None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.

“Read off the result in prejudons”

The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Wharton (né Michael Nathan) (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:

THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).

Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)

It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”

Adopt the definition, already!

Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:

Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism

Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.

Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.

“The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.” (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)

The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:

One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium

One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena

Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).

Murder of a poet

But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”

Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesmen, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.

A Jewish supremacist party

And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.

The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.

Inbreeding and ethnocentrism

And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.

This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”

The Fine Line

The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:

Jewniversity: Sarah Fine

Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity

I usually ask the subjects of this column – “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response.

But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?

Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)

There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”

And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.

The core of mendacity

Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:

A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”

The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.

Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites

Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.

Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter

And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?

“What has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything else…The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to. After the entertainers and novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders; they form ways of seeing.”—New York Times Theater Critic Walter Kerr, writing in 1968

In a media-saturated society, with said media almost completely under Jewish control, the Jewish “way of seeing” retains not just its primacy but its virtual monopoly. In such an environment, what you see will be determined for you, and as one who is to be molded, the aim is for your very will to no longer be your own.

The music industry is, as with all forms of media, dominated by Jews, and its control has become increasingly centralized, another trend we’ve seen irrespective of the industry in question. In December 1998, with the PolyGram-Universal merger, the music industry’s Big Six became its Big Five, in control of 77.4% of a market estimated to be between $30 and $40 billion; 2004 saw another merger, this time of Sony and BMG (Sony would later buy out BMG), to create a Big Four. Coupled with the shrinking of independent labels, the Big Four were in control of a whopping 88% of the market by 2011. In December 2011, EMI was absorbed by the Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, though in Europe regulators forced Universal Music to sell off its EMI assets which became the Parlophone Label Group, and was then promptly acquired by the third member of the Big Three, Warner Music Group. In 2012, the Big Three represented 88.6% of the market. Sony Entertainment, the sixth-largest entertainment company in the world, owns Sony Music Entertainment, and Vivendi, number seven, owns Universal Music Group.

A snapshot of the leadership of the Big Three proves illustrative; this overview from December 2019 reveals an obscene overrepresentation of Jews including Michael Lynton, Chairman of the Board for the Warner Music Group and its Vice Chairman, Len Blavatnik; of the nine other members of the Board, Noreena Hertz, Ynon Kreiz, Thomas H. Lee, and Alex Blavatnik (Len’s brother) are Jewish. Mathias Dopfner is a Gentile, but is also a self-described “non-Jewish Zionist.” The rest, such as Stephen F. Cooper—also the CEO, replacing the Jewish Edgar Bronfman, Jr.—are either contested or I could not definitively find out. Co-Chair and CEO of Warner Records, Aaron Bay-Schuck, has Jewish ancestry, and other prominent Jews in management include Eric Levin, Warner Music Group CFO and Executive Vice President, and Co-Chair and COO of subsidiary Atlantic Records Group Julie Greenwald and its Co-Chair and CEO Craig Kallman. Universal Music Group Chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge is Jewish, as are: Chairman and CEO of the Universal Music Publishing Group’s global publishing division, Jody Gerson; Chairman and CEO of Universal Music UK and Ireland, David Joseph; and Executive Vice President of Marketing Andrew Kronfeld. Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer is Jewish, as is its COO Kevin Kelleher, Executive Vice President and General Counsel Julie Swidler, and President of Global Digital Business and US Sales Dennis Kooker. In other words, all three major record labels are headed by Jews and their corporate governance is dominated by Jews as well. The rest, like RCA Records CEO Peter Edge, are “well-liked Gentiles.”

Just four conglomerates control 90% of the entire US television and films markets: Comcast (including NBCUniversal), Disney, ViacomCBS (controlled by National Amusements), and AT&T (including WarnerMedia). AT&T and Comcast are also two of the three largest telecommunications providers in the United States. These conglomerates are, in fact, almost entirely Jewish-controlled. Jews are overrepresented at places like CNN (a WarnerMedia subsidiary) by a factor of twenty-five and are over-represented among senior executive positions at the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and movie production companies by a factor of 44.5! With positions current as of December 2019, we see that Bob Bakish, President and CEO of ViacomCBS, is Jewish as are:

• John T. Stankey, CEO of WarnerMedia and President and COO of AT&T
• Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts
• Jeff Zucker, Chairman of WarnerMedia and President of CNN Worldwide
• Bob Iger, Chairman and CEO of Disney
• Jeff Shell, Chairman of NBCUniversal Film and Entertainment
• Ron Meyer,Vice Chairman of NBCUniversal
• David L. Cohen, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer of Comcast
• Kent Alterman, President of Comedy Central (under ViacomCBS), Paramount Network (also under ViacomCBS), and TV Land (under MTV Networks, a division of ViacomCBS, which also owns MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and Nick Jr.)
• Shari Redstone, President of National Amusements and Chairwoman of the Board for ViacomCBS
• Sumner Redstone, majority owner and Chairman of the Board of National Amusements; through National Amusements, Redstone and his family are majority voting shareholders of ViacomCBS and its subsidiaries such as MTV Networks, Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central, and BET

Randall L. Stephenson, Chairman and CEO of AT&T and former National Chair of the Boy Scouts of America during its “inclusivity” demise (when girls were allowed to join the Boy Scouts) is not Jewish, but was awarded an “honorary yarmulke.”

