Personal and Studied Reflections on the Mechanisms of Media Control

by Alex Linder

3 October 2004

An essay in response to the question, "When did you become aware jews dominated the publishing industry?"

It is comparatively easy to see that the media are controlled; it takes longer to understand the who and how and why. Having evolved from conservatism to racialism, battling jews and men of every shade of opinion every step of the way, I have an advanced understanding of what is going on and why the press reads the way it does. Suffice it to say, to twist Twain: the jews are the only people who control the media -- or need to.

My awareness that some group was enforcing blackout over the mattering facts began with a child's recognition there were Things That Could Not Be Said in newspapers. Newspaper discussion amounts to a perverse teasing, a strip club where you're bounced if you touch one of the dancers. Newspapers read as though constrained by law never to hit the heart of the matter, never to deal in vitals, never to come to grips with anything. If you read a week's worth of editorials, you'll never need to buy a paper again because you'll never see anything different, just endless inconsequential cycling. Jew-produced media for the goy masses equals noise without movement, like a car revving in neutral.

What first struck me about newspapers was that their writers, without exception, refrained from mentioning obvious and relevant facts, no matter they were reporting or opining. Thus, newspapers invariably gave the impression of adults playing make-believe. This made them foolish and boring and dangerous. What kind of a style can be made out of truth evasion? Nothing but euphemism and stock phrase as far as the eye could see. Anything else wouldn't be safe for the powers that be. Even to combine two words unusually raises the danger of sparked thought leading to fire among deadwood. Better to knit clichés until you hit your length. Safest for all concerned. The end result is TASS -- or the New York Times. Only news that fits the jew's agenda gets reported honestly, and even there, as in a story about "the changing face of America," the jews seldom resist the urge to paint the lily. The 99% of the news that runs against the jew agenda gets midrashed into shade. It is undeniable that the news in our papers is semitized for jews' protection. My gut sense, after reading a few papers, was that someone or some group was using them to disguise something, and that is in fact their main use and function.

Read a paper. Go on, I dare you. You'll find education and crime constantly circled, yet nobody makes the obvious connection to race. Newspapers perpetually raise questions -- why the high crime? why the low scores? -- the correct answers to which are off-limits. Literally ten thousand stories have been written about the black-white test-scores gap since the 1970s, yet literally not one has printed the known truth: that blacks and whites differ naturally in IQ, and that all scientists studying it have found this gap, and that this IQ gap accounts for the scores gap, and absolutely nothing can be done to fill it -- except refusing to teach whites to capacity, that utopian equalitymongers be satisfied. Newspapers read as though they're written to drive the reader crazy. As though the publishers are actually psychologists seeing just how long it takes to drive a population insane by telling it black is white. As though one is fighting the reporter for the facts.

If we take America at its marketing -- that we're a "land of the free" -- then how can this be? How can every single paper in this "land of liberty" approach a pressing problem in exactly the same way, the same false way -- every time, decade after decade? If this is freedom, what does totalitarian uniformity look like?

How, in the "land of the free" can the media literally never deviate from a party line?

This makes no sense, considered formally and superficially, like a stupid old woman I met marching in Claremont, who told me there was freedom of speech in the Soviet Union because it was written in its constitution. I suppose America is different? I suppose no such thing! We have a first amendment, guaranteeing the right to print all opinions. We have a million papers, which seems to indicate room for diverse and conflicting ideas. Yet literally never will you read in a paper the facts that blacks are inherently violent and ineducable by comparison with whites. Again, these are facts that literally never appear in the mass press. So there must be something going on.

Consider these words on media control in The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion:

By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight...

Ah, precisely the function newspapers perform! Who will deny that the essence of so many of today's "issues" is racial inequality, which makes for the incompatibility of races, and a thousand irremediable conflicts? Who will deny that media control offers a lot more than a leg up to the controlling party?

The elders go further: Methods of organization [relating to media control] like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required to excite or to tranquilize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping on it.... We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially. [bolding supplied]

You can see the practical meaning of these words in full effect in the newspapers, and you can likewise see why jews feel threatened by the Internet, where the despised goyim can communicate among themselves, rather than sitting slack-jawed before the latest jew broadcast.

