{"id":797,"date":"2015-02-23T22:20:02","date_gmt":"2015-02-24T03:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=797"},"modified":"2015-02-23T22:20:02","modified_gmt":"2015-02-24T03:20:02","slug":"remembering-sam-francis-hes-been-gone-a-decade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=797","title":{"rendered":"Remembering Sam Francis &#8212; He&#8217;s Been Gone a Decade"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\"><\/h1>\n<div style=\"text-align: center;\"><b><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Remembering Sam Francis &#8212; He&#8217;s Been Gone a Decade<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<div><b><span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-size: large;\">by Gerry T. Neal<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<h2><span style=\"font-size: large;\">SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2015<\/span><\/h2>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><a name=\"14bb254ff4db9500_1019742999346026504\"><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Remembering a Philosopher-King<\/span><\/h3>\n<div><\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><br \/>\nIt has long been recognized that there are two ways in which civilization can break down into barbaric conditions. The rule of law can collapse altogether leaving ordinary citizens powerless against the criminal elements that now call the shorts. This is called anarchy. Or the state can become intrusive and controlling, curtailing its people\u2019s freedoms, dictating their everyday decisions, and ruling by sheer force in an atmosphere of fear. This is called tyranny. It has also long been recognized that there is a cyclical pattern to the rise and fall of civilizations in which after civilization breaks down into one of these conditions for a period, the other emerges in response, and eventually a new civilization is born out of the rubble.<\/p>\n<p>What if, however, civilization were to break down in both ways simultaneously and the same state was to fail in providing the basic protection of the law on the one hand, while tyrannically harassing and abusing its people on the other? Twenty years ago one of the greatest American political thinkers of the last half of the twentieth century saw this happening in the United States and all around the Western world and coined a term to describe it \u2013 anarchotyranny, the synthesis of anarchy and tyranny. On February 15th, ten years ago, he passed away due to complications following heart surgery at the age of 57. His name was Sam Francis.<\/span><\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net\/hphotos-ak-xpf1\/v\/t1.0-9\/11017839_429102223922690_1005606622920695561_n.jpg?oh=cddf4b6a9ef5476f607dfed606c21552&amp;oe=558779DA&amp;__gda__=1430847152_e51c11299fb311ec9ccf97d56548f6b6\" alt=\"'Remembering Sam Francis -- He's Been Gone a Decade\n\nby Gerry T. Neal\nSATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2015\nRemembering a Philosopher-King\n\nIt has long been recognized that there are two ways in which civilization can break down into barbaric conditions. The rule of law can collapse altogether leaving ordinary citizens powerless against the criminal elements that now call the shorts. This is called anarchy. Or the state can become intrusive and controlling, curtailing its people\u2019s freedoms, dictating their everyday decisions, and ruling by sheer force in an atmosphere of fear. This is called tyranny. It has also long been recognized that there is a cyclical pattern to the rise and fall of civilizations in which after civilization breaks down into one of these conditions for a period, the other emerges in response, and eventually a new civilization is born out of the rubble.\n\nWhat if, however, civilization were to break down in both ways simultaneously and the same state was to fail in providing the basic protection of the law on the one hand, while tyrannically harassing and abusing its people on the other? Twenty years ago one of the greatest American political thinkers of the last half of the twentieth century saw this happening in the United States and all around the Western world and coined a term to describe it \u2013 anarchotyranny, the synthesis of anarchy and tyranny. On February 15th, ten years ago, he passed away due to complications following heart surgery at the age of 57. His name was Sam Francis.\n\nSam Francis was far more than just the man who thought up a clever name for this phenomenon \u2013 he was also its chief chronicler, analyst, and critic. In his twice-weekly column, syndicated by Creators but carried by far fewer newspapers than it ought to have been for reasons we will shortly get into, he provided a bold, uncompromising, commentary, expressed in a dry, sardonic wit that was perfectly complemented by the way he seemed to look out at you with amused disdain through his heavy glasses in the publicity photo attached to his column, on the news and issues of the day and the narrative beneath the news and issues \u2013 the ongoing war being waged by those presently in power in the West and particularly in the United States on the traditions, cultures, symbols, and ways of life of Western peoples. Nor did he shy away from addressing the taboo aspect of this subject, the racial element.