Other recent principal figures include:

• Jeffrey Katzenberg, major Barack Obama donor and former Disney and Paramount executive, co-founder of DreamWorks Pictures and WndrCo, and founder of Quibi (which has been invested in by Disney, 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures Entertainment, ViacomCBS, WarnerMedia, Lionsgate, MGM Studios, ITV, Entertainment One, Alibaba, Madrone Capital Partners, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and more)
• Michael Eisner, former Chairman and CEO of Disney
• Ralph J. Roberts, co-founder, former CEO, and Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Comcast
• Richard Plepler, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Chairman and CEO of HBO (now under WarnerMedia)
• Les Moonves, Chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation from 2003 until his resignation in September 2018 following numerous allegations of sexual harassment and abuse and current member of the Board of Directors at ZeniMax Media
• Former Paramount Chairman and CEO Brad Grey (Paramount is now a ViacomCBS subsidiary)
• Jordan Levin, member of The WB’s founding executive team and a former CEO; former Microsoft Xbox Entertainment Studios Executive Vice President-General Manager to Produce Original Programming; founder and former CEO of Generate, a production studio and talent management company; former Chief Content Officer at the NFL; former CEO of Awesomeness, an American media and entertainment company eventually purchased by Viacom; and current General Manager of Rooster Teeth, an entertainment company and subsidiary of Otter Media which is a subsidiary of WarnerMedia
• Former Warner Brothers (now under WarnerMedia) Chairman and CEO Barry Meyer, who was also on the Board of Directors for the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve
• Julian Brodsky, co-founder and former CFO and Vice Chairman of Comcast, as well as co-founder and former Chair of Comcast Interactive Capital, Comcast’s venture capital unit

A quick perusal of other major players in film and television, supporting and affiliated industries, print and online news media, and digital and social media not considered part of the “traditional” media market (though no less important to the media apparatus, and arguably more so) once again reveals a massive overrepresentation of Jews in ownership or otherwise prominent positions (current as of December 2019), including:

• Tom Rothman, Chairman of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group
• Josh Greenstein, Co-President of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group
• Former Vice President of US Business Development for Bertelsmann Media Suzanne Nossel
• Peter Chernin, former News Corp. Chairman and current Chairman and CEO of The Chernin Group (assets include Chernin Entertainment; a majority stake in CA Media, an Asia-based media investment company; and Pandora, Fullscreen, Tumblr, Barstool Sports, and Flipboard)
• Record company magnate and DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen
• Lionsgate CEO Jon Feltheimer
• Lionsgate Chairman Mark Rachesky
• Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg
• Facebook COO and ADL-donor Sheryl Sandberg
• YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki (her sister founded 23andMe)
• Former Co-Chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment and current head of Pascal Films (which produced the atrocity known as the Ghostbusters re-make) Amy Pascal
• Relativity Media CEO Ryan Kavanagh
• “Committed Zionist” Sam Zell, founder and chairman of Equity Group Investments and formerowner and CEO of the Tribune Company, which counted among its assets 23 televisions stations, a baseball team, and many major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times
• “Super-agents” Scooter Braun and Ari Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel’s brother and inspiration for the character Ari Gold in HBO’s series Entourage)
• Joel Klein, former CEO of Amplify, Executive Vice President at News Corp., and former Chairman and CEO of Bertelsmann, Inc.
• Lloyd Braun, Chairman of the ABC Entertainment Group from 2002 to 2004, former head of Yahoo! Media Group, who partnered with Gail Berman to form the entertainment company BermanBraun, eventually becoming the sole owner and renaming the company Whalerock Industries
• Mort Zuckerman, owner of the US News & World Report, former owner of the New York Daily News, The Atlantic, and Fast Company, and former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups in America
• Haim Saban, founder of Saban Entertainment, the Saban Music Group, and Saban Capital Group, a stakeholder in Univision (Saban: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”)
• Mega-producer and member of the Board at ZeniMax Media Jerry Bruckheimer
• Harry Sloan, former Chairman and CEO of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Board member at ZeniMax Media
• ZeniMax Chairman and CEO Robert Altman (ZeniMax’s legal counsel is none other than DLA Piper, which features prominently in The Way Life Should Be?)
• Fox Entertainment CEO Charlie Collier
• Michael Lynton, from earlier, also former CEO of Sony Corporation of America, now Chairman of Snap Inc. (Snapchat) and as mentioned Chairman of the Board of Warner Music Group (Lynton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; his brother-in-law is “progressive” journalist and correspondent Jonathan Alter and his mother-in-law, Joanne Hammerman/Alter, was a “progressive” politician who worked closely with Bella Abzug, all Jewish)
• Nicole Seligman, former President of Sony Corporation of America and Sony Corporation general counsel and former representation of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings and Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial (her husband Joel I. Klein was an official in the Clinton administration and is the former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, preceded by the Jewish Harold Levy and appointed by the Jewish Michael Bloomberg; in an illustrative example of Jewish nepotism, Wikipedia states that Klein, “never obtained the common formal credentials that one would have to take a leadership role in a public school system, and…had a short duration of teaching experience”; in 2005, Klein fired Rashid Khalidi from the teacher training program for his views on Israel)
• Leonard “Len” Blavatnik, from above, also owner of AI Films and founder and Chairman of Access Industries—Access Industries owns the Warner Music Group
• The New York Times Company is controlled by the Jewish Ochs-Sulzberger family through a special class of “super-voting” shares
• Donald Edward Newhouse, owner of Advance Publications whose properties include Condé Nast, dozens of newspapers across the US, cable company Bright House Networks, and a controlling stake in Discovery Inc.
• President and CEO of Discovery Inc. David Zaslav (Zaslav serves on the Boards of Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Lions Gate Entertainment, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, The Cable Center, Center for Communication, Grupo Televisa, Partnership for New York City, and the USC Shoah Foundation, and is the Chair of the Auschwitz: The Past Is Present Committee)
• Google co-founder and Alphabet Inc. President Sergey Brin
• Google co-founder and Alphabet Inc. CEO Larry Page
• The Weinstein brothers Harvey and Bob of the now-defunct Weinstein Company movie studio
• Former Vice Chairman of Vivendi Universal and former Warner Music Group Chairman and CEO Edgar Bronfman, Jr.; and the list goes on. Bronfman:

Is the son of Edgar Miles Bronfman and the grandson of Samuel Bronfman, patriarch of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Canada. The Bronfman family gained its fortunes through the Seagram Company, an alcohol distilling company. Edgar Jr. is the second of five children of Ann (Loeb) and Edgar Miles Bronfman. His mother was the daughter of John Langeloth Loeb Sr. (a Wall Street investment banker whose company was a predecessor of Shearson Lehman/American Express) and Frances Lehman (a scion of the Lehman Brothers banking firm)…Edgar M. Bronfman, Jr., is the son of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., the billionaire businessman and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress who died aged 84 in 2013. He is the half-brother of Clare Bronfman, who as a 39-year-old was charged in 2018 in a NXIVM sex-trafficking case…In 1979, Bronfman married his first wife, Sherry Brewer, an African-American actress, in New Orleans. Bronfman’s father did not approve of the marriage. ‘I very much wanted for him to end the relationship, because I told him, all marriages are difficult enough without the added stress of totally different backgrounds,’ Bronfman Sr. wrote in his memoirs. ‘Sherry offered to convert [to Judaism], which though well intentioned, was not the point.’…On January 21, 2011, Bronfman was found guilty in French court of insider trading [while with] Vivendi…and received a 15-month suspended sentence and a €5m fine.[1]

Vivendi acquired the Bronfman family’s Seagram Company in 2000.