As I say, the jews need to control the press, and they do. This control would be less effective and harder to maintain were they to admit its existence, and so they must take all pains to silence those who point out the nature of their schemes and indeed the nature of their semitic tribe itself.

In my progression from a child newspaper reader to a teenaged editorialist to conservative satirist to full-fledged White Nationalist I've come across the people and books relevant to understanding the nature of media control and the men who exercise it, and today I have the who and why that confused me as a child firmly in hand. If you, rational man, push the why hard enough, you will arrive the same place I and many others have, because the facts lead in one direction only.

As I matured, I observed jews. I found them quite the way the rest of the world has: Odd. Leftist. Hypersensitive iconoclasts. Hypocritical vulgarians who could give a punch, with proper institutional backing, but not take one. Vindictive fireplugs. Genetic malcontents. Physically ugly people with unusual access and support networks yet a chip on their shoulders as though they were the aggrieved rather than guilty party. Blamers, accusers, whiners. A dislikable bunch, taking one with another. People who wreck the harmony of any settled situation -- and pride themselves on the disruption they cause. It is extremely difficult, for the analytical man, to see the jew as anything but the principle of sullying for sullying's sake come to life. Jews make everything they touch worse.

Without doing any reading, I assumed the Holocaust was true, since it was beyond plausible to likely, given the jews I encountered, that someone would want to flush/gas/shoot them into extinction. I believe most goyim feel the way I did, and that this perversely and ironically explains the success of the "Holocaust" Big Lie. The jews are the beneficiaries of their to-the-Aryan-foul nature! They make themselves obnoxious enough to the average person that he has no difficulty believing their gross and profitable lie that someone actually tried to do away with them. it takes a real commitment to blindness not to see jews for what they are, even if the historical facts of their machinations require some ferreting.

I read the conservative magazines as a teenager, and this constituted my real and enduring education. I swallowed the good and the bad, like most young readers. The good being the rational debunking of leftist lies and fantasies; the introductions by stylish, erudite and worldly writers to the world's greatest anti-utopian thinkers.The bad being the smuggled assumption that men are equal, or if not men, at least races. Or if not races, at least not races for purposes of public discussion. This seemed odd, but I didn't ponder on it too much until I was older and encountered the Blackout Boys firsthand. Which caused me pause, and gave me to reconsider everything that had gone before, and reach the conclusion, generally valid, that on anything on which one has not specifically pondered, one is very likely to have assimilated the liberal position by default. If the air is full of smog, every smallest sac in your lungs is hardly going to be full of mountain air.

To say the media are biased, as the conservative media critics do, doesn't get at what's going on. It makes the problem sound like something correctable with a little more fairness, like a car a quart low on oil. Nah. It's not like that at all. The media are a jewish juggernaut meant to carry the chosen to victory over the crushed bodies of the Aryans and all other resisters, victory defined, the Protocols tell us, by Jewish World Dictatorship. If they're kidding, reality doesn't reflect it, for the press are wholly given over to lies that prosper the jews, and any facts or truths that make their way into the mix are there only to confuse and provide the impression of real debate, as the Protocols tell us in the passage quoted above.

I was not mature enough in my critical ability as a teen, and I had not enough experience of the world, to see that on the essentials these modern conservatives are anti-racist utopians, i.e., not conservatives at all -- much less comprehend why. But in reading the conservatives writing on the leftists it became clear to me, though the conservatives never underlined the fact, that leftists seemed to be almost entirely jew-directed, jew-controlled - and, at least in the case of the leaders, just plain jews. Why this fact wasn't brought front and center and made the basis of attack I never understood and still don't. It is the only way Aryans can beat the jews. But here my other instinctive realization kicked in: conservatism is a polite word for cowardice. The belief that, in the end, it's better -- defined as safer -- not to try, not to think, not to risk. Conservatives die a thousand deaths a decade, ever pushed back, ever accepting yesterday's liberalism, and putting their farty stamp on it. They probably already have tomorrow's junk mail waiting shipment: homosexual marriage is one thing, but man-boy love is Morally Wrong, at least until the Rover Rangers start agitating.