\n\nDr. Samuel Todd Francis was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee on April 29, 1947, and it was in Chattanooga that he was raised and where as a young prodigy his literary talents and brilliant mind first gained attention. It was also in the Scenic City, under the Appalachian mountains, that we was finally laid to rest in 2005. He studied English literature at John Hopkins University in Baltimore before taking his Ph.D in history from the University of North Carolina. \n\nIt was at Chapel Hill that he became acquainted with two of his fellow students, the classicist Thomas Fleming and the historian Clyde Wilson. These men would become his lifelong colleagues. They worked together on the Southern Partisan, a conservative quarterly that was started up in the late 1970s in the spirit of the Vanderbilt Agrarians. Each contributed to The New Right Papers, a 1982 anthology put together by Robert W. Whitaker. Their most significant collaboration however was in Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, founded by Leopold Tyrmand in 1976 and published by the Rockford Institute of Rockford, Illinois. Thomas Fleming became the editor of Chroniclesfollowing Tyrmand\u2019s death in 1985. Clyde Wilson is an associate editor, and until his passing Sam Francis was the magazine\u2019s Washington or political editor. Under the direction of these men Chronicles became the flagship publication of paleoconservatism which, in opposition to the neoconservatives who were calling for a Pax Americana, a new world order in which the United States would use its military might to export liberal, capitalist, democracy to the farthest parts of the globe, called American conservatism back to its roots in the Burkean traditionalism of Russell Kirk and the small-r republicanism of the American Old Right that had opposed the New Deal, American entanglement in foreign conflicts, and the development of the \u201cwelfare-warfare state\u201d. This was very much bucking the trend in the larger American conservative movement. As the neoconservative viewpoint came to increasingly dominate the movement, conservative writers who having opposed mass, demographics-altering, immigration, both legal and illegal, criticized Israel and objected to America\u2019s being drawn into wars in the Middle East on her behalf, called for a rollback of the American federal government to its constitutional limits, refused to concede the victories of liberalism in the culture wars, and otherwise offended the neoconservatives, found themselves exiled from the pages of National Review and other mainstream conservative publications.Chronicles became a place of sanctuary for these writers. By the middle of the 1990s it was a sanctuary Dr. Francis was himself in need of.\n\nUp to that point his career as a thinker within the American conservative movement had been quite successful. It had three basic stages. In 1977 he joined the Heritage Foundation, a Washington D. C. think tank that had been founded four years earlier by New Right activist Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner with money put up by beer baron Joseph Coors. Dr. Francis was hired as a policy analyst in the fields of intelligence and security, particularly with regards to the threat of terrorism as a strategy employed by the Soviet Union in the Cold War.\n\nIn 1981, following the publication of his The Soviet Strategy of Terror, he left the Heritage Foundation to take a position as legislative assistant to Senator John P. East, R-North Carolina. It was as an expert on national security matters that he was hired to this position but, interestingly, in the course of his work for East he was called upon to write a document that both required this expertise yet also had to do with the cultural and racial concerns on which his later, and lasting, fame rests. In 1983, US President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill that made the third Monday in January into an American national holiday in honour of Martin Luther King Jr. The bill had been hotly debated, and leading the opposition to the holiday was the other Republican Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. Senator East worked closely with his colleague and mentor in the campaign against this ridiculous holiday and on October 3, 1983, Helms read out in Congress a paper written by Dr. Francis that documented King\u2019s collaboration with Soviet agents and Communist fronts.\n\nDr. Francis worked for Senator East until the latter\u2019s death in 1986 at which point he joined the staff of the Washington Times. He served the newspaper as an editorial writer, opinion columnist, and editor and it was here that his career started to really take off. His column was nationally syndicated, and his articles won him the Distinguished Writing Award in 1989 and 1990. He was runner up for another award both those years as well. Then, in 1995 all of that came to an end.