This could all be sound and fury signifying nothing, however, as these people “just happen to be Jewish,” pace former Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman, and thus we shouldn’t make anything of the comments by Robbie Brenner, head of Mattel Films and President of The Firm’s film division—“Everyone had a similar kind of look, the know-your-tribe look—the Jews from New York”—or that in writing the screenplay for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, co-writer and former Focus Features CEO James Schamus said that, rather than try to create authentic Chinese characters, he tried to write them “to be as Jewish as possible.” We shouldn’t make anything of the fact that, as Mike Konrad writes:

The popular TV show Bridget Loves Bernie was canceled because some Jewish pressure groups were furious that American TV approved of Jewish-Christian intermarriage. Meredith Baxter said, “We had bomb threats on the show.  Some guys from the Jewish Defense League came to my house to say they wanted to talk with me about changing the show.” Threatening phone calls made to the home of producer Ralph Riskin resulted in the arrest of Robert S. Manning, described as a member of the Jewish Defense League.  Manning was later indicted on murder charges, and fought extradition to the U.S. from Israel, where he had moved. Needless to say, the quite popular show was canceled.  Ironically, soon after that, the CBS network didn’t mind featuring an interracial couple on the The Jeffersons.[2]

Similarly coincidental and inconsequential, from “Jewish Media Power: Myth and Reality” by Elana Levine and Michael Z. Newman:

In a society in which Jewish identity exists in tension with gentile whiteness, Jewish power over media has been a source of as much anxiety as celebration…The new movie studios and networks were run largely by Jewish immigrant moguls or their offspring: the Warner brothers, Adolph Zukor (Paramount), David Sarnoff (RCA/ NBC), and William S. Paley (CBS), among others. Both news and entertainment remain fields hospitable to Jewish artists and businesspeople, from CEOs like Bob Iger (Disney) and producers and company presidents like Jeff Zucker (CNN, NBC) to writers and directors like Nora Ephron and Steven Spielberg. Jewish journalists have led the most influential news organizations in the United States, including the Times and Washington Post. Jews are heavily represented in creative and media workplaces and occupy many positions of prestige and authority.[3]

Even PBS, “the nation’s largest non-commercial media organization with nearly 350 member stations throughout the country,” is under Jewish management in the form of President and CEO Paula Kerger.

In the UK, the Rothschilds through EL Rothschild own a 21% stake in The Economist Group, the media group responsible for The Economist. Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild sits on its Board (as well as that of Estee Lauder; she is the Chair of EL Rothschild investments—EL Rothschild is distinct from Bronfman EL Rothschild LP of yes those Bronfmans and yes those Rothschilds, which was recently acquired by NFP whose President and COO is Mike Goldman); Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, is a former Board member of The Economist Group. Former Chairman of Guardian Media Group (publisher of The Guardian) Paul Myners has ties to RIT Capital Partners PLC, formerly Chaired by Jacob Rothschild. It has a net value of approximately £3 billion, and Jacob Rothschild is today Honorary President with his family remaining the largest shareholders at around 21%. Jacob Rothschild’s eldest daughter, Hannah Mary Rothschild, has done a lot of work with the BBC and is also a Non-Executive Director of RIT Capital. “Feminist press” Virago published a biography she wrote about her great-aunt in 2012; Virago’s 1987 management buy-out of the press from CVBC, which included current Chair Lennie Goodings, was co-financed by Rothschild Ventures.

To disprove the falsehood that Jews exert inordinate control over the international media, Argentine model and TV presenter Ursula Vargues was fired from her job in 2017 for her “anti-Semitic tweets.” What did she say? That Jews control the media.

Wealth is also disproportionately concentrated in the hands of global Jewry. Depending on the year in question, the percentage of the Forbes 400 for the four hundred wealthiest Americans is usually around one-third or more despite comprising just 1.5% of the US’s population. In 1987, Nathaniel Weyl found 23% of American billionaires were Jewish, whereas for the last decade, the number has settled in at around a third. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency states that for 2009, at least 139 of the Forbes 400 were Jews, with 20 of the top 50 controlling $211.8 billion in personal wealth. Six of the top ten wealthiest Americans on the 2019 Forbes 400 list are Jewish, 18 of the top 40 are Jewish, and at least 33 of the top 100 are Jewish. 11.6% of the world’s billionaires are Jewish, despite Jews accounting for just 0.2% of the world’s population. Five of the top seven wealthiest Aussies are Jewish, despite accounting for less than 0.5% of the nation’s population. 20% of Britain’s “Super Rich” are Jewish—and most of them are immigrants. Jews are 25% of Canada’s billionaires (at roughly 1% of the population), 13% of Brazil’s (at 0.5% of the population), and 43% of the Ukraine’s (at roughly 1% of the population). Jews are 15-17 times more likely per capita to make the Forbes 400 than is the rest of the American population. A 2008 survey from the Jerusalem Post found that 46% of Jews earn at least $100,000 a year, compared to the 18% US average. IQ differential alone is not enough to explain this disparity; the overrepresentation is too dramatic.

Jews, by the way, are 26.4% of South Africa’s wealthiest individuals whilst representing an absurdly-small .09% of the population. They have profited enormously from the diamond trade. Things are clearly going well for the Jews in South Africa, but for whites it is a different story. Per Henk van de Graaf: “The farmers live in fear, because being a farmer in South Africa is the most dangerous occupation in the world. The average murder ratio per 100,000 for the population in the world is nine, I believe…But for the farming community it is 138, which is the highest for any occupation in the world.” I have seen lower murder rates for white farmers at 97 per 100,000, but that is still astronomical. In 2019, it was 36.4 per 100,000 people for all of South Africa, which is horrible but much rosier than the 67.9 per 100,000 people in 1995 per Bloomberg. According to the Institute for Security Studies, the murder rate in South Africa in 1994 was 66.9 murders per 100,000 people.