My instinct was that the conservatives were characteriologically defective - big brains, small balls. They didn't know how to use what they had. VNN reflects what I believe the proper approach: educated, but vulgarly, jugularly direct. Politics isn't beanbag, as the man said; neither is it a god-refereed sport, as seems to be the conservatives' planted axiom. God is on the side of the winners is the only lesson history teaches. Beautiful losers get their plaques ripped off, their flags burned, their graves pissed on, and their memories erased in the hymiestory books. Surely if the traditions of a people are worth conserving, then the people themselves even more so! The oldest tradition of the Aryan race is...existing.

A good example of this semitic-responsibility syncopation -- by syncopation, let me spell it out lest my meaning be missed, I mean the conservative's removing the blame from where it naturally falls -- on the guilty jew -- and placing it elsewhere where it doesn't belong -- on the liberal -- is American Conservative's recent review of jew Philip Roth's new novel reversing the facts about America-Firster Charles Lindbergh, the bete noir of the jews who produced American involvement in World War II andof the Israel-Firster neoconservatives rewriting history today.

If you read between the lines, you can see that the nut of writer Kaufman's story is that Roth is a White-hating jew whose novel celebrates the jewish takeover of America, resulting in a transformation so radical it is fair to call it murder. America is not America any longer, and it hasn't been for a long time. It is nothing more than standard jewish chutzpah that Roth pretends he and his fellow jews represent the real American tradition, with Lindbergh being the revolutionary usurper. Always remember the jew is the great master of the lie, as Schopenhauer said. The man who cries "quit kicking me" while he is in fact kicking you, as the Poles say.

Again, this peculiarly jewish M.O. is written up in Protocols. Rewriting history goes hand in hand with controlling the media. A false history is concocted and celebrated, the better to control the future. From Protocol 16:

We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the governments of the goyim.

Come the day, nothing will be legal to know or pass on but that which is "good for jews." Again, from Protocol 16:

We shall abolish every kind of freedom of instruction.

Nothing outside the jewish Propasphere can be allowed to exist; it must become as close to literally unthinkable as jewish design can make it. Media control is a very significant part, but still only a part, of the totalitarian control over goy mind, soul, and body the jew strives for. Conservatives who fail to name the jew and describe its aims abide by the death-dealing Protocols. They are man-dogs who take a perverse and quite possibly sexual pleasure in being dominated by jews, and, at the deepest level, actually take great pride in contributing their mite to the physical destruction of the men and ways they ostensibly defend. Hell, it's the one area they're actually efficacious. Each manlet kills the thing he loves, as a real man said. Male-on-male action is common as venality among the jew-fellating Evangelical 'bunnyherds. The big little man's -- Canny Sammy, I refer to -- small, womany schadenfreude -- "If only you'd listened to me." If the best the white race can do is the paleoconservative, then the white race deserves to die. Luckily, there's a little more to us than these cave salamanders.

Is there a word for people who make their daily bread by selling out their own?... Is there a term for men who fear to describe events in simple terms, that readers may understand and do something to change things? When I read Pat Buchanan, I have no trouble understanding how Ireland was enslaved for hundreds of years. Buchanan never writes about open racists without smearing their character and their motives; by the same token, he never questions jewish motives, sticks completely to evidence. If you think Buchanan is on your side, Aryan reader, you're a fool. Buchanan is part of the problem. Each man kills the thing-he-writes-for-money he loves.

The conservative writer Kaufman, whether jew or more likely non-jew, never betrays a word of what he knows. Yet the jew nexus is crucial -- and most of his readers will miss the main point he fails to bring out: the jews are a separate race, and a race at war with the Aryans, including all the Catholic syncopates at American Conservative. Ah, well, one expects little of Catholicks. I can write no better satire on this sorry church that its fierce insistence it did everything to help its one true enemy in Jews' War II, and scotch its enemy's enemy. Catholics would rather fellate jews on their knees than stand and fight as men.