\n\nIt started with his column for June 27, 1995, entitled \u201cAll Those Things to Apologize For\u201d. Written one week after the Southern Baptist Convention issued a grovelling apology for the stance they had taken 150 years previously in the controversy over slavery that divided them from the Northern Baptists, this column pointed out that the Baptists were making a big deal about repenting for something never condemned as a sin by the Bible. \u201cNeither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery,\u201d he wrote, \u201cdespite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was\u201d. All of this is true. Unfortunately, it is the kind of truth that people in this era cannot bear to hear.\n\nDr. Francis was not arguing for slavery. He was arguing against what he called a \u201cbastardized version of Christian ethics\u201d, that had appeared in the 18th Century and had so permeated the churches that they \u201cnow spend more time preaching against apartheid and colonialism than they do against real sins such as pinching secretaries and pilfering from the office coffee-pool.\u201d He observed, correctly, that to read the abolitionist message into the New Testament and dismiss the passages that tell bond-servants to obey their masters as irrelevant is to undermine the authority of passages that \u201cenjoin other social responsibilities.\u201d These truths were especially embarrassing to the kind of Christians who, on the one hand pride themselves on the Christian roots of abolitionism, while on the other hand trying to defend what remains of traditional authority and order against the modernizing influences of those who see the abolitionist movement as the first stage in their perpetual revolution against the \u201cslavery\u201d of marriage, family, and traditional morality.\n\nThis embarrassment proved too much for Wesley Pruden, the newspaper\u2019s editor-in-chief. He rebuked and demoted Dr. Francis, cut his salary, and began censoring his columns. In September of that same year, he fired Dr. Francis outright. This time it was not over something he had written in a column but something he had said in a speech the year previously. \n\nIn May of 1994, American Renaissance, a monthly periodical devoted to matters of race, intelligence, and immigration hosted its first conference and Dr. Francis was invited to speak. He gave a message entitled \u201cWhy Race Matters\u201d, the text of which was later published as an article in the September 1994 issue of American Renaissance. In this speech, he talked about how the culture of Western countries, especially the United States and in particular the South had come under attack, with traditional symbols being attacked, demonized, and replaced, how anti-racism was an effective strategy in a campaign being waged against the white race, how whites themselves were digging \u201ctheir own racial and civilization grave\u201d through liberalism and leftism, and that a merely cultural strategy in defence of Western civilization would not be sufficient \u2013 there needs to be conscious racial element to Western identity as well. He said:\n\nThe civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.\n\nThis is so obviously true that one wonders that it needs to be stated. Nevertheless, it was the last straw for Wesley Pruden. The way in which Pruden learned of the remark did not help matters. Dinesh D\u2019Souza, who had attended the conference, wrote a book, The End of Racism, which was published in 1995. D\u2019Souza\u2019s book discussed many of the same issues American Renaissance specializes in, and often took positions similar to theirs. D\u2019Souza was, however, a firm believer in propositional nationalism and the ideal of the United States as a \u201cuniversal nation\u201d, who objected very much to the idea of defending Western civilization in explicitly racial terms. The chapter in which he talked about the conference contained many distortions \u2013 even after D\u2019Souza was force to rewrite the chapter when Jared Taylor andLawrence Auster, along with Dr. Francis, wrote to the publisher to complain of the many ways in which D\u2019Souza had twisted their words. In September of 1995, at the time the book finally saw print and reviews were beginning to appear, an article by D\u2019Souza about the American Renaissance conference appeared in the Washington Post. D\u2019Souza selectively quoted from Dr. Francis\u2019 speech and presented the quotes in a very unfavourable light. And so, Dr. Francis lost his job at theWashington Times.