Sam Francis Rebukes Iannone`s Rebuke…

Lovely
Linda – RIP!
by Scott McConnell

No Tears Over Chavez
by Paul Gottfried

Chavez: The End!
by Scott McConnell

Carol Iannone
Rebukes Paleocon
Schadenfreude

As I
explained in my 1991 column
questioning Miss Iannone`s qualifications for the
National Humanities Advisory Council, it was not clear
to me that she possessed the academic credentials and
professional experience the position demanded 
- credentials and experience that are not a
"figleaf" and which a number of paleo-conservative
as well as neoconservative academics did possess. 
Also, Miss Iannone was then 
a neo-conservative herself; as such, her main
concern was with opposing the Political Correctness of
the Left, using the NEH as a neo-conservative perch,
and imposing a neoconservative Political Correctness
in place of that of the Left. 
There was no indication that she, NEH chairman
Lynne Cheney, or their neoconservative supporters held
any interest whatsoever in the paleo-conservative goal
of dismantling the NEH itself, a Great Society agency
that, with its sister the NEA, serves as the cultural
enforcement branch of the managerial state.

Nor was there ever any suggestion
that qualified paleo-conservatives be appointed to the
NEH council or similar positions. 
If and when that was suggested (as with the Mel
Bradford controversy in 1981), neocons were the first
to work with the left (usually surreptitiously) to
sabotage them, but paleos are expected to tamely
support and endorse any and all neocon appointments. 
Miss Iannone may whine today about "how
sad it is" that all conservatives can`t
"present a united front" and work together,
but M.E. Bradford, Professor Gottfried, the Rockford
Institute, Joe Sobran, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan,
and I and almost all other paleo-conservatives of any
eminence have learned exactly how "united"
neoconservatives are when it comes to supporting us
against the left.  Why the hell should we support the neo-cons?

Finally, Miss Iannone`s claim
that what happened to me at The Washington
Times
is comparable to what happened to her
when her nomination was rejected is invalid – except
perhaps in so far as my being fired was neocon revenge
for opposing them and their agenda. 
I lost my job and (in certain quarters) my
reputation; she merely failed to be confirmed to a
federal appointment. 
In my 1991 column questioning her credentials,
I explicitly rejected the accusations of racism
against her.  I
acknowledge that I was perhaps naive about such
charges being taken seriously; they are certainly
taken seriously by neoconservatives and others on the
left who do not hesitate to use them against their
rivals on the right, as neoconservatives like Chavez
and her cabal at the CEO who were plotting to attack
me used the charge of "racism" and similar
leftist codewords for the explicit purpose of ruining
me.  In short, my critique of Miss Iannone was confined at the
most to questioning her credentials for a particular
appointment, while the neo-conservative attack on me
was intended to harm me and my professional career,
"to run Sam Francis out of polite society,"
as one of Chavez` lackeys at the CEO said, and to get
the Washington Times to "kick this guy out." 

I leave it to others to judge
whether I today remain in "polite society"
or not, but certainly I find the atmosphere I inhabit
far cleaner and fresher than that exuded by the
neo-conservatives with whom I once was obliged to
associate.

Samuel
Francis
is a syndicated columnist.

January 20, 2001