Conservatism, I came to see, is just a bunch of smart people being clever and useless. It provides a good and pleasant living to an elite set of jew-sycophants and professional punch-pullers. Think of the little pug ties favored by Lessers Nesman Smuckers Carlson and George "Jew's Will Be Done" and you have the nadless nattiness of the clean-scrubbed choirboy symbolized in a small twist of cloth. When the truth is bad manners, the conservative retreats to his library for a little Willie time. The professional conservative always chooses prudence over the mattering truth. This is why conservatives don't matter. They prop up the system they affect to hate by resolutely refusing to criticize its foundations. I hardly need say it's the only thing they're resolute about. It's the only principle they actually uphold. There's a lot of bad faith in conservatism these days. The Internet has made that clear. Pretend opposition loses its luster next to the real thing.

College did little for me intellectually, since I was forced to read book after book filled with nonsense, wasting time I could have spent reading the writers who matter. I should have dropped out, and if the Internet had existed, I would have. How tiresome it is to get up each morning and work hard for the approval of fools.

Such progress as I made in understanding media control came from experience. I began writing for the school paper, and soon had my introduction to the incredible networks of men and resources the left has at its disposal. What I saw in life backed up what I'd encountered reading between the lines in National Review: the left is run by jews, and they've tied up academia and government and media, which promote a uniform agenda. Nothing right, in all senses of the word, need apply. The things of this world fall into two classes: overrated and outright scams. College is the latter.

The right, by contrast with the left, has no network. No institutional support. You'd think this would lead the right to rethink its individualist extremism, but it doesn't. But of course, the right, today, is controlled opposition, which exists and is manipulated to fool the goy public into thinking it's participating in real decisions on vital issues.

At first, as the properly trained anti-collectivist who swallowed the fake-conservative lie that men are only valid as individuals, and never to be taken in groups, I interpreted what I found in conventional left-right terms. Only as I grew in years and experience did I see the underlying war of the races, jew vs. Aryan, and how jewish self-help, jewish networking and jewish identity are always praised, and usually funded by the government, whether directly or filtered through leftist groups jews form or control. By contrast, the Aryan has nothing. Literally nothing. No professor defends him; no institution defends him; no paper defends him; nobody gives a damn if he is spat and shat on, mocked, ridiculed, harassed and persecuted in a thousand ways. I believe if I had been murdered when I was writing inflammatory opinions, the campus and the local police would scarcely have bothered investigating. The campus and administration would have felt I'dgotten my due, and left it at that. Everything the left says about voices marginalized applies a thousand times to conservatives, and never to any of their endless parade of beatified botches.

An overtly racialist Aryan is called a hater by the left/jews. But so too is the Aryan conservative. This is because, as the left correctly recognizes, but the right hysterically denies, see Paddycake's tear-streaked cheeky girl Friday Raimondo, conservatism is inherently racist. For if facts matter and ideas have consequences, then there's no getting away from the political bang-ons of racial inequality. Conservatism is organized anti-uptopianism if anything, but if you deny the existence of race, you've deposited your sorry ass in Utopia, and lost all claim to conservatism, no matter what Pet-approved popular-press neoconservative trucklers and pallid-with-fear paleocons pretend.

The founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, wrote the truth about jews, whenever they came under the lens. Writing the truth about jews by definition makes one an anti-Semite. And anti-semitism is just a subset of racism, a subracism, if you will, as is judaism itself.

Racism is nothing but the factual belief that races exist and differ in politically meaningful ways. The jewish racists of the left advance their race by lying that human racial differences are no more significant than cat-fur colors.

Denying race exists while tacitly operating on the truth that it does is essential to the jewish program for world dictatorship. A race that believed it existed might fight jews for control. A race trained not to notice itself would never notice the game being played. Wouldn't you rather persuade your enemy that he does not exist than risk life and torso in battle? Given his numbers, the jew has to act the way he does, otherwise he'd be flushed in a flash.

All history must be suppressed, queered, or concocted to further the jewish agenda, and indeed the Protocols abounds with statements amounting to "we will invent or deny historical facts as they serve our agenda." The jewish would-be world bosses concentrate on wicked dark ages under goyish rule, in contrast with the enlightened age when jews reign supreme.

