Linder's point you have to exagerate somewhat. Francis, for all the immeasurable harm his frankness did to his career, did still possess a number of positions as a respectable conservative columnist in the mainstream, such as with Creators syndicate, as well as of course his positions with Chronicles, Vdare, and CoCC. I think you could argue that if he'd been a even more circumspect, like Buchanan is, he could still be saying the same thing from places like the Washington Times, and reaching a lot more people. What hurt Sam, surprisingly, were less his most consequential articles as his occasional posturing, such as his AmRen appearance or his griping about the interracial commercials (when commercials in general are so trashy anyway it hardly makes that much difference).

I think this is what drives Linder mad - envy. Because Linder, the ex- Spectator writer, is also a gifted writer too, unfortunately he is just too unstable now to ever be anyplace than wher he is now.

Okiereddust

2005-02-26 04:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Oklahomaman]That's my working theory: PC conservatives stridently proving they can be just as anti-racist as the best liberal.[/QUOTE]True. Of course as MacDonald notes this is pretty much entirely the neocon influence. It still seems pretty much the rule that dogmatic anti-racists conservatives are pretty much all closely associated and/or dependent on neocons.

il ragno

2005-02-26 05:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I think this is what drives Linder mad - envy. Because Linder, the ex- Spectator writer, is also a gifted writer too, unfortunately he is just too unstable now to ever be anyplace than wher he is now.[/QUOTE]

Linder was never a Spectator writer, nor did he contribute copy for Evans & Novak. He was more of a research asst/gofer in both capacities. He probably developed his appreciation for Mencken at the Spectator, though....Tyrell is a notorious Mencken fan, and Alex was RET's boy over there.

As for what drives Linder mad - well, [I]everybody [/I] on the non-neo right is a little mad. It doesn't matter if you're an extremist like Alex or an elder statesman like Francis or a telegenic, presentable racist like Jared Taylor....you will be vilified and smeared and dismantled by Big Media regardless, and Big Media can destroy in twenty minutes what you've scrupulously built for twenty years. Who [I]wouldn't [/I] go a little nuts in the face of this reality? Only Buchanan has hung on to the cliff face of respectability and he has to choose his words [I]very very carefully [/I] (and [I]still [/I] he's always one injudicious soundbite away from another Talmudic feeding frenzy).

And here's the funny part. They're not interested in you recanting or repudiating your past; you could give up, drink the Kool-Aid, name names, wear a hair shirt and sell bonds for Israel and yet there is no going back. ZOG recognizes no prodigal sons; your value to them is as a head mounted on a pole on the outskirts of the city; a cautionary warning to the like-minded that [I]beware all ye who identify as white - here there be tygers[/I].

So I think craziness comes with the territory, but there are levels and degrees of craziness. Comparted to [I]worker-amnesty programs [/I] or [I]bankrupting your nation fighting Israel's battles [/I] or [I]really and truly believing God speaks to George W Bush[/I], WN/paleo 'craziness' is akin to a nervous tic.

Stanley

2005-02-26 07:36 | User Profile

Damn, IR, you are eloquent.

What angered me most about this piece was the final "good riddance." In all the attacks Linder made against Francis, before and after his death, he never stooped quite that low. It's what made this "anti-racist conservative" especially despicable. Presumably he still holds to the standards of civility that Linder has deliberately discarded -- but he made an exception in the case of Francis. Daniel Ortega showed more class than that after the death of Reagan.

As for Linder's quarrel with Francis about tactics, again I say, the point of pulling your punches is not to keep the hounds of ZOG off your trail, it's to keep from alienating the audience you're trying to reach.

Okiereddust

2005-02-26 12:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Linder was never a Spectator writer, nor did he contribute copy for Evans & Novak. He was more of a research asst/gofer in both capacities. He probably developed his appreciation for Mencken at the Spectator, though....Tyrell is a notorious Mencken fan, and Alex was RET's boy over there. [/QUOTE] You seem to be right about his status there.... he doesn't seem to have personally authored many articles I could find. I suspect though he might have developed quite a bit else over there.[list] []His contempt for paleo's as half-hearted, tentative, "closet" racists []His elitist contempt for Christian conservatives from the heartland in general []His style of politics (the neocon "personal attack" style) []Journalistically, his lampoonish sense of parody []His political ideology - libertarianism mixed with racism as a substitute for conservativism (albeit he saw he would never make it with Talmudic racism, and slunk off to work for his group of goy untermenschen*) [/list]

Okiereddust

2005-02-26 12:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Stanley]Damn, IR, you are eloquent.

What angered me most about this piece was the final "good riddance." In all the attacks Linder made against Francis, before and after his death, he never stooped quite that low. It's what made this "anti-racist conservative" especially despicable.[/QUOTE]I don't know if he really is especially despicable. He just gave the mainstream ideological position "America is a better place without him" which all America but his tiny corner on the right extreme officially accepts.

