Why I Write

I have written it as an attempt at justice.”
    Hilaire Belloc, Introduction to The Jews (1922)

Several weeks ago I participated in a discussion of my work with Kevin MacDonald for TOQLive, and in the days prior to that I had a look at my past articles in the TOO author’s archive. It came as something of a surprise to see that there are now almost two hundred essays, blog posts, and translations (in five languages) under my name, submitted over a seven year period. I really hadn’t realised I’d written that many essays, though I suppose it goes some way towards explaining Rabbi Bruce Warshal’s description of me as a “prolific anti-Semitic academic.” In some ways these years seem to have flown by. A lot has happened. The roster of writers at The Occidental Observer, with the exception of a couple of returning stalwarts like Brenton Sanderson and Edmund Connolly, has changed somewhat. This is due in part to the fact this website stands at the frontline of the culture war and bears several scars. To say nothing of the early years of The Occidental Observer, during my time writing for the site two TOO writers were doxxed by the SPLC and have not returned, the site underwent a period of DDOS attacks in 2015 (with some of the offending IPs originating in Israel), and we were then deplatformed from PayPal as part of a concerted post-Charlottesville censorship strategy by our opponents. Outside TOO, between 2012 and 2019 I made a brief foray into politics, delivered speeches in three countries, edited a few books, became a father two more times, started work on a volume of my own work, was arrested twice on spurious allegations relating to my political opinions, was (temporarily) prohibited from entering the United States, and managed to get banned from Twitter more times than I can now remember. I have no regrets, and in fact found much of it enjoyable. During this busy and important period in my life, and that of the movement, I believe my reasons for writing developed, matured, and evolved, and I thought I’d share my thoughts on this.

My path to The Occidental Observer probably began in 2004/5, a few years before the website was created. It was during that year that I began reading large amounts of academic material on the historical relationship between Jews and Europeans, a process that began with Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners (1996) and steadily developed to encompass most of the field’s mainstream authors including Robert Wistrich, Jacob Katz, Gavin Langmuir, Schmuel Almog, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Kenneth Stow, Yehuda Bauer, David Sorkin, Marvin Perry, and Frederick Schweitzer. Although most of the books produced by these authors were well-written, had a polished academic veneer, and were published by some of the most-respected publishing houses in academia, I felt they all suffered, to borrow Albert Lindemann’s description of Robert Wistrich’s work, from repeating the same “colourful and indignant narrative, accompanied by weak, sometimes tendentious analysis.”1 It occurred to me very early on that it wasn’t altogether healthy for Jews to dominate the academic discussion of the historical relationship between their people and other peoples, and that resulting histories were bound to come with their own subtle or not-so-subtle biases. By the time I made it to Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora (Oxford, 2010), I had grown quite suspicious of Jewish-authored histories of anti-Semitism, and Julius’s extremely arrogant and manipulative work was in some sense a final straw. In the opening of Part 1 of Trials of the Diaspora, Julius opined that anti-Semites were mere charlatans in search of something to appear “expert” in,2 but I came away from his book wondering if it wasn’t Jews who were claiming the monopoly on expertise in anti-Semitism, entirely ignoring the other half of a very long and painful story.

Julius also wrote that no anti-Semite has ever “carried his anti-Semitic convictions tentatively.”3 Ironically, by the time I had finished reading his book I was beginning to do just that. Doubts and suspicions had slowly given way to the realisation that readers like me were being manipulated, and even insulted along with our ancestors, by the production of works like Trials of the Diaspora. And, in a twist of fate, the next book I happened to read after Trials of the Diaspora was Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone. I really can’t remember if I’d read any negative material about Kevin prior to reading PTSDA. My feeling is that I read the book “blind,” and that the book had come up during a library catalog trawl for relevant books rather than a text I deliberately sought out. The edition I later received from my library also happened to be the original, very traditional-looking hardback, so I completed the book, I assume, without any sense of the controversy that by then attended it. I was, however, sufficiently intrigued and encouraged by PTSDA to try to find out if Kevin had authored any other books on Jews and anti-Semitism, and it was at that point that I think I encountered the ADL and SPLC hit pieces, and the broader mainstream response to his trilogy. I wasn’t much affected by the propaganda, and was delighted to discover Kevin’s own academic website, where he offered responses to the criticisms of the trilogy levelled by other academics, many of whom clearly hadn’t read the works in question. After reading most of the online exchanges, I ordered the entire trilogy in paperback.