Observing racial differences between jews and Aryans necessarily accompanies any true understanding of the men who control the media. Just as the Founders of America recognized blacks as inherently inferior and dangerous creatures who must be kept away from free White communities lest they destroy them. Miscalculation in these things is no small matter, it is lethal. Failure to acknowledge ineradicable racial differences that prevent races from living together is the cardinal sin of modern conservatism, or would be if it occurred in good faith. Instead we must take it as sign conservatism has been denatured and co-opted -- accepted the jewish yoke. There's nothing clever or deep to say about those who wear the jew's yoke. They're cowards and sell-outs, plain and simple. The cowards and sell-outs who attempt to assuage their consciences with dark hints -- I spit on them. You aren't white, boys, you're yellow, you 'nother man's dog. I could use names. I have in the past. I don't have to. They know who they are.

Conservatives, trained to accept facts and acknowledge limits, schooled in the history of our nation and their own intellectual forebears, know the truth about race but deny it in public, just like Peter denied Jesus. This denial, more precisely the guilty conscience it produces, is the hidden key to their exaltation of prudence as the highest virtue: it provides cover for their cowardice, their failure of intellectual and political stewardship. This inner guilt manifests itself in bodily flaws such as Sam Francis' porcine bloat, or Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed's literal physical shrinking upon setting up their various Ankle-Grabbers for Israel groups. To see what I'm driving at, imagine a German, not an Englishmuffin like Francis, whispering, "I can't say that about jews!" There's nothing as sophisticated as plain truth, when the truth is in fact plain. Sad these conservatives, part con men, part serfs - all Kohn's men.

Prudence long ago turned into cowardice among public conservatives, and they hate to be reminded of this. Conservatism thought through becomes racism, these days. I mean, in the times of our Founders, race was assumed and not an issue. "All men are created equal" referred to white men, not niggers. Today our battles are racial, not political. Or, we're fighting on a different level - racial not political. Failure to acknowledge is what makes libertarians in particular look ridiculous. The conservatives look ridiculous because they "can't" write plainly about race, and must content themselves with decorous hints and dexterous winks. Nothing as scarifying as a winking fatman, I always say. The libertarians look ridiculous because they write as though group differences do not exist, as though the problem with clit-snipping muti-practicing cannibals is they're socialists. No, a thousand times no you berries of dingle. The problem is they're monkeys. Libertarians live in outer space, why I don't know. As well apply libertarian laws to the denizens of Animal Planet as Africa.

The jews and the left know what I'm saying. Instinctively, if not intellectually, they know, as every man senses, reality is of a piece. They grudge a little dissent on tax rates; they brook no opposition to the fundamental lie of human equality. Which conservative rises to oppose them? Nary a one. They salaam before the idol jews have set before us. Read the roster of rogues: which conservative dares speak the truth about race: Ann Coulter? George Will? William F. Buckley? I would name more if I could think of them, but the rest of the "conservatives" I can think of offhand are jews, and they have no interest in the truth. It isn't cowardice in their case, it's self-interest.

Midway through college I discovered a magazine that combined conservative politics with semi-vicious rips. Good strong attacking stuff, filled with unusual adjectives properly deployed and real assaults on the folks I despised, Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy and Those Darned Liberals. It became my goal to work for the magazine. Amazingly enough, in light of the number of people with the same dream, I achieved this, however unexalted my position. And therein I came to learn how professional conservatism actually operates. As a budding writer, I believed my comparative advantage lay in humor. There are never enough P.J. O'Rourkes around to satisfy readers, so if I could shtick well enough myself, I'd surely find a reading public. I knew from college these folks were there, since my writing had drawn more responses, albeit 95% negative, than any other writer. I worked for free, I worked for little, I was wide-eyed and happy.

My sense was that a journal in the tradition of Mencken ought to take on the most powerful powers. That meant making fun of jews and minorities. After my experience dealing with extremely hostile students and faculty and administrators in college, I thought I'd be free at last to take some cracks, with my fellow conservatives covering my back. It was clear to me, and I assumed without thinking, clear to them, that jews and blacks were overrepresented in the pantheon of false idols, and it was time to shoot a few bee-bees at them. The natural and obvious targets of fighting conservatives in the late 20th century would be the niggers and the jews who organized them. The folks you almost never see criticized anywhere. What could be more natural? Who could do it better than I? This was my line of thought. I was certainly naive, and just beginning to smell what was right under of my nose. I was right theoretically -- but I didn't understand the forces arrayed against anyone who should attempt to proceed down the obvious and indicated path. Soon I would.

