I haven't heard enough yet to know if I am in complete agreement with Haller/Racer on race, but so far, so good. His hard nosed insistence on the primacy of race, and its role in the decline of our country, without apology to the sophistries of the bio-ethnologists and anthro-apologists, is refreshing. And anyone who can so deftly put in their place the bluenoses in charge of museums, who have betrayed the public by charging admission, by re-naming one of their flagships "The Cleveland Museum of Stainless Steel", should get at least a thirty day pass.

His political activism and nationalism merit discussion, and as for his insults and percieved arrogance, I think everyone on this site is quite capable of surviving them.

Careful, Brock. Slavery may be upon us sooner than you think. With their effective pauperization of the middle class by supporting needless and expensive "patriotic" wars and outsourcing of our industrial base to enrich their own, duh-byah and the other neo-cons were marching along with the one-worlders of the left as they effectively reduced us to servitude while teary-eyed they continued to salute the flag, hum "The Star Spangled Banner" and protest their undying belief in liberty and the rights of man.

'I give as good as I get; or, persons here (and even more so in the real world) should not insult me or belittle my true conservative view unless expecting something in return.'

That's an odd thing for you to say when you were the one insulting and belittling every one else who was posting on this website.

I would wish you all the best if it seemed that you might accomplish anything, but I doubt that you will, given your arrogance. In the end you will shoot yourself in the foot.

See that you do not become delusional.

In any event, I suggest you get on with it, and stop hurling insults at everybody here, but if your book has the same tone as your posts here, dont expect great success with it.

Any website has a perfect moral (and for now still legal) right to ban (or refuse service? I'd assume so, but am not sure) whomsoever it chooses. But I am using "moral" strictly in the property or freedom of association senses. Those responsible for a product's existence may do with it as they will, provided they don't use it in a criminal manner (that sounds very libertarian, which I am not, either politically or philosophically, but I do think the libertarian understanding of property considered only in itself, not in relation to other, possibly superseding, goods, is correct). You are not under any legal or Biblical duty to host my comments (or anyone else's).

But if I were banned, would it be wrong of me to object? I think not. This is an ideological website, hosted by an American organization. In America, you might recall, we not only have a tradition of free speech, we actually have a prescriptive protection for it in our founding documents. I realize that liberals have warped the concept of free speech into something that the Framers would have found unrecognizable, extending First Amendment protections to pornography, performance 'art', entertainment (but, curiously, not commercial advertising), and other areas of speech never envisioned as such by the Founders.

Surely you would acknowledge, however, that the free speech clause applies to political speech (which is all I believe it applies to), and that my various comments fall into that category (as much as any others', at least; I may have some personal asides, responses to personal attacks, and the like, but so do others here, and in the real world of politics).

Now there is such a thing as rhetorical rules of order. People in a deliberative body, for the institution to function as intended, must suffer some behavioral regulations. Free speech, in the literal sense, cannot encompass endless interruption, or 'monologuing'. Perhaps politically irrelevant obscenities, or even personal attacks ("Mr. Jefferson has a mulatto love child!"), can be banned, without infringing the speech principle. Certainly, we couldn't be expected to have our leaders mouth corporate advertisements from their grandstands.

But if there is one single type of speech which, in the American system, even the most hidebound reactionary, or PC offense-monger, MUST abide, which must remain unregulated, it is that which directly addresses political topics. That is our way of political life (if you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia or North Korea).

My comments invariably address political or academic topics (with occasional autobiographical digressions, as with other comment-posters) and they do so without violating common forensic rules. I don't copy and paste long and irrelevant outside material, which could interrupt the site's visuals. I don't make unsolicited personal attacks. I don't hurl epithets, or lace my scribblings with obscenities. i don't insert irrelevant, non-topical information into comments ("this reminds me of this cool movie where ..."). So why would I be awfully close to being banned?

There is only one answer. The Powers That Be dislike the content of my comments, which, because my comments always pertain to political (or social, cultural, moral) issues, really means, they don't like my politics.

An agent of an American website, affiliated with an American and self-designatedly 'conservative' magazine devoted to (mostly American) political and cultural analysis, operating under the aegis of an American foundation (which probably receives preferential tax treatment as some type of non-profit or quasi-public entity, serving a public or social purpose), thinks he has a moral right to ban the free expression of conservative political opinions he finds distasteful.

Why, that would be awfully close to un-American.

I am sorry to have missed the Mencken meeting which is forty-five minutes from my house. However, my children required Halloween transportation Saturday so I could not attend. I always look forward to reading your essays in Chronicles and Taki and especially enjoyed your recent essay in Chronicles on Christianity which cut to a point many of us would agree upon- without Christianity, this culture will continue to decline.

Oh - Leon Haller. I remember. Anyway, Mr. Haller, I'm personally not interested in your version of what you call "conservatism", and I doubt you will find many converts here to your nationalist cause. My interest is in decentralizing our nation - one might say in "de-nationalizing" it. I think you make a mistake in focusing first on the largest, most abstract and remote bodies (the nation, the White Race) rather than on the closest, dearest and most immediate. And your disdain for those things near, dear and local (and for those who value them) demonstrates that in the end we have nothing, really, in common. We are on opposite sides.