\n\nHe remained on the editorial staff of Chronicles, of course, to which he contributed each month, either his \u201cPrincipalities and Powers\u201d column or a book review or feature article. The Creators Syndicate continued to distribute his column. In the latter he offered his commentary on the news of the day and, while immigration was the issue that he most frequently addressed, he covered a broad gamut of topics, including free trade and globalization, gun control, and the erosion of civil liberties. He supported the presidential candidacies of his friend Patrick Buchanan and kept a watchful eye on the doings of those who actually made it to the White House. Scathing as his criticism of the Clinton administration was, he was no less severe in his assessment of George W. Bush. He contrasted the way in which the Bush administration had expanded its policing powers, undermining the civil liberties of Americans in the process, by means of antiterrorist legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act, with the way in which it refused to use its existing, lawful, powers to control immigration, this contrast being a classic example of anarchotyranny. In 2002 he wrote several columns against the Bush administration\u2019s plans to invade Iraq and when that invasion took place saw his arguments more than justified. His arguments against the war were far more sane, sensible, and interesting than either the neocon arguments for the war or the blithering banalities uttered against it by the left-wing peaceniks. His final column was about George W. Bush\u2019s second inaugural speech and it concluded by saying that Bush had \u201cconfirmed once and for all that the neo-conservatism to which he has delivered his administration and the country is fundamentally indistinguishable from the liberalism many conservatives imagine he has renounced and defeated.\u201d\n\nIn his Chronicles column, where he had more space to work with, he discussed the same topics at a deeper level. From James Burnham, about whose ideas he had written a book, he had learned much about the nature of power and the elites who inevitably hold it, including the present elite of technocratic managers who preside over the dismantling of the traditions, culture, and civilization of Western societies and rationalize their actions with the universalistic ideology of liberalism. From liberal sociologist Donald Warren he had gleaned insights into how the alliance of the uppermost and lowermost classes in the welfare state was putting the squeeze on the middle class, radicalizing what is ordinarily the most stable of classes, and thus generating a support base that a populist movement could use against the elites. From these insights, Dr. Francis framed his argument for such a populist \u201crevolt from the middle\u201d, bending the cold, hard, theory of Machiavellian power politics to serve ends that was anything but cold and hard \u2013 the cause of white, middle class Americans, who were seeing everything they held dear, their culture and religion, traditions and way of life, on every level from the regional to the national, including the constitution of their republic and their habits and institutions of freedom, being mercilessly swept away by elites they seemed powerless to stop. First in the New Right that brought Ronald Reagan into power, and later in the movement that failed to deliver the presidency to Pat Buchanan, he had found movements that could potentially achieve his ends. The dilemma for which he was seeking a solution to the very end of his life, as can be seen in his last \u201cPrincipalities and Powers\u201d article entitled \u201cTowards a Hard Right\u201d, was how such a movement could gain success without being sidetracked from its goals by corporate globalists dangling the carrot of the free market before its eyes.'\" width=\"487\" height=\"366\" \/><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<form action=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ajax\/ufi\/modify.php\" method=\"post\" target=\"_blank\">\n<div><\/div>\n<\/form>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><\/p>\n<p>Sam Francis was far more than just the man who thought up a clever name for this phenomenon \u2013 he was also its chief chronicler, analyst, and critic. In his twice-weekly column, syndicated by Creators but carried by far fewer newspapers than it ought to have been for reasons we will shortly get into, he provided a bold, uncompromising, commentary, expressed in a dry, sardonic wit that was perfectly complemented by the way he seemed to look out at you with amused disdain through his heavy glasses in the publicity photo attached to his column, on the news and issues of the day and the narrative beneath the news and issues \u2013 the ongoing war being waged by those presently in power in the West and particularly in the United States on the traditions, cultures, symbols, and ways of life of Western peoples. Nor did he shy away from addressing the taboo aspect of this subject, the racial element.