I showed the editor of my magazine, The American Spectator, a piece I'd written in college, which had garnered a huge and hostile response. The piece was called "Of(f) Color."

Of(f) Color

[Originally appeared in Pomona College's Student Life newspaper, February 12, 1988]

They used to be "colored." Then they were "Negroes." Then "blacks." Now they're "of color." Isn't social change grand? Thirty years later, use of the adjective risks offense, while the prepositional phrase places one on the cutting edge of interracial sensitivity! Such rapid changes in nomenclature serve only to befuddle.

But others have it worse. Consider the Asian, Chicano and Black Studies programs. What are they going to do, merge into one discipline? (Might not be a bad idea considering their declining enrollments.) They could call it "Color Studies" or "Studies in Color." Who knows, might even manage to attract a few wayward art students!

The worst thing about "of color" is that its creators seek to foster a divisive, holier-than-thou attitude on the part of, dare I say it?, colored people. (What race are you? I'm white. And you? Oh, I'm a person "of color.") Just say the phrase a few times and try to keep your nose level.

The use of the term "of color" signifies haughtiness arising from a false sense of superior morality. There is nothing, however, inherently superior about being colored, or, for that matter, uncolored. But then one doesn't claim to be a person "of whiteness," does one? I believe the choosers of the term "of color" intend to suggest the spiritual brotherhood of Asians and Africans and Native Americans (itself a biased term - did not the "Native Americans" originally migrate here from the other continents?). They have created a term that in their minds is a sort of catchall for the bondage of brothers trod on by the same white, imperialist oppressor's heel.

Think about the connotations of the word. Am I wrong, or does "of color" suggest a tribalistic closeness to the earth, a passionate, deeprooted, innate-hence-superior attunement to nature and the mystical quality of life, a sense the creators think absent in the pale-faced people "of blandness" inhabiting the northern latitudes? Does not "of color" convey the impression that those lacking color by the phrase somehow lack excitement, aren't as vivid, and aren't as fully human as those who are "of color"?

Once the whole silly business of name-changing is done away with, we'll all be a lot better off. After all, it's the NAACP, not the NAAPC. 'PC' is an acronym for what I'm typing on. And if "colored" is good enough for the NAACP, isn't it good enough for you and me?

His eyes narrowed as he read it. He said, clearly intending to impress me with his seriousness, "We're very careful about that sort of thing."

And that was it. That piece sealed my fate. That little two-minute interface in the basement of the editor's mansion was the turning point of my life. I had an in at one of the top two conservative publications, but the minute the editor saw that modest piece, my fate was sealed. It is important to note that there was absolutely nothing personal or professional about any of this -- it was purely a matter of absolute avoidance of anything or anyone touching on race-factuality, purely an ideological matter. I still didn't, at that point, fully grasp the why; all I knew is my marriage made in heaven had soured between seconds. I knew that I had crossed some line in the editor's mind that made all previous happy working together irrelevant, and that I must be got out of the way in order that the main business go unaffected. The American Spectator was not what I thought it was.

I don't wish to be overly dramatic. I was quite happy working there, and TAS was quite happy with my work. There are no regrets on this end, today, although I was greatly pained at the time, since I knew that if they published my writing, they'd attract new readers, as VNN has more than borne out. That's life: you get what you want, and it's not what you think. The bottom line, from an objective standpoint, is that there simply is no room at the inn for conservatives who wish to write the truth about race and the race that prevents us from writing the truth. And so, just as I had learned the truth about leftists in college, I learned the truth about professional conservatives at The American Spectator.

In the brief time I was at TAS, I learned more, much more, about jews and the publishing industry and the relation between the two. I noticed that jewish loves and hates were faithfully reflected in the conservative publication just as much as in the liberal. Jews hate Germans and Arabs. The editor's eyes don't narrow with concern when you present him a piece mocking Hans or Haji or their homelands. That's just good fun. Conservatism, professional conservatism, is a basically a bunch of Sodden-Winnie-salaaming Anglophiles and Erin-go-braggart Catholics who toady for the jews; men who use their cleverness to avoid their duty. Able wordworkers they are, but they do not determine their own agenda. They are not fundamentally different from the liberals they oppose, rather they are liberals who stick to facts on non-essentials.

