Posted under Conservatism & Media & Political Philosophy
This is an unfortunate development.
Dr. Fleming has always seemed to have little tolerance for the ill-informed people who chose to spout off on internet forums as if they know something, but the way I see it these folks are the price you have to pay for the excellent discussions that would often arise.
I learned a lot from my discussions at Chronicles. They probably helped me form and mold my political thought more than any other single source. Perhaps most importantly they taught me to keep my mouth shut when I didn’t know what I was talking about. There were some smart people who commented there including, of course, the management, and you couldn’t get away with not knowing your stuff.
Randy Savage dies and Chronicles turns off comments on the same day. I need a Prozac. 
Both will be missed.
DW on 21 May 2011 at 12:40 am #
I respect Fleming and think he is one of the smarter figures the Right has produced. Having said that Fleming is also an egomaniac, who loathes debate and discussion. It is a minor miracle the comments section lasted as long as it did.
Bede on 21 May 2011 at 1:21 am #
It’s a shame they turned off the comments.
Sean Scallon on 21 May 2011 at 3:11 am #
Someone or something must have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Oh well.
Until such time, all you paleo looking to contribute to our discussion, please drop in.
Tacitus on 21 May 2011 at 12:08 pm #
I agree with DW.
I used to be a subscriber to Chronicles. It’s funny how thin-skinned TJF is. Here’s a man who’s been writing a series on “Jerks” and who generally has nothing but contempt for his fellow Americans. But he can’t tolerate the slightest disagreement in the comboxes.
The comments at Chronicles underwent three phases. First, there was open commenting. Second, they quickly weeded out the racists and anti-Semites. They didn’t want them tarnishing their image or “brand”. Third, they proceeded to disallow criticism of their articles in general. I noticed this when they used to run Paul Craig Roberts’ columns. Now I like PCR’s columns on economics, but you must admit the man says crazy things. The first time my comments weren’t accepted was in trying to respond to PCR zaniness. TJF jumped in to defend PCR’s insanity like a good tribal paleo loyalist.
So to my mind, comments have been disallowed for quite some time now. The comments are generally eighty repetitions of “You are so right, Dr. Fleming!”, “Well said, Dr. Fleming!”. TJF has been shielded from criticism for quite some time. But this wasn’t enough. He just can’t leave it alone when people say something he disagrees with. He has nothing but contempt for the “vulgar”.
It shows a contradiction in the whole paleo mentality. On the one hand, paleos like Fleming revel in being on the margins. They love recalling neocon attacks on Sam Francis, Mel Bradford, and Joe Sobran. They present themselves as martyrs unjustly excommunicated from the conservative movement. On the other hand, they have formed an insular establishment of their own where dissent is not tolerated. If you want to be some kind of intellectual guerrilla warrior, then you’d better be able to handle disagreement and you’re going to have to mingle with the folk.
Kirt Higdon on 21 May 2011 at 12:19 pm #
I agree with DW and Tacitus on Fleming. I observed early on how he dealt with dissenters and carefully avoided his wrath, at least to the extent of not being banned and getting off with a few reprimands. My brother, less diplomatic than I, didn’t last past a few comments. Eventually I got tired of the way he was treating others and got tired of censoring myself and quit commenting altogether and let my subscription to Chronicles expire.
RedPhillips on 21 May 2011 at 3:07 pm #
Kirt. you certainly don’t hold your tongue around here.
Bede on 21 May 2011 at 3:35 pm #
I’ve disagreed with Fleming and he’s always been courteous and civil to me.
Fleming has brilliant insights. His Morality of Everyday Life is one of the best books I’ve ever read.
Matt Weber on 21 May 2011 at 5:12 pm #
I’d been following the comments for the last few days and I didn’t see anything particularly annoying.
Fleming doesn’t dislike debate and disagreement, he just quickly tires of people who post blatant disinformation, or that can’t stay on topic. The last one really irked him over the years. On debate, he realizes that two people can only have a useful debate on a point when they agree on all the other points leading up to it.
The comments section at Chronicles was one of the few worth reading on the internet, which probably spoke to the amount of work it took to regulate it.
Kirt Higdon on 21 May 2011 at 6:47 pm #
Red, this forum is much more tolerant of dissent and even excess than Fleming’s Chronicles. I have one correspondent who was a very polite commentator on Chronicles, but like me he eventually stopped posting because he was tired of constantly being snapped at. My brother and several others were banned outright for “dissing” Fleming. My local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller Times, has taken to removing any comment I make which criticizes Obama so I am also bidding them farewell. Any forum or blog, of course, can be run as the owner sees fit, but it is pointless to post comments where they will be removed or you will get banned. I also ran into this on the Taki forums when Spencer was running them. Now that he is gone and has his own operation, I occasionally comment on Taki.