<\/p>\n<p>Dr. Samuel Todd Francis was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee on April 29, 1947, and it was in Chattanooga that he was raised and where as a young prodigy his literary talents and brilliant mind first gained attention. It was also in the Scenic City, under the Appalachian mountains, that we was finally laid to rest in 2005. He studied English literature at John Hopkins University in Baltimore before taking his Ph.D in history from the University of North Carolina.<\/p>\n<p>It was at Chapel Hill that he became acquainted with two of his fellow students, the classicist Thomas Fleming and the historian Clyde Wilson. These men would become his lifelong colleagues. They worked together on the\u00a0<i>Southern Partisan<\/i>, a conservative quarterly that was started up in the late 1970s in the spirit of the Vanderbilt Agrarians. Each contributed to\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The New Right Papers<\/span>, a 1982 anthology put together by Robert W. Whitaker. Their most significant collaboration however was in\u00a0<i><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chroniclesmagazine.org\/\" target=\"_blank\">Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture<\/a><\/i>, founded by Leopold Tyrmand in 1976 and published by the Rockford Institute of Rockford, Illinois. Thomas Fleming became the editor of\u00a0<i>Chronicles<\/i>following Tyrmand\u2019s death in 1985. Clyde Wilson is an associate editor, and until his passing Sam Francis was the magazine\u2019s Washington or political editor. Under the direction of these men\u00a0<i>Chronicles<\/i>\u00a0became the flagship publication of paleoconservatism which, in opposition to the neoconservatives who were calling for a Pax Americana, a new world order in which the United States would use its military might to export liberal, capitalist, democracy to the farthest parts of the globe, called American conservatism back to its roots in the Burkean traditionalism of Russell Kirk and the small-r republicanism of the American Old Right that had opposed the New Deal, American entanglement in foreign conflicts, and the development of the \u201cwelfare-warfare state\u201d. This was very much bucking the trend in the larger American conservative movement. As the neoconservative viewpoint came to increasingly dominate the movement, conservative writers who having opposed mass, demographics-altering, immigration, both legal and illegal, criticized Israel and objected to America\u2019s being drawn into wars in the Middle East on her behalf, called for a rollback of the American federal government to its constitutional limits, refused to concede the victories of liberalism in the culture wars, and otherwise offended the neoconservatives, found themselves exiled from the pages of\u00a0<i>National Review<\/i>\u00a0and other mainstream conservative publications.<i>Chronicles<\/i>\u00a0became a place of sanctuary for these writers. By the middle of the 1990s it was a sanctuary Dr. Francis was himself in need of.<\/p>\n<p>Up to that point his career as a thinker within the American conservative movement had been quite successful. It had three basic stages. In 1977 he joined the Heritage Foundation, a Washington D. C. think tank that had been founded four years earlier by New Right activist Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner with money put up by beer baron Joseph Coors. Dr. Francis was hired as a policy analyst in the fields of intelligence and security, particularly with regards to the threat of terrorism as a strategy employed by the Soviet Union in the Cold War.<\/p>\n<p>In 1981, following the publication of his\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The Soviet Strategy of Terror<\/span>, he left the Heritage Foundation to take a position as legislative assistant to Senator John P. East, R-North Carolina. It was as an expert on national security matters that he was hired to this position but, interestingly, in the course of his work for East he was called upon to write a document that both required this expertise yet also had to do with the cultural and racial concerns on which his later, and lasting, fame rests. In 1983, US President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill that made the third Monday in January into an American national holiday in honour of Martin Luther King Jr. The bill had been hotly debated, and leading the opposition to the holiday was the other Republican Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. Senator East worked closely with his colleague and mentor in the campaign against this ridiculous holiday and on October 3, 1983, Helms read out in Congress a paper written by Dr. Francis that documented King\u2019s collaboration with Soviet agents and Communist fronts.<\/p>\n<p>Dr. Francis worked for Senator East until the latter\u2019s death in 1986 at which point he joined the staff of the\u00a0<i>Washington Times<\/i>. He served the newspaper as an editorial writer, opinion columnist, and editor and it was here that his career started to really take off. His column was nationally syndicated, and his articles won him the Distinguished Writing Award in 1989 and 1990. He was runner up for another award both those years as well. Then, in 1995 all of that came to an end.