Whites are less than 9% of the South African population presently, but consider that in 2001, the police’s Crime Information Analysis Centre revealed that of the 1,398 people attacked on farms, 61.6% were white. 74.2% of those murdered on farms and smallholdings in South Africa from 2017-18 were white. There are government-sanctioned policies in the works to seize land from white farmers and re-distribute it to markedly less productive blacks. This is to say that there are real and realized differences between groups of people and pretending they don’t exist is, in the present climate of mass immigration and the willful ceding of power in places like Rhodesia and South Africa, suicidal. It should also be noted here that the virulently anti-white Economic Freedom Fighters Party, helmed by Julius Malema, has allegedly received funding from Jewish-Swazi billionaire Nathan Kirsh.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler has made a fortune exploiting the country’s natural resources through his political connections and the use of offshore tax havens:

Gertler has stakes in companies that control 9.6 percent of world cobalt production, based on U.S. Geological Survey data and company figures. That’s just the beginning of Gertler’s influence in Congo, the largest country of sub-Saharan Africa, with the world’s richest deposits of cobalt and major reserves of copper, diamonds, gold, tin and coltan, an ore containing the metal tantalum, which is used in consumer electronics. His Gibraltar- registered Fleurette Properties Ltd. owns stakes in various Congolese mines through at least 60 holding companies in offshore tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands. Gertler, whose grandfather co-founded Israel’s diamond exchange in 1947, arrived in Congo in 1997 seeking rough diamonds. The 23-year-old trader struck a deep friendship with Joseph Kabila, who then headed the Congolese army and today is the nation’s president. Since those early days, Gertler has invested in iron ore, gold, cobalt and copper as well as agriculture, oil and banking. In the process, he’s built up a net worth of at least $2.5 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He’s also acquired a roster of critics. Many of the government’s deals with Gertler deprive Congo’s 68 million people of badly needed funds, according to the London-based anticorruption group Global Witness and lawmakers from Congo and the U.K., the country’s second-biggest aid donor after the U.S. “Dan Gertler is essentially looting Congo at the expense of its people,” says Jean Pierre Muteba, the head of a group of nongovernmental organizations that monitor the mining sector in Katanga province, where most of Congo’s copper is located.[4]

There are also the anecdotal cases of powerful Jews like Roman Abramovich in Russia and Ilan Shor in Moldova fleeing to Israel after committing major financial crimes, which surely can only confirm the “anti-Semitic” stereotypes. It’s not just private citizens or politicians, either, but perhaps most insidious of all, the global finance sector and its “money men.” As just one example, recall Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Jewish former head of the International Monetary Fund. Strauss-Kahn helped facilitate the massive Greek “bailout” and others for Ireland and Iceland, and had just reached an agreement along with the EU with Portugal and was in the process of negotiating a second for Greece, when he was arrested on charges of raping a hotel maid and was forced to resign. The conditions for these loans are notorious for ceding sovereign decision-making on fiscal policy and in extreme cases effectively reducing the nation to economic serfdom. I suppose this is technically legal, but it is no less criminal.

Jewish film and TV production magnate and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies Board member Paul Bronfman may have pulled funding from York University in Canada for its “anti-Israel” mural, but I’d be curious to know if he supports the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’s discussions with Israel to ship their 40,000-plus African deportees not back to Africa but to “safe Western countries,” including Canada. I can venture a guess. 70% of Jews in Israel favor the deportation of illegal “infiltrators” (as Netanyahu calls them), whereas 70% of Jews in North America support amnesty for illegal aliens. I can’t imagine that 70% would oppose more multi-cultural enrichment in the form of additional tens of thousands of Africans from Israel.

From the birth control pill to abortion to the prevalence of gentile circumcision, there is no question that even the most intimate and essential elements of our society have been thoroughly Judaized. When that also includes antagonism toward the host population—indeed, even attitudes and policies geared toward atomizing and then destroying that host population—the locus of control becomes not just significant but essential to identify.

While the Jewish Frederic Raphael may feel that the “anti-Semitic canard…that ‘the Jews’ control the world’s economy and, in particular, the press…brooks no empirical refutation” (from 2015’s Anti-Semitism, a book in the Provocations Series by Biteback Publishing Ltd. edited by the self-described “leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist, Muslim” Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, she of the vicious attack on the British white working class), and that “the oldest hatred” simply materializes by magic anywhere Jews appear in any appreciable numbers, irrespective of the time period or civilization or racial or ethnic group in question, it can be very easily evidenced that Jews do in fact control both. Perhaps that’s why there’s been scant coverage of Jewish malfeasance in the media.

[1] Wikipedia entry for Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bronfman_Jr.

[2] Konrad, Mike, “American Jews and Inconsistency on Immigration,” February 15, 2018. American Thinker. Available at: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/american_jews_and_inconsistency_on_immigration.html.

[3] Levine, Elana and Michael Z. Newman, “Jewish Media Power: Myth and Reality,” Spring, 2018. AJS Perspectives: The Magazine of the Association for Jewish Studies. Available at: http://perspectives.ajsnet.org/the-oldnew-media-issue/jewish-media-power-myth-and-reality/.

[4] Loewenstein, Antony, “How an Orthodox Israeli Jewish billionaire loves to exploit Africa,” December 31, 2012. Available at: https://antonyloewenstein.com/how-an-orthodox-israeli-jewish-billionaire-loves-to-exploit-africa/.

Editor’s note: This is a reply to my article “Ideas on Maintaining Relationships with the Less Committed in a Dark Age.” My comments are in bold.

As a White, female spouse of a male TOO contributor, I read with special interest Kevin MacDonald’s recent essay on how to maintain relationships among the less-committed.  His essay suits me to a T.  I have long been uncomfortable with my husband’s political writings—partly because I disagree with some of them, partly because of his use of a pseudonym, and partly because of the potential consequences for both us and for society.  MacDonald’s essay has the laudable goal of creating better family relations, but many of his points are condescending or miss the mark.  I offer my thoughts below.