Sean Scallon on 21 May 2011 at 8:16 pm #
To be fair to Chronicles, check out Alt. Right and look at the mess they have in their comments section over about their article on women not being a big part of the white nat. movement, We’re pretty tolerant here but up to a point. People who want to be vuglar, grandstand for the Nazis or Communists by hijacking threads will have their posts eliminated and if they continue they themselves will be banned. Chronicles was the same way (although much more stringent). I’m disappointed because they’re a good bunch and I thought we had a good community of contributors until a few bad apples spoiled the barrell. I guess to them it much easier to weed to out the cranks from the Letters to the Editor mail than it its internet. Will I still go there? Sure, but there may be many, especially younger who’ve grown up online, who may say “The heck with you guys. I’m going to go where they let me comment.” We’ll see what happens.
C Bowen on 21 May 2011 at 10:17 pm #
Red;
A few comments:
The Chronicles website, with comments, was a port in the storm in the dark period for the message board format that followed the Frumsters, Unpatriotic smear. I had spent time reading what one could get back then on the Rothbard-Rockwell-Chronicles alliance, and a 3 year subscriber at the time, perhaps with a gap, I admired how when I clicked over, they had an ad for the Dixie Chicks CD–I thought that was truly funny and a group, with encouragement, that might be able to have an effect.
I virtually met Mr. Scallon via e-mail, thanks to an article in Chronicles about Wisconsin pub halls turning to strip joints, and wrote a bit for a posting board (I Drink for the Old Republic) that Sean posted on freedomundergound. I was promoting the hopeless Libertyforum free speech project at the time, as I had good virtual friends there that had fed me over my years posting at FR, which resulted in nothing save, busting Jeff Gannon that made it to a Raimondo column.
I was continually frustrated that the Chronicles crowd wouldn’t offer more for us to bring to the posting board format, and yet, Red, I can recall a Christmastime 2005, when we first exchanged posts over something I said about Ric Flair, in reference to the magazine.
But that time passed. I wrote on alt right, in response to a younger chap, that all ‘we’ really were, were posting board veterans. I guess in the end, we really had no business at Chronicles, or the money powers decided we didn’t. In fairness to Dr. Fleming, he has a fiduciary responsibility and if the board said enough, that about covers it; that doesn’t quite fit the model we are accustomed to.
I figured this out over the last year, as I use to send money when they did web fundraisers. It was the Manning article and the reference to these theoretical conservatives who were writing defenses of Manning–who? I asked. Are Raimondo and Rockwell now conservatives? It hit me, that this was consumption for somebody else, not me.
‘We’ have been posting together for many years now, and at least on my part, I have great affection for those co-ageists who want to engage right now. Yes, it’s virtual, but that is for our generation to deal with, and not something our elders will ever understand, and Chronicles was clear that they didn’t really care about web culture–if they did, Aaron Wolf would have been asked to post a lot more. His columns are always something different in the magazine, and not in a “lets defend Jap internment” sort of way.
I think it was on a Hoppe thread from a year back, but I wrote that we owe gratitude to the group of men who hastily tried to piece together, with gum and duct tape, a coalition in the moments after the Cold War to ‘save’ their country–and I still toast as much.
We’ll carry on.
RedPhillips on 22 May 2011 at 12:18 pm #
C Bowen, you have a better memory than I do.
Tell your like-minded friends to check us out.
Thaddeus on 22 May 2011 at 4:26 pm #
I’m of two minds about this. I got banned from Chronicles a long while ago, which filled me with some dismay, as I certainly was never vulgar, and dislike vulgarity of any kind. My ban was strictly ideological.
Yet even though I was a victim of the policy myself, a part of me can really sympathize with Fleming on this, because I’ve been on the other end. I’ve run a forum and have had people very obviously troll it, hijack it, and so forth. The time it takes to monitor comments at a busy forum is unimaginable for a lone moderator. It eats up your life and gives you no peace, because even when you try to take a vacation, you can’t relax, because you’re always thinking, “What garbage are the trolls posting on my forum?”
It’s like taking time to carefully paint a portrait, then having someone spray graffiti on it. Not fun.
Also, the point about Alternative Right being an example of the good and the bad of open commentary is true. I used to comment regularly at Alt Right and never had a comment deleted, which was welcome. On the other hand, I’ve seen threads hijacked by pro-homosexual commentators, others by pro-Jew and pro-Israel commentators, and as for the woman article, I couldn’t even stomach the idiocy of the pro-feminist whining in the commentary there (to say nothing of the ludicrous article itself). So open commentary has its ups and its downs. Whenever I’ve seen a comment at Alt Right deleted, it’s been for a very good reason.
