Well, not just quite yet, but I suspect that it will within a couple years. The magazine has become a politically correct bore.
TAC started as an exciting venture, headed by Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodoracopulos, and Scott McConnell. But by 2007, both Buchanan and Taki were gone (although TAC still runs Buchanan’s syndicated columns), and TAC slid ever more toward becoming a mouthpiece for the Cathedral. Ron Unz took over around 2007. And while Unz did publish some flawed pieces (most notably on Hispanic crime and race and IQ), he did publish some winners, such as on Jewish affirmative action at elite colleges and Chinese eugenics. Unfortunately, TAC wouldn’t publish Unz’s most recent piece on black crime, which led to the board firing him as publisher and replacing him with Jon Utley.
Apparently, the editor at TAC said everyone already knows about black crime, so nothing needs to be said. Greg Cochran begs to differ. What a joke TAC has become.
Who is Jon Basil Utley? I don’t know much about him, but allegedly he wants to make TAC more like an anti-interventionist National Review. And, like many neocons, he is of a Russian Ashkenazi background. While Utley is allegedly an anti-interventionist (or perhaps a more moderate liberal internationalist?) and even critical of the Israel lobby, he seems quite politically correct. For instance, while he’s correct to criticize Christian Zionist fundamentalists for promoting war in the Middle East, he criticizes them for being against mass Third World immigration into Western countries. (Huh? I guess they should welcome their genetic replacement?) Or Mitt Romney’s mild criticism of illegal immigration during the Republican primary Utley calls a “tremendous calumny against immigrants.” In other words, it’s wrong for Westerners to question their own extinction. Under Utley, can we expect TAC even more vigorously to parrot the Cultural Marxist open-borders propaganda?
A friend with ties to TAC tells me that TAC is really strapped for cash and might not be around much longer; allegedly, none of their traditional donors wants to give them more money. Geez, I wonder why?
Updates:
Handle: “Unz Undone” & “Unz Update“
Occam's Razor 
Oy vey. I, for one, didn’t renew my subscription a few months ago. A shocker for me was reading The American Conservative’s glowing review of the economic history Land of Promise and then, glancing through it in a library, finding the book to be nothing but politically correct and poorly researched argument on behalf of wholesale government involvement in the economy, with one chapter titled something trite like, “Battling Racism on the Home Front”. I’m looking forward to reading the inaugural issue of the new race-realist Radix journal, which hopefully will help to fill the void in alternative right print publications.
I find the term neocon overused but as a term for politically correct mainstream conservatism, it’s generally accepted. Neocons seem to have a program of neutering *any* opposition, no matter how feckless. Paleocon is practically the definition of feckless opposition. The paleocons have always been a sort of anti-conservative conservative- they believe many of the things leftists do, for different reasons, but leftists find this useful. Only big donors can keep these useless publications and institutions going, and as soon as they are no longer useful, they will go under.
Does anyone still read the American Conservative? I haven’t read it since they purged Pat and Taki.
Rod Dreher is doing his best to kill it.
I was a charter subscriber and could not help but notice its decline into general mediocrity. Sad to see it happen …
Your idea reflects Aleksandr Dugin’s comments on the deal that Gorbachev thought he had negotiated with the USA. Perestroika was to be a mutual backing down in Europe. Europe would be deNATOized, Russia would leave its Eastern satellite countries and Europe would be non-aligned, free to make its own future. But, as the wily Pole, Brzezinski put it, “we lied.”
Sorry. I posted the Dugin video here, somehow, instead of as a comment to your article about 50 years of white folks backing down and being taken for chumps.
I enjoyed it. He is correct.
Pingback: Cathedral gets nervous: twofer hit-pieces this week! | Occam's Razor
This is an interesting website.
Regarding TAC – I have had the same thoughts exactly. They have ignored the immigration issue all year. Not commenting on the horrendous gang of 8 bill was unforgivable.
I like their anti-interventionist slant but I can get that at other sites.
Another site that has turned is The American Specator. It has always been a neocon site to an extent but as with TAC, they have ignored the immigration almost completely this past year. It is hard to complain since I don’t ever give them money anyway. I suspect they have been bought off by the Adelson types.
TAC also has someone calling himself – no kidding – “W. James Antle III”. Adding “the Third” is really important, you see. He hates the Tea Party more than anything else, because it to a degree challenges the neocon establishment. Right now he is posting about how Newt Gingrich was “right about Mandela”, praising Mandela, who was part of the campaign to murder Whites and Blacks alike. Blacks labeled “collaborators” – these could be teachers, doctors, anyone – were burned to death. Antle asks “Well gee, what would you have done?” (Answer: I wouldn’t burn people to death.)
Utley’s takeover, no doubt at the command of donors, means the magazine is steadily moving toward Political Correctness so as to not oppose the Tribe’s agenda. This has happened over and over again. A conservative party, magazine or other activity gets started somewhere in the West, and is first ignored, then heavily attacked by the Tribe’s outlets. If it still manages to get off the ground, some members of the Tribe show up saying, “Hey, you guys got a good deal going here, good for you! I’ll join. You’ll need my experience. I’ll make you accepted. With me no one can say you’re just a bunch of White racists. And of course I’m on your side all the way, nudge nudge.”
Then come the demands: “That guy and that guy have to be thrown out, they are extremists. If you refuse I will leave you and declare that I have discovered your extremism from the inside. The media will love having me as a witness every time you are mentioned.” The conservative founders are turned against each other. Some are tired from the long walk in the cold, and eager to preserve the scraps of mainstream acceptance they have now gained. Some are corrupt and eager to accommodate the Tribe’s demands. New leaders are brought in to replace those who are thrown out, ready to show their loyalty to the “new direction” which promises acceptance by the mainstream media. Those real conservatives who remain often leave in disgust. Some stay and keep quiet because they have devoted their lives to this and sacrificed their careers. They will be allowed to stay for a few years if they are well-known names. Pretty soon the takeover is complete, and someone like William Buckley stands outside the magazine he built, saying he now regrets allowing the neocons to take control.
Pingback: George Kennan, a race-realist Cassandra? | Occam's Razor