One could argue that at funerals or commemeratives, a little poetic license/toleration for appreciative comments is in order, but that went out the window with Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond thanks to the neocons. Mastio is just being a good goy soldier.

Linder on the other hand, had the chance to express a little magninamity for a person 99.9% of the world views practically as his ideological twin, albeit disguised. Instead he just had to stay on his hobby horse to the end.

Don't expect me to say anything good about him when he dies.:thumbd:

Howard Campbell, Jr.

2005-02-26 12:51 | User Profile

Dr. Francis was true to his heart; to our heritage and to our people.

Apologists for the mongrel Plutocracy who bill themselves "conservative" are mere shills for that Second Reconstruction against which Dr. Francis fought without relent.

The Usurpers's domination of our Republic will shatter sooner than most would predict--Sam's timeless essays will be read and respected for centuries to come.

mwdallas

2005-02-26 23:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE]He's a race traitor of Italian origin[/QUOTE] An Italian named David? Highly unusual, isn't it?

Hugh Lincoln

2005-02-27 00:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Why play coy?[/QUOTE]

He may well be gentile, but I'm aware of a subset of Italian Jews, and "David" did add to my suspicion. Mostly, I've been caught on one or two occasions twisting my head over someone I thought was white, only to find out they're Jewish. We might ask David Mastio himself, and we'd know the answer if he answered, "what's that got to do with anything?"

[QUOTE=oklahomaman]That's my working theory: PC conservatives stridently proving they can be just as anti-racist as the best liberal.[/QUOTE]

Boy howdy. I wouldn't call that a working theory, I'd call it developed, tested and proven. Look at how many conservatives lope and grope for this honorific.

il ragno

2005-02-27 01:37 | User Profile

Damn, I'd put Strakon and Mastio into the matter-transponder from THE FLY and ended up with "Nicholas Mastio" - certainly a more authentic-sounding 'bender, but a brundlefly all the same.

As for the "David", well, there's always David [I]Duke [/I] to puzzle over instead - but really the usage of Biblically-derived first names isn't that odd. In fact it used to be a lot more common, viz the [I]many [/I] 19th-century gentile Isaacs and Abrahams and Sauls, etc.

Stuka

2005-02-27 02:38 | User Profile

Sam's (R.I.P.) obituary notice at The Occidental Quarterly mentions his involvement in the founding of the National Policy Insitute (NPI), "a new think tank devoted to our interests." Sounds promising. Does anyone have more details?

[url="http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/"]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/[/url]

Okiereddust

2005-02-27 03:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Stuka]Sam's (R.I.P.) obituary notice at The Occidental Quarterly mentions his involvement in the founding of the National Policy Insitute (NPI), "a new think tank devoted to our interests." Sounds promising. Does anyone have more details?

[url="http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/"]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/[/url][/QUOTE]Not a thing, and a googlesearch didn't turn up anything but his [URL=http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_63134.asp]obituary notice[/URL].

Oddly, the google search kept turning up [URL=http://www.undueinfluence.com/ips.htm]this site [/URL] on all the hits. Think that might have been it? :lol:

[QUOTE]

Background:
The Institute for Policy Studies was originally funded by

Samuel Rubin (1901-1978). His parents brought him from Russia to America as a child.  He became a dedicated socialist, and is reputed to have been a Communist Party member, but had business talent and decided to "play the capitalist game." In 1930 he founded the Spanish Trading Corporation, closing it when Franco took power in Spain. In 1937 he founded Faberge Perfumes and built it from a small specialty shop into a major cosmetic firm.  He established the Samuel Rubin Foundation in 1959 from his personal wealth. In 1963, Rubin sold Faberge for $25 million and gave a portion to his foundation. It has funded legions of left-wing causes since, IPS among the first.

The Institute for Policy Studies

Cora Weiss, nee Cora Rubin, daughter of Samuel Rubin.
She was a director of the Samuel Rubin Foundation from its inception. She was also instrumental in the funding decision to create the Institute for Policy Studies. Her husband, Peter Weiss, was the first IPS chairman of the board of directors.
She and her husband Peter selected Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet as co-directors of the Institute for Policy Studies. She gained notoriety as a leader of the Vietnam War era anti-American coalitions who traveled to Paris and Hanoi for repeated meetings with communist leaders.
 

Peter Weiss, born in 1925 in Vienna, Austria, is the senior partner of the law firm Weiss, Dawid, Fross, Zelnick & Lehrman in New York. His firm specializes in trademark, copyright and international law. Weiss is a prominent member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a radical lawyers association organized in 1936. He was chairman of the IPS board of directors from its start in 1963 until the 1990s.

[/QUOTE]