The only question I have with the earlier comments in this thread is, “grandstand for the Nazis”? Huh? I’ve had a good commenting history here, I think, but I certainly also believe that the national socialists did a number of things very right and were prescient in seeing that the menace of the future would be what we now call “cultural Marxism.” I don’t think I’ve had any comments deleted here. I don’t know what “grandstanding for the Nazis” would be (apart from something cartoonish), but I’d like to think that we can at least venture reasoned opinions about national socialism and post-WWI German conservatism in general, neither seeing them as perfect, nor as some kind of propaganda-framed latter-day Satan.
Sempronius on 23 May 2011 at 6:08 pm #
I think il Fleming was too temperamental to moderate a discussion forum. For all of the machismo and bluster exhibited by contributors and regular readers, TJF seemed more interested in hosting the equivalent of a tea reception for the Ladies Auxilliary rather than participating in a forthright discussion at the local saloon.
As for the rotten apples who commented from time to time, perhaps our Latinist would have done well to recall the motto, abusus non tollit usum.
Maybe some enterprising chap (or chaps) can set up a separate blog discussing articles posted at Chronicles.
Daniel Maxwell on 23 May 2011 at 7:11 pm #
I dont understand why he did it. If we are to take the admin’s comments at face value, all I can say is that they could have 1) asked for a trusted volunteer to act as moderator 2) Shut down discussions after a few days to keep the number to be monitored much more limited.
I have enjoyed the commenting at Chronicles. In fact, part of its appeal was to be able to have a conversation with the writers and get a real discussion going on. Some of the most interesting political threads I have ever read have been within Chronicles comment threads. Now, with that missing, I think it will hurt the magazine a little bit since we can no longer interact and get to understand the authors a bit better.
Thomas Fleming might rule with an iron hand at times, but I can say Ive learned alot from him. It was he who got me to come out of my libertarian shell and made me see the folly of all ideology.
Daniel Maxwell on 23 May 2011 at 7:16 pm #
Oh, I should add; I highly agree with the above posters about the disgusting schlock that goes on in the comments at some other ‘paleo’ sites. I rarely bother with AltRight or especially Occidental Observer anymore – from the pro-queer posters to the judeo-obsessives, it gets a little boring arguing with anti-Christian Nietzschian clones all over the paleosphere.
Thaddeus on 24 May 2011 at 7:45 am #
To Daniel’s point, I would just like to mention that one can be a solid Nietzschean, yet be both anti-queer and anti-semitico-supremacist.
As for being anti-Christian or pro-Christian, there really are solid arguments on both sides of that debate.
The Occidential Observer is the finest site out there right now, I’d say, (though Counter Currents is also quite good), and the conversations at TOO seem to go in one of two directions. Sometimes they are derailed by trolling (especially the phenomenon known as “concern trolling”), but sometimes the commentary actually enhances the discussion. I personally think Dr. MacDonald is the finest writer on the true right, these days, and I more rarely disagree with him than I do with almost anyone else.
I enjoy CHT very much, but TOO and CC add a cultural dimension, specifically concerning the European heritage, that I consider vital. CHT, on the other hand, is especially good on U.S. topics.
Daniel Maxwell on 24 May 2011 at 10:02 am #
Too often TOO devolves into mud slinging over their favorite hobby horses – be it anti-Christianity, libertinism, conspiracy theories, etc. Kevin MacDonald cant post any article praising some aspect of Christianity or posting some Christian related news tidbit without attracting one hundred Nietzches in the comments.
I havent been that impressed without the output of TOO lately. It seems to be going down a counter cultural road a bit, with KMac posting less and less. Even a year or so ago, he would post an excellent and well written blog post or article on some little discussed topic, but I havent seen one in awhile. I emailed him a few months ago and asked if he would continue his articles on Leo Frank, for instance, but got no reply.
Even then, his articles would rarely generate very meaningful discussions in the comments. Why this is, I cannot say. I think perhaps that the over emphasis on Jews tends to attract some boorish crazies without heavy moderation on par with Steve Sailer, where interesting discussions on Jewish issues can often be had.
john hackney on 24 May 2011 at 11:56 am #
I will sorely miss the extra thoughts and insight provided by Dr. Fleming, Srdja, et al., in the Chronicles comments section. All those above who claim that the Chronicles staff and that Dr. Fleming could not handle a debate, I challenge you to provide specific evidence.