It was several weeks after finishing Culture of Critique that I discovered The Occidental Observer while searching for further work by Kevin. I remember clearly that the very first piece I read was Brenton Sanderson’s April 2011 essay ‘Why Mahler? Norman Lebrecht and the Construction of Jewish Genius.’ Like all productions by Sanderson before and since, the essay was exceptional, and, after Kevin, Sanderson remains my favourite contemporary writer on the subject of Jewish influence and anti-Semitism. It was an extremely pleasant surprise to find Jewish matters, and the issue of anti-Semitism, being discussed at a very high (and honest!) level, and I became a dedicated TOO reader many months before I became a TOO writer. I continued to carry out research into the mainstream productions of Jewish historiography, while letting TOO broaden my mind to some of the more contemporary political and cultural manifestations of age-old problems. Contrary to the assertions of Julius, much of this remained tentative, and I remained open to counter-arguments or any evidence against the ideas I was beginning to form or agree with. To some extent I still am, even if the counter-arguments are shallow and the evidence against “anti-Semitism” thus far non-existent.

Some months after becoming a TOO reader, I began an email exchange with Kevin MacDonald, explaining something of my own academic background, some interesting encounters I’d had with Jews, and relating some tales from my own research. I recall being delighted with the mere fact I got a reply to my first email which, if I remember correctly, was simply a brief message of support in reference to the SPLC’s activism against Kevin’s place of employment and the broader campaign of vilification that had been relentlessly carried out by Heidi Beirich. As our exchange developed, the idea then arose that I might contribute a piece of writing to The Occidental Observer. My intensive reading in Jewish historiography was by then very extensive and the options for subject matter were almost unlimited but, since it was fast approaching St. Patrick’s Day, I decided to write a short piece on the little-known boycott of Jews in Limerick, Ireland in 1904. My first essay, posted on St. Patrick’s Day 2012, was positively received by Kevin and the TOO readership, and I resolved that, time permitting, I would make the effort to offer further contributions.

These early contributions reflected my background in academia, and my growing fascination (and horror) with the ways in which Jews wrote about themselves and their history. I came to see Jewish influence in academia and the writing of Jewish history (and that concerning anti-Semitism) as especially pernicious, and almost all of my early TOO essays therefore concerned myth-making in historiography. A couple of months after the Limerick piece I submitted a much longer and more serious examination of the idea and reality of “pogroms” in Russian history, based primarily on my reading of the works of John Doyle Klier between 2009 and 2011. Klier (1944-2007) was a well-respected academic at University College London who had been head of the British Association for Jewish Studies. Klier’s work, which was almost as influential on me as MacDonald’s, was built around the most detailed and rigorous examination of the history of Jews in the Russian empire that had then been undertaken. It was his posthumously published Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82 (Cambridge, 2011) that contained some of the biggest bombshells. Klier demonstrated how Jewish-owned Western newspapers like England’s Daily Telegraph had pre-existing animosities towards Russia, and were only too eager to disseminate en masse the sensational and entirely fictional accounts of Russian atrocities against Jews. After years of reading about “deniers” and “denial” in relation to Jewish historical narratives, here was quite literally one of the top academics in Jewish Studies (and one of its very few non-Jews) announcing that the pogrom narratives were inventions of reporters from the Jewish World that are “flatly contradicted by the historical record,” that they were first embellished and spread by Rabbis in Prussia, and that all such reports of Russian brutality should be treated with “extreme caution.”4 Anthony Julius had argued that people turn to anti-Semitic ideas when they want to appear as experts, but here was a widely-acknowledged bona fide expert essentially describing one of the foundational narratives of modern Jewishness as a manipulative lie. And because Julius was by now a disdainful background note to much of ongoing research, I decided to exorcise him by offering a dissection of Trials of the Diaspora in my next long essay.