As I read his essay, the main point seems to be the difficulty of maneuvering (and maintaining) a personal relationship with someone who is not in total agreement with your own ideology, and specifically the way in which he expresses that ideology.  For sake of simplicity, I will assume that the “dissident writer” is a White male, and that the “significant other” (SO) is a White female; this should cover the vast majority of the 200-some TOO contributors.

I wonder, first of all, about the motivation for such a piece.  I don’t know if Prof. MacDonald has (or had) an SO, and if so, if she is one of the “less-committed.” Does he speak from direct experience?  Or is he hearing things second-hand from his many correspondents?  If he has no firsthand experience, he is perhaps in a poor situation to comment.  And in any case, he is obviously not himself one of the beleaguered SO’s, and thus is unqualified to address things from that perspective.

KM: Yes, I have a significant other and yes, she is less committed. Like many people, she is far less interested in politics than I am.

Second, I fear that my reply may well be a futile effort because I am a woman who engages in political discussion, and women’s voices seem undervalued and underappreciated in alt-right circles.  MacDonald seems to have in mind women who apparently avoid political discussion in order to dwell on family, friends, and hobbies.  I never looked at it that way (nor does my husband) because we know that women (and men) can engage in activism and still have time for hobbies/interests.  So, from my point of view, this article could be addressed to any couple whose viewpoints differ on political issues, especially considering our current political climate.

MacDonald raises the interesting case of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, and so I will begin with some thoughts on her situation.  I will then look at the problem of relationships specifically, and then close with some critical thoughts on the whole “White interests” movement.

The Lindberghs: A Case Study

I enjoyed the reference to the Anne Morrow Lindbergh diary entries, which were all drawn from the fifth (and last) volume of diaries and letters (War Within and Without, 1939–1944).  Anne, like many SOs, finds herself in a role that she did not ask for.

My similarity to Anne is the concern I experience for my husband’s reputation.  I also struggle with understanding his intended end game.  A bigger issue for some SOs is the realization that the dissident writer intends to instigate others to a negative (i.e., violent) outcome.  The SO is often left to explain (uncomfortably) this behavior to family and friends. I do think that most women prefer personal interaction and dialogue over publications or speeches.  We see it as a quicker way to resolution, or at the very least to understanding intent.  I would also lean toward supporting a situation—even a White identity movement—that was intended to help humankind rather than hurt a particular group.  Anne has “the greatest faith” in Charles as a person, and she understands his intent.  However, some dissidents act only in their own self-interest, often emanating insecurity and a combative intent in their rhetoric.  Charles Lindbergh is hardly a dissident in this regard.

As a famous and respected person, Charles had intended to simply write a speech naming the people and governments he saw as “war agitators” in an effort to inform the American public and avoid involvement in the war that was at that time contained to Europe.  He was not bitter or hateful toward the agitators as a group of people, nor as individuals.  He stated the truth as he saw it.  Lindbergh did not intend for his speech to lead to violent retributions. It is the reaction of the public (actually the press in his case) to the dissident’s words or how they understand the intent, that leads to potentially unwarranted scrutiny.  If we describe the contributors of TOO as dissidents in the sense that they are pro-White and anti-Jewish, we assume that they know that their “truth” could be detrimental to entire groups of people.

KM: Yes, but not saying anything is certainly detrimental to the traditional White majority. Some people have to speak up. There are always going to be conflicts of interest in politics. That’s what it’s all about. Anonymous seems to see things entirely from the standpoint of possible negative repercussions for the targets of dissident writers—e.g., Jews in the case of Lindbergh. But again, the big picture is that Lindbergh was trying to avoid a catastrophe in which millions would die. In such a situation, the hurt feelings of Jews who were accurately portrayed as an important force promoting the war mean nothing. Even possible violence by lone individuals or small groups motivated to action by Lindbergh’s comments (and in the absence of Lindbergh’s endorsement) would be of trivial importance compared to the war; I am aware of no record of anti-Jewish violence occurring as a result of Lindbergh’s speech, and of course TOO does not advocate violence as a solution. 

Thus, the SO finds herself on the outside of this fraternity but with the opportunity to play the role of moderator.  Charles’ speech included statements that Anne believed would not be welcome in her community.  This played a part in her fear, although her greater fear was for her family’s ostracism.  She foresaw that his intentions would be misunderstood. MacDonald quotes Anne as sensing “that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before.”  She does not, however, let this potential outcome stop her from supporting her husband. She continues to speak to him about her feelings and beliefs, and he listens—even revising his wording to better address his audience and potentially assuage dissent.  From my experience, this is the best option we have when those outside of the relationship seem short-sighted or are quick to judge, as perhaps many of our family and friends can be, and as Anne’s were.  Of course, there are people we do not know who may act upon our words, and being mindful of these reactions is always prudent in public discourse and publishing. Dissident writers hold that responsibility.

As MacDonald points out, Anne states, “I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic.”  Correctly, she knows this is not always possible.  And yet, she in fact goes on to give something of a “logical” analysis; I think she underestimates herself.  It is possible to know the truth of an issue and yet still realize that that very truth may be hurtful and misunderstood by others.  That is often the case in my situation.  How can I question what I have not personally researched, especially if my misgivings are based on feeling and not on logic?  Being aware of this natural reaction makes the experience less intimidating.

On the day of the speech, Anne writes, “I am afraid of the effect of his speech…and the effect on him and the cause.  He says that the point is not what the ‘effect’ will be on him …  but whether or not what he said is true and whether it will help to keep us out of war.”  Charles’ point is that he tells the truth, and he is not concerned about the resulting effect on him.  This is what my husband says as well.  He ignores the fact that there may be an effect outside of himself.  The SO has the choice to buy into the ideas written or buy into the resulting effects.  She finds herself in a dilemma when she cannot reconcile the intent of the writing with what she fears of the end game.  She must tackle this herself; and further on I discuss what the dissident writer may do to help her.