I couldn't help but notice in typing checks to writers that about half the checks were going to jews. How can half the writers for a conservative publication be jews? I found myself wondering. Aren't jews 90% liberal? Just this year I happened to see a "conservative" jew I'd worked with at TAS on VH1, quoted as an expert on one of their slice-and-dice pop culture shows. Being a jew seems to be a universal qualification. It's as if the beanie is some sort of universal backstage pass.

I can't understand, or couldn't when I was 22, how there can be room for 50 madly wonking "reformed"-trotskyite kikes but not one slot for a German American satirist in the house that Mencken inspired. I will go father and admit that my experience soured me on WASP and Irish-Catholic alike. The latter run toward self-promoting sycophants -- sycophancy being inevitable byproduce of exaltation of hierarchy. I suppose there's more to Catholicism than suck-up, shit-down, but I haven't seen it. As for the former, well, perfidious is the adjective history applies to the English -- they'll turn on you the minute the percentage is better elsewhere. This is their nature.

Of course there are many good men among both these groups. I do not let my prejudice overcome my reason when it comes to the individual. But I will guarantee you that the solution to our jewish problem will never come out of Irish Catholics or Englishmen: it is not in their culture or character. They ingratiate and insinuate, and will continue to do so. There are no fine figures or checks to be cut, so what interest have their elites in anti-jewing? I'll tell you, boys: we Germans are fools for working as honest farmers and letting you ass-clowns run the show. You failed. Now it's our turn. The German cultural model alone can defeat the jew. The Anglo-Irish cannot, it isn't heavy enough.

I filter things through my experience, as any man does. It is not surprising to me in the least that the people who figured out what the jews were up to and put together the one modern combination that beat them were German. It is not surprising to me that America has become a nasty, jew-run shithole when the politicians are almost to a man either jews or WASPs or Irish Catholics, where sycophancy, lying and hypocrisy are the order of the day. We must pick up where Lindbergh left off, this time making it Aryan First.

At TAS I was learning the ropes. Learning the game. I was growing up. I was learning that in the real world individualism does not exist, there are networks of friends, and more than that, there are ethnic and racial networks. If you're not part of these, and as someone descended from Germans not involved in any way shape or form with the publishing industry, I had no connections or network. Really, almost nobody who isn't either Irish Catholic or WASP from the East Coast has any connections in publishing, with the notable exception of the Regnery family, which made its own way. In order to get by as a writer, you have to be published. In the late eighties and nineties, remember, the Internet did not exist among the wide public. If you're not part of the ethnic group that dominates publishing, you'd damn sure better not oppose its agenda, or you ain't going nowhere. That was what I learned in professional conservatism. I still didn't have all the details, but it was clear to me that I had been foolish in thinking the "real world" would be different from college when it came to publishing material that criticized the powers that be - jews and "minorities." The real world is exactly the same as college in that regard. There are all these lines that dare not be crossed, and the lines themselves are never to be discussed. Read Protocols and you see why. The best control mechanism, like a good refrigerator, runs in silence. But the honest man can figure out what is happening. It's not that hard.

Over the next few years I worked hard. But when I could, I read the books never assigned in any college. I came across The Ordeal of Civility, and that set the things I'd observed about jews into a pattern. Suddenly everything made perfect sense. I had an operating theory that I've never yet had to change, so perfectly do the facts fit it. I now understand that academia, publishing, writing and government dovetail. There's an agenda pursued. It is the jewish agenda. It is never deviated from. Nothing will be published or aided by the jewish industry unless it furthers their line. There's probably a law at work that a society has to have a single dominant narrative, whether Nazi or jew be narrator. There's no tolerance among the dolts for any kind of confusion. Better something simple and untrue than competing part-truths. The sick green light of judeolucination bathes our society, perpetually dropping cosbys in the pool of our living rooms.

In 2000 I initiated Vanguard News Network, which forcefully and daily exposed the jew and revived the Mencken tradition refurbished for heart-in attacks on the power of powers. From day one it was better, truer and funnier than TAS, since it was edited by a big man, if so he said himself. Soon I began to see the pressure jews could levy. I saw their proclivity for working behind the scenes. I learned that jews have no sense of fair play, no aesthetic of competition. They aim to win. They go for the money. They make threats, preferably anonymous threats. They lie. They level baseless charges. They encourage their nigger "civil rights" minions to file baseless suits. They force their critics to become vertically integrated - to control every aspect of the process. Because wherever there's a weak link in the chain that supplies information from the jew aware to the jew-naive, they snip it.