My thinking in Jewish matters retained an exclusively academic focus until halfway through 2013. In early 2013 I produced an extended essay on the Jewish promotion of Spinoza almost by accident, after Kevin MacDonald sent me a review of Jonathan Israel’s book on Spinoza as an example of mutual promotion among Jewish academics. In another twist of fate, I happened to be in a college library when I received the email, and when I looked up from my laptop screen I was right beside the section of philosophy texts covering Spinoza. For the next few weeks I devoured almost everything they had on Spinoza, assessing each monograph for authorship, approach, and its evaluation of Spinoza’s place in history. The resulting essay now seems to me a prose bibliography with a focus on ethnicity, illustrating the extraordinary bias of Jewish academics and intellectuals over historical time. And of all the essays I’ve written for TOO, it’s one of which I remain particularly proud. After the Spinoza piece, I began investing more time investigating contemporary Jewish activism. In May 2013 I submitted a review of government texts discussing the notorious Marc Rich case, which involved almost every aspect of contemporary Jewish behaviours that can best be described simply under the umbrella term ‘Semitism’ – White collar crime, questionable Jewish loyalty, international ethnic networking, Israel as a refuge for Jewish criminality, the use of charges of anti-Semitism to evade criticism or punishment, and the exertion of influence on (and cultivation of links with) non-Jewish elites. The examination of the Rich case was again very influential on my own thinking, and my author archive shows I took a six month hiatus from writing after the article was posted. I remember coming to the strong realisation in mid-2013 that the Jewish Question was not simply a matter of history, or for that matter simply a matter of Jewish historians “batting for their team,” but rather something much more profound and infinitely more harmful to the contemporary interests of Whites/Europeans. This took me some time to digest and come to terms with.

When I returned to TOO in January 2014, my motivations for writing had fundamentally changed and I think this was reflected in the tone, subject matter, and pace of my writing from that date forward, with the result that I moved from an average of five pieces per year in 2013 to making 24 or more entries per year in 2017/8. Foremost in my motivation for writing was (and remains) a desire to protect the interests and future of my children, which I felt was being threatened by Jewish activism throughout the West. My first essay after my hiatus was absolutely in line with my new mindset: ‘Making “America as user-friendly to Jews as possible.” The Anti-Defamation League and the Indoctrination of our Youth.’ Re-reading the essay, it’s clear to me that writing for TOO had become, on some level, personal. “I have two young sons in elementary school,” I wrote. “What a morally, spiritually, culturally, and racially bankrupt world they will inherit. Abraham Foxman of the ADL claims he has been “losing sleep” over weakening American support for Israel. I endure sleepless nights because when I put my boys to bed at night, and watch them drift off to sleep as their blond hair falls softly across their pillows, I am filled with a dread inspired by the activities of that same Mr. Foxman. I know the future that he and others want for my sons, and I am moved to act in any way I can.” It’s now more than five years since I wrote those words, and I’ve become a father twice more in that time. They appear to me more real and urgent than ever.

Since that date, I’ve tried to offer as wide and as comprehensive analysis of Jewish activism as possible. The examinations of historiography have of course been retained. In addition to dissecting Julius, over time I’ve assessed the work of Wistrich, Langmuir, Cesarani, Ginsburg, Penslar, and (most recently) Hanebrink in detail, as well as discussing the work of many others in the course of broader analyses. I continue to believe that attacking the “colourful and indignant narratives” with their “weak, sometimes tendentious analyses” is an essential part of the culture war against Jewish influence in academia and society as a whole. Adding to this, I’ve tried to bring wider attention to credible mainstream academic texts that contain useful information or arguments, including The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill, 2010) by Robert Aleksander Maryks, and also bring new audiences to old texts like Hilaire Belloc’s The Jews (1922) or a three part survey of three centuries of useful anti-Semitic literature. It’s very gratifying to me that many of these essays, which are potentially alienating in the specificity of their subject matter and necessary employment of academic jargon, nevertheless attract a healthy readership and lively commentary – a testament to the quality of reader the site continues to attract.

Closely related to my work on Jewish historiography has been those examples of my work that attempt to drawn out comparisons between historical trends and contemporary events. A further motivation for my writing has therefore been to make clear and specific warnings based in historical fact. Where appropriate, I’ve offered historical examples as guides to current events or as predictors of future opposition strategies. In 2012, when I started writing for TOO, the heady days of the 2016 Alt-Right surge were almost unthinkable. Speculation instead revolved around the British National Party (now almost defunct) and other European pro-White political parties as avenues for potential ideological breakthrough into the mainstream. Dissidents of the Right, though marginalised, were also fairly secure on the internet. But a look through my archive suggests that I became seriously concerned about Jewish intentions in this sphere in January and (more urgently in) May of 2015 – fatefully late to raise the alarm in order to put counter-strategies in place, but eerily accurate in its prediction of the censorship measures taken against the Alt-Right in late 2016 (and which are still ongoing). As early as 2014 I clearly became very interested in historical patterns involving Jewish efforts to suppress mass freedoms in order to acquire privileges and security, with two essays (here and here) that year on Jewish attacks on free speech, and a further two (here and here) in January 2015. Other essays where I’ve drawn direct comparisons between historical and contemporary events include ‘Failed Crypsis and Its Discontents’ and ‘Jews Versus the Alt-Right: Lessons from History.’