As stated, I believe that many SO’s find themselves highly concerned with consequences.   Many dissident writers throw empathy out the window so as not to weaken their position.  However, if there is concern for your SO, some acknowledgement of unintended effects would put the dissident writer in a much better position to make his case.  This, in my opinion, is necessary when one is engaged in criticism or one-sided ideologies.  Dissidents can act without foresight or in ignorance of the potential consequences, or they can moderate their points based on the effect on others.  As Anne points out, her worst fears were confirmed when Charles was “attacked on all sides” (not physically) after his speech—by the Roosevelt “Administration, pressure groups, and Jews, as now openly a Nazi.”  Anne wanted to avoid this; not strictly for fear of her situation, but to avoid a misunderstanding of the ideology behind her husband’s speech because it was not one of hate but of concern for his country.

I find it insightful that Anne asks and answers the question as to why she senses that it is wrong to name the Jews as being pro-war “even if it is done without hate, bitterness or criticism” as she does.  Her answer is “because it is segregating them as a group, setting the ground for anti-Semitism.”  She recognizes that naming or blaming of Jews is an agitator based on historical context.  This is unsettling to her because she knows that it will instigate hatred, and for that reason should be moderated.  She is not considering the truth of the statement (as Charles is). In the end, the truth is more than some influential people want to hear, and Anne’s fears are realized.

Anne understands that what may have been Charles’ intent brings about the opposite result.  This is very common today and dissident writers should understand that this may be a result of their rants, speeches and articles.  I do not single out the alt-right.  This is true of any group that does not moderate their attacks on others.  This does not mean to moderate views necessarily, but is a suggestion to moderate the mode of attacks.  Anne states that “more passion is being aroused” by statements of fact that were intended not to arouse but to quell passions.

KM: Again, I worry that too much emphasis is being placed on the possible effects that dissidents’ words may have on others. Certainly, my writing has offended the ADL and many individual Jews as well as many others on the left. I do worry that someone who claims to have been influenced by my writing will go and blow up a synagogue or something. But that can’t be helped. There are always people out there who are prone to violence as a solution for everything. But that is no reason for me to stop writing. If there is no dissent, then what I regard as the forces of evil—forces that would utterly destroy the people and culture of the country I grew up in—would have no push-back at all. As it is, we are relegated to relatively tiny corners of the internet and oftentimes to conventions held in secret, whereas those who hate us are beaming their messages 24/7 into the living rooms, classrooms, and movie theaters across the entire country. Our demonstrations are greeted with violence aided and abetted by police, government, and ultimately the courts. Our meetings are held in secret, whereas our enemies can easily muster thousands in prominent public spaces without any fear of violence. And despite our relatively weak position, they are doing everything they can to completely stifle dissent, abrogate the First Amendment, de-platform and demonetize sites like TOO and Red Ice, and ultimately legislate prison terms for politically incorrect speech as has already been done in many parts of Europe at the behest of the same forces promoting censorship in the U.S.

Present-day Relationship Conflicts

MacDonald points out that a typical situation might be that of a wife/girlfriend being “terrified of it becoming known that she is associated closely with someone” who is setting themselves up for social ostracism.  “Typical” makes it sound like a widespread problem.  It is a bit of a mystery to me as to why he would think this is a pervasive issue.  From my experience, this is an over-generalization of a woman’s reaction.  As a wife of a dissident writer, and knowing SO’s in similar situations, I would not use “terrifying” in my description of the typical situation.  I do, however, understand that in some situations the dissident does put his ‘innocent’, ‘less-committed’ family in potential unwanted peril.  But in fact, in many cases, the SO is the only thread keeping the dissident from anarchy.

KM: It’s quite different being the SO of a well-known dissident writing under my own name as opposed to the SO of a pseudonymous dissident—the former is much more terrifying for many. I don’t understand the idea that the SO may be “the only thread keeping the dissident from anarchy.” That certainly doesn’t apply to me.

MacDonald seems to speak for women in this piece, far too often.  For example, “men are far more concerned [than women] about politics and distribution of power.”  I guess he would know better than I, since he is a man.  It does not mean it is necessarily a good thing.  He also states that “men tend to suffer more [read: die] when there is a(n)…takeover.”  I don’t know about that.  Once you are slaughtered, your suffering ends.  Being taken as a concubine (against your will and all that comes from that) might lead me to question who actually suffers more. Let’s just say there is suffering by all during war/takeovers.

KM: My comments on men being more concerned about politics stem from evolutionary psychology. You interpret me to be concerned about mental suffering. I am concerned about evolutionary fitness: Male fitness is much more affected by the distribution of power than is female fitness. In nature, the vast majority of females mate, while males typically have to achieve a position in the dominance hierarchy to mate. (If you want to see the brutality of male competition, watch the National Geographic videos now available on the Disney streaming channel.) This has shaped the male brain—the fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology, well-supported by the research.

MacDonald mentions “that doxing would result in social opprobrium” and he assumes “that your significant other is not a social justice warrior.”  He assumes that the wife/girlfriend is “intolerant of conflicting opinions” and that she may be “fueled by hatred toward people” with strong right (nationalist) views.  He also states that “such people are impossible to reason with, …spew hatred… accompanied with ungrounded assertions of moral and intellectual superiority.”  I am not sure where this is coming from; there is a lot of hatred spewed toward other ethnicities when reading some White identity diatribes (maybe less true of TOO articles). I think MacDonald’s assumption is a prejudiced description of an SO with liberal views.  It was an inappropriate point for him to make.

KM: Believe me, I know some such people personally, and they are every bit as hateful as I describe and every bit as willing to cut off all contact with dissidents, including with close family. The point in my article was that I was not going to be talking about such people because they are hopeless. If the SO of a dissident is like that, the best advice is to leave the relationship or stop being a dissident. I am talking about people who are sympathetic but less committed—people who are attracted to the relationship but not on board with the whole package. That, incidentally, is my experience.

Absolutely correct is his assertion that there are pressures on employers to punish dissidents.  Companies are all too willing to fire those who dissent.  Maintaining a low profile is understandable when threatened by loss of livelihood.  In my case, my husband and I have experienced the consequences of failing to conform.  Capitalism does play into this issue, and dissident writers could/should spend more time questioning the issues caused by it.  Capitalism allows employers to call the shots and mold its employees in their thoughts and deeds—by desire or demand.  For sure, it is another possible effect that your SO must be willing to risk for the sake of supporting your ideas.