Thaddeus on 24 May 2011 at 2:52 pm #
TOO has been very good on Israel lately, and on the crippling power of the infamous lobby.
To Mr. Hackney, I would only point out that once a person is banned, they can’t engage in debate, can they? My posts at Chronicles were the same flavour as they are here, and I can only guess that it was my criticism of either Jewish power or of certain slave-morality elements in Christianity, or perhaps some comments favourable to certain aspects of national socialism, that got me banned. I was certainly never disrespectful, as far as I recall.
But again, I can’t really fault the mods there for turning off comments. Comment moderation at an active site is intensely time-consuming and thankless. Besides, perhaps the comments were the target of some kind of coordinated hack attack of the kind of that have periodically disabled other radical-traditionalist sites. I’m just guessing.
Daniel Maxwell on 24 May 2011 at 2:59 pm #
I am confident they will change their mind when they see how much their viewership is reduced. I used to check the site several times a day to read the often fascinating discussions.
Bruce on 24 May 2011 at 7:44 pm #
I’m not. They’ve always said that they are primarily a print-magazine and will always remain a print magazine. They lose money on the website.
Daniel Maxwell on 25 May 2011 at 1:03 am #
They lose money on the magazine too, in fact I remember Fleming saying once that they are perpetually a few hundred thousand in debt and are kept afloat by a few wealthy donors.
john hackney on 25 May 2011 at 1:31 am #
Dear Thadeus — My experience with those that have been banned from threads on the CM’s website is that they richly deserved it. This is simply one man’s opinion – but this can also be said of your criticism of the CMs staff. An example, perhaps? Why not list the numbered comments you made in a thread that you were kicked off of, along with the editor’s comments ousting you? Without this type of proof, we’ll never know, will we?
DW and Tacitus have made statements that are simply absurd. Again – with no evidence.
Thaddeus on 25 May 2011 at 7:44 am #
Mr. Hackney, what “criticism” have I offered of CM’s staff? If anything, I’ve been more supportive of their no-comments policy than anyone else.
I cannot even begin to recall what I wrote on the Chronicles site to get banned, as the ban was well over a year ago. I received no comments or message ousting me, nor an e-mail of a ban, or anything like that. I do know that I never engaged in any flame wars, for example. My comments simply stopped showing up, so I made the assumption that I was banned. I only know that I generally adopt the same tone and content on any message board at which I post. Make of it what you will.
You seem strangely defensive of the Chronicles staff. I personally have no beef with them. I kept reading the site even after my comments no longer showed up. But since others have expressed some disappointment with Dr. Fleming’s approach, I suggest that there may be something to what they say.
This is not a trial where people need to provide “evidence.” Assume good faith. If other commentators have, in fact, expressed dismay at Dr. Fleming’s approach, their opinions are probably sincere and based on a reasoned impression. It’s unlikely that they formulated them based on nothing. Remember, this is a genuinely conservative site.
Matt Weber on 25 May 2011 at 5:14 pm #
I won’t say that everyone who has been banned from Chronicles has absolutely deserved it. Fleming definitely erred on the side of strictness. That said, you really have to nip the white nats in the bud or they will prattle on endlessly on every topic no matter whether it has to do with race at all. Same with the ‘it’s the Joos!’ crowd. Overall though, to get along at Chronicles all you had to do was to behave yourself and not be an annoyance. I didn’t always manage it myself, but I was never banned.
C Bowen on 25 May 2011 at 10:44 pm #
There are a couple of levels here beyond temperament of the host.
Was the site producing money, either by specific contributions, magazine subscribers or attendees at various programs? If you commented on the site, and did not send money (and I mean the $25 variety or a subscription) then I lean towards sympathy with their basic thesis that the web is not a legitimate medium for “conservative” institution building.
It has to have occurred that posting Pat Buchanan columns and William Murchinson, that is, paying for the privilege, seems a bit off. Within web culture, I’d be shocked to find much of a defense of the Murchinson fishwrap style column–but clearly, someone wanted it there–I assume someone who gave money on a higher scale–and again, I can respect this.
Dr. Trifkovic columns did tend to generate debate, which is why I found it ‘contradictory’ that he was clearly a big user of wikileaks, …and the unknown entity Andrei Navrozov who runs in some spook circles and engaged in some ‘out there’ conspiracy theories including Russia being behind 9/11 (I suspect we all lean a bit more Yockey on Russia) is a long time friend to the institute.
Between Navrozov and Roberts, I suppose we have all our bases covered, but as a commenter, we were suppose to pretend otherwise.
That is, I think the web culture of 30 somethings (ahem, and some 40 somethings) really didn’t fit with the organization. In my case, I projected the Old Right into the Chronicles community, but they aren’t really running that sort of romantic operation, let alone, interested in fostering a community of honest editorial critics.