A further motivation for my writing has been to offer an evidence-based argument in defense of the idea of anti-Semitism as a rational response to intensive resource competition between my people (and indeed other peoples) and the Jews. This idea is explained masterfully in the second volume of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy, and I’ve tried to complement it with new material and examples from history and also contemporary events. This has necessarily involved direct and honest confrontation with the alleged “canards” of anti-Semitism. As such, I’ve tackled issues like present-day Jewish moneylending and white collar crime, demonstrating that Jews have been, and remain, utterly prolific in the trade in debt and in financial criminality. Using hard evidence and public or mainstream sources I’ve also confronted Jewish representation in refugee and migration organizations, Jewish activism in sexual matters, and Jewish dominance in mass communications, as well as offering the first ‘anti-Semitic’ rebuttal to Jean-Paul Sartre’s much-lauded apologetic Anti-Semite and Jew. It’s my sincere hope that they constitute even the most modest contribution to our ideological armoury.

Another reason why I write is that I feel I must speak out against injustice. I was one of the few people to speak out about the questionable logic, motivations, and legality of the National Action arrests in Britain in 2017. A couple of months ago I was contacted by one of those men arrested, Andrew Clarke, who informed me upon his release by the authorities (after 18 months in prison and not a single criminal conviction) that he had appreciated my article on Britain’s lamentable terrorism priorities and the heavily embellished government and media portrayal of the National Action saga. In fact, he said, prior to his own arrest he had shared the article on his Facebook profile and was later questioned by prosecution lawyers about this act of sharing my article during his trial. When he explained that the content of the piece actually proved his innocence, and revealed the arrests themselves as an act of farce, The Occidental Observer’s brief (and hopefully only) appearance in a terrorism trial came swiftly to an end.

I can’t finish this rumination without mentioning one of my greatest motivations for writing— the people it has enabled me to meet, and the readers it has been my great pleasure and honour to engage. It goes without saying that to, in some sense, work alongside Kevin MacDonald over the past seven years has been one of my life’s great “moments” and one I wish to continue for as long as possible. Kevin is an inspiration and a role model, and has made a contribution to the trajectory of our people that is already great but can only grow stronger in the coming decades. I have no doubt that he is a man of history, and it has been a great privilege to play a small role in his story. In addition to this, I have greatly enjoyed seeing reader responses to my work – both the positive and the critical. I am lucky to have met with, and spoken to, many readers in person. On long arduous journeys, such as we currently find ourselves on, the companionship of fellow pilgrims is much appreciated. And I salute my fellow pilgrims.

1 Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, p.x.

2 Julius, Trials of the Diaspora, pp.22-3.

3 Ibid, p.21.

4 Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, pp.399-401.


26 replies
  1. Charles Staples
    Charles Staples says:

    Thank you for the article. And I am happy to continue this important journey with you.

  2. Simon Elliot
    Simon Elliot says:

    Have you ever replied to that loathsome little cockroach Cofnas? Also, are you familiar with Cesar Tort’s writings? He is most persuasive in his assertion that Christianity has long been the Jew’s trojan horse in our midst, infecting the European mind with Semitic malware.

  3. Rudy Stanko
    Rudy Stanko says:

    I’m interested in obtaining “Jews and the progroms in 1881-82 & The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill, 2010) by Robert Aleksander Maryks, and also bring new audiences to old texts like Hilaire Belloc’s The Jews

  4. Ole C G Olesen
    Ole C G Olesen says:

    And we .. the common readers of Your and other leading Essayists Efforts on TOO .. are .. for the remainder of our lives GRATEFULLfor the intelligent Research and Information You have provided over Time ..Thank You most sincerely !