MacDonald addresses the fact that “being ostracized from polite society may not bother activists personally.”  This was previously discussed as something Charles Lindbergh addressed as well.  This comes from their belief that they are right-minded (even if not open-minded), and often fueled by like-minded friends (if only in cyberspace).  But how could a worldview be based on cyberspace relationships when the first priority for most humans is to have real, face to face interactions?   Apart from dating websites, eventually those “sympatico mates” must meet face-to-face.

KM: I agree that online relationships are ultimately unsatisfying. That’s why it’s important to have conferences, such as AmRen does. I usually go to several conferences every year (most held in secret or under police protection) and I enjoy meeting people, putting faces to names, and talking in relaxed, informal environments.

I agree regarding use of a pseudonym.  MacDonald states that it is necessary and desirable for many, but that this does not completely solve the problem. Often the reason one is used is that this option “protects” the SO. That being said, it seems to me that having a pseudonym gives permission to live two separate lives.  It begs the question: which one is the real you and which one includes the SO?  The alternate identity gives a license to say things one would not say in public.  It is just a matter of time before it no longer works.  Better to be up front understanding the importance of being your genuine self and accepting the consequences.  I would be surprised if the pseudonym option makes your SO ‘feel better,’ as their real issue should be with the dissident’s ideology and intent.

KM: Obviously, I don’t use a pseudonym, and I think it’s important that some of us do this. I have had pseudonymous writers on TOO  who have not been doxed in over 10 years. I am sure that a government agency or a determined hacker could find out real names but it seems to me to be quite rational to continue using a false identity as along as possible in cases where there would be dire consequences, such as loss of livelihood. In my case, I had no excuse because I had tenure at my university. All they could do was unleash their hate—which they did.

White and Right

Because White identity is typically bound up with feelings of being threatened, White identity ideology is self-interested by definition.  In my view, some dissident writers appear to have concern only for their own personal interests (disguised as White interests). This is not a persuasive position, assuming you are writing so that other less-informed people will join in your efforts.  Even so, it is not a persuasive position if you want your SO to join in.  It is always better to have her support than to have her sabotaging your efforts.

KM: I am curious what writers you think are only concerned with their personal interests. I can’t think of any. It’s all about the future of White people and the forces arrayed against us, and the great majority of us are doing it at great personal cost or potential cost, social or financial.

Accordingly, what Lindbergh does similarly (as an American who happens to be White) is to admit that his intent is for Americans to understand the upcoming danger of entering the war so that they are saved from the consequent peril.  However, he is able to put himself in the shoes of the British and the Jews, recognizing and stating that they have obvious interests in the war.  He shows some empathy for the position they are in. This seems very different from what SO’s are now faced with when understanding their partner.  This is the dissident’s lack of ability to put themselves in anyone else’s shoes.  From my experience, dissident writers seldom acknowledge that they understand why the other side acts or believes as they do; in addition to lack of recognition that if things play out as they wish, someone will reap extreme negative consequences.  This is a mindset that so many SO’s cannot reckon with.

KM: A lot of my writing is directed at understanding why White people think the way they do about these issues. Much of this has appeared on TOO, and my recent book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, has an entire chapter (106 pages) on it. I think that all of us on the dissident right have been there. We were brought up in liberal-left culture, and many of us, like myself, began our political journey on the left. As outsiders and former adherents to liberal-left culture, we are in a good position to understand why they think like they do—oftentimes better, I think—than they themselves are able to.

One issue not discussed by MacDonald is the dissident writer’s intent (writing as a researcher and truth reporter vs. writing as a propagandist or political ideologue).  The first thing I look for when being given the opportunity to pre-read my husband’s writings is the integrity of his research.  When (if) the White interests movement grows, its members may have different ideas of the means needed to reach the end game.  The common thread is that it is pro-White and anti-Jewish in nature. As an SO, I work to moderate the negative (anti) nature of the writings in favor of the positive (pro) aspects.  It is a weak argument to portray yourself as the victim.

White identity politics is somewhat perplexing to me and short of being of genuine.  Whites make up a small percentage of the world’s population.  Why would the world respect or support an ideology when it shows a disregard for 90% of humanity? With that said, I have no disagreement with the facts of the matter, as research has proven much of it true (referring to the Jewish control and debasing of the White culture).  There is a high-quality, well-documented case to be made and the TOO contributors have done a good job at this.  The question remains what to do about it.  And some of the alt-right views on this are too much in line with the tactics that they claim to be against.  A better approach may be to use the dissenter/SO relationship as an indicator of how to approach the topic with the larger population to gain the momentum that will be needed to address such a pervasive issue.  Of course, the dissedent must be open to considering opposing views.

KM: I don’t see why it should matter what other groups think of us. The point is we have interests and they are not necessarily incompatible with a reasonable interpretation of the interests of other peoples. A common idea on the dissident right is universal nationalism (e.g., Frank Salter)—the idea that different people should have their own homelands. I accept that as a reasonable solution. But what the globalist establishment wants is an end to White political, cultural, and demographic predominance in any country while not applying this ideology to countries like Korea, Japan, African societies, Israel, etc.

True free speech should be heard from whomever wants a voice.   The First Amendment is (contrary to MacDonald’s opinion) valued by all sides as is the fight for justice.  Although I lean toward believing that people can be reasonable when faced with dissenting views, I am in agreement about talking to your SO about the very real dangers of being a dissident of any position (not just on the right).  MacDonald suggests pointing out “that many people are being attacked these days.”  That point is obvious and somewhat condescending, unless your SO has been living in exile.  She also knows that attacks from either side are not often justified.  Using the example of Trump supporters being harassed with impunity is very hypocritical.  Disruptions are planned almost every time a highly publicized event occurs.  These disruptors often plan for violence. It is documented that Trump invites this behavior against those who do not agree with him (although I am not condoning it).   MAGA-hat wearers are not the only people being called out publicly.  Anti-Trump people get called out every day in alt-right speeches and at protests/rallies.  Democratically elected lawmakers have received death threats because of their support of gun laws. Most SOs know there are real dangers and would most likely agree to punishment, when warranted, on either side.