The jew, I infer from its hysterical efforts to suppress VNN, cannot survive exposure.

To identify him, to explain his actions, is to kill him, as surely as sunlight kills the vampire. The jew is a creature of the dark. A creature of cunning and silence, pattering around the insides of walls on little rat feet, poking its proboscis out air vents. The jew believes he should control everything, and that absolutely no opposition should be allowed that he does not control himself, for his own advantage.

It's not just me, victim of jewish hate, saying this: the jews themselves admit it. The last few days I and my associates have attempted to locate a printer to handle a tabloid we'd like to bring out. Like any other political publication, it consists of opinions and cartoons. But it criticizes jews. Therefore the printers feel it necessary to consult with their lawyers and their trade associations. Both of which advise against publishing the thing. They turn down ready money, so afraid are they of jewish repercussions. You new reader coming across this wonder whether there's anything to this "myth" of jewish media control. I, experienced in a hundred ways you are not, can assure you it is all too real. And it has the most monstrous effects on you, every member of your family and your community. There is virtually no significant social problem that cannot be traced to the jews and the malign influence they exercise through their ubiquitous television.

If you would live in a sane society, White man, you must destroy the jew before he completes his destruction of you. The terms of the battle are stated in the Protocols: by any means necessary the jew will pursue his aim. As the jew says, there are only two things: force and make-believe. Think hard before you say he's wrong, because the evidence says he isn't. If you constrain your dealings with this nation-wrecker by your goyish morality which, come to think of it, you bought from a jewish peddler, didn't you? -- if you allow your racial preference for fair play to dominate your decision-making, things will continue in the same direction, and you and yours will vanish from the face of the earth.

I leave you with this from you know where:

...the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves.

It was the purpose of this essay to teach you that the jew controls the media, and that this understanding is all you need to interpret virtually everything ever printed or broadcast in your lifetime.

P.S. A funny little coda on TAS. I many times bitterly contrasted myself with Tyrrell. His aim was to get published in The Washington Post, mine was to get published in the The American Spectator. I finally achieved my aim, in a backhanded way, back in August 1997. Traveling through Texas, I stopped at a newsstand and came across my letter to the editor. Not the longer, fiery one I'd sent under my name, but this one:

A couple thoughts regarding "Is Liberalism Kosher?" by Joseph Shattan. First, if anti-Semitism is the "socialism of fools," then, per Abrams, we can say that socialism is the Judaism of fools. And if Jews define their religion by their politics -- what Shattan calls "secular liberalism," but what the rest of the world knows as socialism -- then conservatism is by definition "anti-Semitic." Don't think so? Ask yourself: Is the term applied carefully and rigorously to a select group of deserving people -- or is it simply a catch-all smear for anyone on the right? As a conservative, I have been called a "self-hating" Jew and, believe it or not, an "anti-Semite" often enough to realize that the association of "right-wing" and "anti-Semitic" is more or less instinctive among my (mostly secular) co-religionists. It has always amused me, sourly, that you can find a ream of articles anytime the "Christian right-wing extremists" attempt to "take over" a school district in Podunk, Virginia, but nary a word on the religiously leftist Jewish cabal surrounding the president of the United States. No, say the ACLU Jews, we must be ever-vigilant lest religion be mixed with politics in the form of a crche on a public lawn or the commandments in a courtroom. But if half of the most important advisers surrounding the president pray daily to the god of Social Justice (what most people would call Theft), we ignore it lest we be blackened as "anti-Semites." My personal opinion is that by making an identity of our religion and the politics that has done so much to destroy this great country, we Jews are setting ourselves up in a very dangerous way.

Jeff Sokol
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Instant credibility, just add jew! My problem was, I was born the wrong race to get in with these colorblind conservatives. If you still doubt jews control the media and enjoy the special treatment, try this little trick yourself.

ALEX LINDER

Back to VNN Main Page