  5. Rosa Roccaforte
    Rosa Roccaforte says:

    thank you for all your work. Coming from an academic milieu myself- I’m a physician – I cannot but really appreciate it.
    I already knew Prof MacDonald’s works before encountering yours, but the articles on the Russian pogroms history were a big “eye opening moment” for me. Bedsides, having met several Jewish colleagues in Italy and abroad, I cannot but agree with you and Prof. MacDonald’s views on them, their deception ability, their self promotion and aggrandisement, their false narratives even in minor things and life situations.
    Keep on the good work please. Congratulations for your beautiful family
    (I’m a mum of only one child, unfortunately).
    Your sincerely,
    Rosa Roccaforte, MD, MSc,

  6. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    I’m sure you’re probably sick of hearing it, but thank you again for your tireless efforts. I would not be surprised if Dr. MacDonald intends to pass the torch to you someday.

  7. John King
    John King says:

    Excellent essay! I always enjoy reading Andrew’s well-written and well-researched pieces. And I regularly follow up on them by going out and reading or buying the books that he mentions.

  8. Loren R
    Loren R says:

    Kevin MacDonald President of the United States
    RamzPaul Vice President

    Ann Coulter Director of Homeland Security
    Harmless Yard Dog Secretary of Defense
    Andrew Joyce Secretary of State
    Kris Kobach Attorney General
    MerryRich Chief of Staff

    1. Build the Wall
    2. Rescind the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, no more anchor babies, no more chain migration, no more asylum
    3. 10 year Moratorium on all immigration, round up and deport all visa overstays and immigrant misdemeanor and felony criminals.
    4. No more dual citizenship in any Federal Government role.
    5. Mass reparations from Jooish banks and billionaires to the American public.
    6. America First

    • C. McGuire
      C. McGuire says:

      Yes! When are were going to get an Andrew Joyce Reader?!?

      I’m embarrassed to say I only recently discovered you and I’m aghast at the brilliance of your innovative writing. I can’t get enough of it. Thank you soooooo much!

  9. J.J. Daley
    J.J. Daley says:

    Andre Joyce’s three part essay on Spinoza was one of the first I read of his. What a great introduction! It’s a powerful piece of writing as all his writings have proven to be. Writing is his calling. He is one of the most important voices of our time as are so many who write for The Occidental Observer. It was a pleasant surprise to see that Ron Unz has broadened his readership by making him a regular contributor to the Unz Review. TOO, and the Unz Review are two of the most scholarly publications on the internet addressing head-on the “world’s foremost problem: international jewry.”

  10. Ghost of Charles
    Ghost of Charles says:

    Thank you Dr. Andrew Joyce. Your voluminous works are a treasure that will help Westerners in their struggle to survive.

    Looking forward to your next piece!

  11. Rebecca
    Rebecca says:

    I too greatly appreciate your prolific, succinct and accurate work Dr. Joyce. Thank you!

    Loren your “platform” is mine as well. Let’s start promoting.

    • Loren R
      Loren R says:

      Hey Rebecca,
      Yes! I thought we had won in 2016 but it turns out it was just another horrible example of who controls America. I am talking to as many people as I can. My evangelical friends seem to be the hardest nuts to crack even though everything they hate about our society has been foisted on us by “our friends” They have been brainwashed from birth to call them chosen.
      But I am not giving up and anybody who is paying any attention can see how much trouble we are in and why. I know more and more of us are waking up. Thanks for helping spread the news! Loren

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Loren R – your friends hear every Sunday in church from the OT how the Jews are always the ‘good guys’. The Christians have even been persuaded to celebrate the Passover, in which the children of Jews’ enemies are killed. It is quite a triumph to persuade the Christians to celebrate even this as a good and moral thing

  12. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    A big thank you to Dr. Joyce for his prodigious output and personal sacrifice, all the more courageous that he’s got a young family to protect. His wife I salute, too, for not prevailing on him to step back from the fray. She must be fine woman.

  13. Tom Verso
    Tom Verso says:

    Thank you for another great essay. Interestingly, to my mind, it is very much in the style of my other favorite writer Ron Unz. You both have a unique way of melding personal biography with historiography and social science.

    If I may: One thought that I have about yours and MacDonald’s work (and E. Michael Jones before he became a Catholic evangelist preaching under a YouTube revival tent).