Oh, and we just don’t have that much money.
Thaddeus on 26 May 2011 at 12:46 am #
See, even though I’ve defended the Chronicles no-comment policy for the sheer effort that moderation takes, that’s the dismaying part about advocating comment censorship — it all seems reasonable when it’s someone else’s ox that’s being gored. I’m sure that there are people who think that whatever Matt Weber’s hobbyhorses might be have to be “nipped in the bud,” or else that kind of “prattle” will go on “endlessly.”
I’m sure that there are people who think that talk of the Old South is “prattle” that must be “nipped in the bud.” Same with the “Constitution” crowd.
And that, I suppose, is an argument for Alternative Right’s “anything goes” policy, although it’s dismaying to think that one needs to put up with pro-gay, pro-feminist, etc. commentators just so the discussions of race can take place at all.
KDZ on 26 May 2011 at 8:19 pm #
One reason for stopping the comments was that it took up so much of the editors’ time. I also noticed that the circle of continuing participants was getting smaller. That said, it was a relatively good forum for intelligent discussion, by Web standards. The last, for real conservatives, since the American Conservative comments (which also appear to be shrinking in number) are not anything like it, and Takimag stopped its comments shortly after its transformation into Vanity Fair.
The criticism of Ron and Rand Paul (especially by Dr. Fleming) might have been the ultimate cause of the comment section’s downfall. I imagine it made Pat Buchanan unhappy, and who knows what strings he pulled.
KDZ on 27 May 2011 at 5:11 pm #
The disaffected should try First Things’ website. I have said critical things of their various favorites (neoconservatism and the so-called new natural lawyers) and never have I been edited or banned. They tolerate dissent, as long as it is generally polite and principled.
My perfectly innocuous comment from yesterday–my very first at this site–was banned. It’s funny how fickle paleocon censorship is.
Well, maybe referring to the new Takimag as “Vanity Fair” wasn’t perfectly innocuous.
DW on 27 May 2011 at 8:57 pm #
John accuses me of making an absurd statement. But the statement he accuses me of making is not a statement I made. I never said Fleming cannot “handle” debate. I said he hates it and see no reason to think otherwise. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Chronicles forum – or Fleming in general – knows he is an egomaniac who can lecture with the best of them, but has no interest in listening to anyone who is not he has not approved in advance. For the record this has costs Chronicles and Rockford a lot of money (I know this for a fact) but can they do? Fleming is a brilliant man and a great writer and could not be easily replaced.
Aaron on 28 May 2011 at 5:31 am #
I also got banned from commenting at Chronicles, probably about five years ago, not for ideology or substantive disagreements but for lese majesty against Thomas Fleming. No hard feelings. You can have a community or you can have free speech, but you can’t have both. The Chronicles commenting policy was to have a community. Still, the sycophancy of the commenters was a bit sick-making sometimes. “Oh, Dr. _____, that is the most brilliant analysis of the Enlightenment/the modern state/Yankee perfidy I have ever read! Why, it even surpasses your previous article!”
No offense to the commenters, but to me the only valuable Chronicles comments were those by Thomas Fleming and Scott Richert. The rest of us commenters (definitely including me) never contributed much of interest, nor did certain other Chronicles contributors. Fleming is still one of the most interesting thinkers on the right, and he posted lots of interesting stuff in the comments as well as the articles. That’s what I’ll miss.
Dan on 29 May 2011 at 1:31 pm #
My belief, judging by the tenor of comments leading up to the ban, is that Chronicles is too timid to allow criticism of Israel or mention of the circumstantial evidence linking Israel and the PNAC cabal with 9/11. They cannot tolerate discussion of the matter since any reasonable discussion must consider reasonable hypotheses that provide the best fit for the evidence, and it all leads directly to Israel and its fifth column throughout the world. The direct evidence of the events of 9/11 prove with certainty that the government’s narrative was and continues to be a cover up. By not addressing valid criticisms, they are complicit in the cover up. This is all very strange considering the right’s supposed distrust of government. Like every mainstream conservative site, Chronicles will not question the government in any way regarding what is the biggest act of treason in our history. I have no use for these cowards, and I can say the same for American Conservative, Heritage Foundation, Town Hall, ad nauseam. They’re disgusting excuses for men who’ll be wringing their hands while their country is being destroyed to serve Israel.
RedPhillips on 31 May 2011 at 12:52 am #
KDZ, your comment was not censored. As a first time comment it was caught in the spam filter. A couple of our writers have been out of town and no one was clearing the filter.