<\/p>\n<p>It started with his column for June 27, 1995, entitled \u201cAll Those Things to Apologize For\u201d. Written one week after the Southern Baptist Convention issued a grovelling apology for the stance they had taken 150 years previously in the controversy over slavery that divided them from the Northern Baptists, this column pointed out that the Baptists were making a big deal about repenting for something never condemned as a sin by the Bible. \u201cNeither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery,\u201d he wrote, \u201cdespite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was\u201d. All of this is true. Unfortunately, it is the kind of truth that people in this era cannot bear to hear.<\/p>\n<p>Dr. Francis was not arguing for slavery. He was arguing against what he called a \u201cbastardized version of Christian ethics\u201d, that had appeared in the 18th Century and had so permeated the churches that they \u201cnow spend more time preaching against apartheid and colonialism than they do against real sins such as pinching secretaries and pilfering from the office coffee-pool.\u201d He observed, correctly, that to read the abolitionist message into the New Testament and dismiss the passages that tell bond-servants to obey their masters as irrelevant is to undermine the authority of passages that \u201cenjoin other social responsibilities.\u201d These truths were especially embarrassing to the kind of Christians who, on the one hand pride themselves on the Christian roots of abolitionism, while on the other hand trying to defend what remains of traditional authority and order against the modernizing influences of those who see the abolitionist movement as the first stage in their perpetual revolution against the \u201cslavery\u201d of marriage, family, and traditional morality.<\/p>\n<p>This embarrassment proved too much for Wesley Pruden, the newspaper\u2019s editor-in-chief. He rebuked and demoted Dr. Francis, cut his salary, and began censoring his columns. In September of that same year, he fired Dr. Francis outright. This time it was not over something he had written in a column but something he had said in a speech the year previously.<\/p>\n<p>In May of 1994,\u00a0<i>American Renaissance<\/i>, a monthly periodical devoted to matters of race, intelligence, and immigration hosted its first conference and Dr. Francis was invited to speak. He gave a message entitled \u201cWhy Race Matters\u201d, the text of which was later published as an article in the September 1994 issue of\u00a0<i>American Renaissance<\/i>. In this speech, he talked about how the culture of Western countries, especially the United States and in particular the South had come under attack, with traditional symbols being attacked, demonized, and replaced, how anti-racism was an effective strategy in a campaign being waged against the white race, how whites themselves were digging \u201ctheir own racial and civilization grave\u201d through liberalism and leftism, and that a merely cultural strategy in defence of Western civilization would not be sufficient \u2013 there needs to be conscious racial element to Western identity as well. He said:<\/p>\n<p><i>The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p>This is so obviously true that one wonders that it needs to be stated. Nevertheless, it was the last straw for Wesley Pruden. The way in which Pruden learned of the remark did not help matters. Dinesh D\u2019Souza, who had attended the conference, wrote a book,\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The End of Racism<\/span>, which was published in 1995. D\u2019Souza\u2019s book discussed many of the same issues\u00a0<i>American Renaissance<\/i>\u00a0specializes in, and\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.vdare.com\/articles\/he-flinched\" target=\"_blank\">often took positions similar to theirs<\/a>. D\u2019Souza was, however, a firm believer in propositional nationalism and the ideal of the United States as a \u201cuniversal nation\u201d, who objected very much to the idea of defending Western civilization in explicitly racial terms. The chapter in which he talked about the conference contained many distortions \u2013 even after D\u2019Souza was force to rewrite the chapter when\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.amren.com\/archives\/back-issues\/november-1995\/#article2\" target=\"_blank\">Jared Taylor<\/a>\u00a0and<a href=\"http:\/\/www.amnation.com\/vfr\/archives\/005665.html\" target=\"_blank\">Lawrence Auster<\/a>, along with Dr. Francis, wrote to the publisher to complain of the many ways in which D\u2019Souza had twisted their words. In September of 1995, at the time the book finally saw print and reviews were beginning to appear, an article by D\u2019Souza about the\u00a0<i>American Renaissance<\/i>\u00a0conference appeared in the\u00a0<i>Washington Post<\/i>. D\u2019Souza