    I feel that Jewish historiography needs to be melded with a broader sociology of groups. As I understand MacDonald, that was the fountainhead of his work; i.e. ‘group evolutionary theory’. Jews, again as I understand him and I am a casual reader not a scholar, Jews were just an exemplary group that were the basis of his studies. Similarly, you and Michael Jones did not set out to study the so-called Jewish Question but quite accidentally ‘hit on it’, so to speak.

    In all three cases, it seems to me that the Jewish issue became all encompassing; and the general theory of group behavior was lost sight of. Again, I emphasize I am not a scholar and my opinion is based on casual reading.

    Nevertheless, I feel that what is needed is a greater emphasis on a general theory rooted in what I believe is a fact: “Humans are social animals”. Humans always are found in groups. Individuals who are not group assimilated are pathological; e.g. Existential literary characters found in Camus, Kafka, Dostoevsky, etc. For example, Jones recently pointed out that Augustine said that people don’t embrace a religion for logical syllogistic reasons. Rather, they become part of a religious community (group) first.

    In the absence of a general sociology of group behavior, studies of Jews, Communist, Catholics, Europeans, motorcycle gangs, homosexuals, etc. will take on the aura of anecdotal partisan critiques (positive and negative) and will give rise to fallacious anecdotal debater responses.

    For example, MacDonald and Jones are invariable criticized by Jewish defenders with anecdotal examples of Jews who e.g. don’t support the AIPAC or were not moneylenders, etc.

    In short, generalizations about groups can only be logically supported by general group theories with great and repeated emphasis that the generalization are probabilistic, not all encompassing Newtonian. Repeated emphasis on the statistical nature of social generalizations that are conceptualized based on random samples is a must.

    Philosophers of Science talk about ‘mind or thought experiments’; i.e. experiments that are not physically done but illustrate the conceptual relations of the variables in question. The mind experiment for the social scientist is the random sample and the logic of probability generalizations. Thus, when talking about Jewish support for AIPAC, the mind experiment is ‘if I do a random sampling of Jews, will there be a statistically significant number who support AIPAC? If so I can reasonably characterize the group ‘Jews’ as a whole as supporters of AIPAC. The same logic/method holds for all generalizations/characterizations of any group. And it is the only logical method to compare groups.

    When comparing one group with another we are comparing generalized characterizations. If those generalizations are not based on a random sample or hypothesized assumed sample for which there is some empirical bases to make the assumption, then they are not social scientific; rather, journalistic chit chat!

  14. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    As William Blake said in 1810 or so:

    When I tell any Truth it is not for the sake of Convincing those who do not know it but for the sake of defending those who Do.

  15. C. S.
    C. S. says:

    I’m not a commenting type, and after some hesitation, as someone who’s been reading everything from you (on all platforms) since the beginning, this might just be the piece under which I should say a heartfelt thank you for all your works. I greatly admire your insights, skills and tone.

    In my smallish European country, I’m an essayist myself for our (rather significantly big) White Nationalist portal, reaching tens of thousands with each of my outputs (a decent number compared to how many actually speak my language). Prof. MacDonald, Dr. Joyce, Mr. Sanderson, or then prof. Duchesne and others have been surely an influence on my own writings, which, I would like to believe, reflect a somewhat similar style and substance, dealing with topics of urgency and interest from a White perspective, including, and especially, discussions and documentations of Jewish influence.

    The reason I mention this is because, as a writer, I know it can be sometimes a bit tough (although maybe I’m speaking only for myself here), that a piece we’ve put so much time and work (and heart) into, sometimes goes out and we don’t know its reach exactly. Whether it had any impact, whether it made any difference. As authors writing with a sense of mission, we want to make a difference, and sometimes it can feel like, when something we find so important is published, it disappears like it never existed. Not out of vanity, but out of a desire to make a difference, this uncertainty over our works’ influence might be uneasy at times — however, and this is the reason I decided to write this; quality works stand the test of time. They are out there and even if it can’t be seen, they make some difference. I’m sure much of the influence from your works, as well as from TOO in general, seeps through my own writing to an audience you otherwise directly don’t address.

    Which is why the reason “why you write” is so important. Just as the books of men long gone, whose writings have also influenced you, these truths and passions remain and make an impact in sometimes unknown and unpredictable ways.

    Wishing well, and thank you again.

Comments are closed.