selectively quoted from Dr. Francis\u2019 speech and presented the quotes in a very unfavourable light. And so, Dr. Francis lost his job at the<i>Washington Times<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p>He remained on the editorial staff of\u00a0<i>Chronicles<\/i>, of course, to which he contributed each month, either his \u201cPrincipalities and Powers\u201d column or a book review or feature article. The Creators Syndicate continued to distribute his column. In the latter he offered his commentary on the news of the day and, while immigration was the issue that he most frequently addressed, he covered a broad gamut of topics, including free trade and globalization, gun control, and the erosion of civil liberties. He supported the presidential candidacies of his friend Patrick Buchanan and kept a watchful eye on the doings of those who actually made it to the White House. Scathing as his criticism of the Clinton administration was, he was no less severe in his assessment of George W. Bush. He contrasted the way in which the Bush administration had expanded its policing powers, undermining the civil liberties of Americans in the process, by means of antiterrorist legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act, with the way in which it refused to use its existing, lawful, powers to control immigration, this contrast being a classic example of anarchotyranny. In 2002 he wrote several columns against the Bush administration\u2019s plans to invade Iraq and when that invasion took place saw his arguments more than justified. His arguments against the war were far more sane, sensible, and interesting than either the neocon arguments for the war or the blithering banalities uttered against it by the left-wing peaceniks. His final column was about George W. Bush\u2019s second inaugural speech and it concluded by saying that Bush had \u201cconfirmed once and for all that the neo-conservatism to which he has delivered his administration and the country is fundamentally indistinguishable from the liberalism many conservatives imagine he has renounced and defeated.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In his\u00a0<i>Chronicles<\/i>\u00a0column, where he had more space to work with, he discussed the same topics at a deeper level. From James Burnham, about whose ideas he had written a book, he had learned much about the nature of power and the elites who inevitably hold it, including the present elite of technocratic managers who preside over the dismantling of the traditions, culture, and civilization of Western societies and rationalize their actions with the universalistic ideology of liberalism. From liberal sociologist Donald Warren he had gleaned insights into how the alliance of the uppermost and lowermost classes in the welfare state was putting the squeeze on the middle class, radicalizing what is ordinarily the most stable of classes, and thus generating a support base that a populist movement could use against the elites. From these insights, Dr. Francis framed his argument for such a populist \u201crevolt from the middle\u201d, bending the cold, hard, theory of Machiavellian power politics to serve ends that was anything but cold and hard \u2013 the cause of white, middle class Americans, who were seeing everything they held dear, their culture and religion, traditions and way of life, on every level from the regional to the national, including the constitution of their republic and their habits and institutions of freedom, being mercilessly swept away by elites they seemed powerless to stop. First in the New Right that brought Ronald Reagan into power, and later in the movement that failed to deliver the presidency to Pat Buchanan, he had found movements that could potentially achieve his ends. The dilemma for which he was seeking a solution to the very end of his life, as can be seen in his last \u201cPrincipalities and Powers\u201d article entitled \u201cTowards a Hard Right\u201d, was how such a movement could gain success without being sidetracked from its goals by corporate globalists dangling the carrot of the free market before its eyes.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Remembering Sam Francis &#8212; He&#8217;s Been Gone a Decade by Gerry T. Neal SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2015 Remembering a Philosopher-King It has long been recognized that there are two ways in which civilization can break down into barbaric conditions. The &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=797\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[330,333,331,332,334],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=797"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":798,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797\/revisions\/798"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<br />
<b>Notice</b>:  ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in <b>/home/public/wp-includes/functions.php</b> on line <b>5373</b><br />