KM: Sorry, but the First Amendment is definitely not valued on all sides. Speakers are routinely shut down, harassed, or disinvited as a result of actions by the left on college campuses; riots have occurred, as at UC-Berkeley over conservative speakers being invited. Demonstrations even by Trump supporters are attacked on the streets of cities like Portland, with little or no attempt by the government to stop them. Charlottesville was a disaster created by the police pushing the rightists into crowds of well-armed, violent leftists. The vast majority of this is left-on-right violence, not the reverse. And because I believe that Jews are very powerful in the U.S., realize that free speech is not at all a Jewish value—not only absent from traditional Jewish communities, but quite apparent in the contemporary world where Jewish organizations have uniformly supported “hate crime” legislation throughout the West. Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and Jewish staff members, such as the SPLC, have taken a lead role in getting people and organizations de-platformed from social media and financial institutions. Just recently, Pres. Trump signed an executive order on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement that will be a devastating blow to criticism of Israel on college campuses and elsewhere.

And frankly I resent being called condescending for pointing out that many people are being attacked these days. In my experience, it has been effective with the less committed to point out that people like Tucker Carlson and Trump administration officials have been harassed in public. This is because they are in the mainstream enough to have TV shows or be employed in the government. Many SO’s think that dissident-right ideas are disreputable. It helps to tell them that we aren’t the only people being attacked, but that good, honest people with much milder ideas are being attacked as well. 

Yes, attacks are happening against people on both sides. But it’s quite clear that the vast majority of the violence and harassment is coming from the left. Are leftists forced to hold meetings in secret or be prepared to fight if they decide to demonstrate in a city like Portland? I think not. Are leftist speakers denied platforms at universities? Rarely, and only if they are prone to doing things like criticizing transgenderism (perhaps because of its effects on women’s sports) or Israel. The left has a virtual hegemony in the culture and they want to keep it that way.

I have an issue with the statement that “your significant other may relate to the fact that the censorious left is shutting down many ideas that were entirely mainstream and respectable just a few years ago.”  This is probably true.  However, mainstream ideas are only mainstream for a short period of time before they become law (or no longer law), tradition, or simply out of fashion.  They evolve based on cultural input.  If we do not invite new ideas, which often replace the old, we risk stagnation.   I think it is the censorship that we object to, and on that I agree.

KM: We on the dissident right are very involved in trying to understand why the culture has changed so much. If you want to read my opinion on what happened, I suggest reading The Culture of Critique for starters. The culture doesn’t just change by happenstance or drift. People do their best to shape culture in the direction they think will serve their interests, and in my opinion, the main shifts in the last 50 years have come about because of Jewish activism. I have done my best to rigorously support that proposition.

This may bring us close to “the wall-to-wall propaganda and ubiquitous surveillance by government” which no one wants—even the left.  MacDonald tags the left with supporting big tech.  Clearly, each side supports big tech (except maybe TOO contributors who are in a quandary, as without tech they would have no platform!); and it is a very big issue.  It is without a doubt one of the biggest issues we continue to fight against, and it is aided by capitalists (liberals and conservatives alike).  Trump pedals propaganda constantly as well as supporting government surveillance (especially of non-Whites).  There is blame to share, and this issue needs to be addressed by all sides.  We do indeed have to stand up to this.

KM: Big tech is far from neutral in the culture wars. Notoriously they are on the left, and they are much influenced by the ADL which has formed partnerships with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts associated with the Alt Right. We don’t see them removing or shadow-banning accounts of people on the left.

Of course, Trump pedals his point of view, like all presidents have done; I am unaware of non-Whites being targeted specifically by government surveillance. If so, there would be a deluge of lawsuits by the ACLU, etc.

Finally, it’s common on the dissident right to critique capitalism—not only because of the political proclivities of big tech, but because they have colluded with the open-borders crowd to promote immigration because they get cheap labor. Virtually all the big American companies are committed to liberal/left positions on issues such as LGBTQ+, race, and immigration. They will not sponsor people like Tucker Carlson who is so hated by the left, with the result that all his sponsors are small companies looking for a niche market.

These issues may threaten all that we (collectively) value.  I do not consider myself a “dyed-in-the-wool social justice warrior” by any stretch of that term. However, these issues threaten humanity, and MacDonald is suggesting that if we tap into women’s maternal instincts, they will understand.  It is again condescending to generalize women as MacDonald does in this piece.  The women I know are not more conservative when married and as they have gotten older.  I have not lived in a shell; but have had the opportunity to know and been active in my community and my workplace with women and men of all sides of the political spectrum.  From my experience, the older they get, the more enlightened they become, making them more open-minded.  Using the words “buck up” is like saying ‘shut up and put up,’ and I recommend avoiding this way of getting your SO on board.  It also seems to me that you claim to want to avoid making her fearful; but you want to warn her about evil in the world.  If you want to reach your significant other; treat her like an equal.

KM: I am not being condescending but simply pointing to well-replicated findings. In claiming that women are more nurturant than men and that this affects their politics (resulting in the well-known gender gap on issues pulling for empathy, such as refugees, welfare programs, etc.), I am well within the research mainstream (reviewed in my recent book). And yes, marriage has a big effect. These findings of course do not necessarily apply to individual women. They are statistical patterns.

I understand the suggestion by MacDonald that the dissident writer keep their obsession with politics out of “day-to-day conversation.”  That is probably what I would prefer in my situation as well.  However, since how a person views the world drives all their actions, it is not possible in a real relationship.  Keeping your ideology in the closet is not a recommended way to pursue a relationship or keep an existing one intact.  Modern day women have been showing for decades that we want open and communicative relationships.  Covertly discussing these ideas (especially when the consequences of the end game are so relevant for all of humanity) is a major mistake.  Maybe that is how it has been done in the past, but aren’t we searching for better solutions?

KM: Sorry, my advice stands. Talk politics with people who are interested in politics. Why talk politics with someone who doesn’t much care? It can only lead to dissension or boredom. The key to good relationships is finding common ground—to talk about things that both people are interested in.

Closing Thoughts

I have suggested above some of the things that should not be done when trying to maintain a relationship with the less-committed SO.  The two best options for your SO, if you seek to obtain a positive relationship, are for her to: 1) buy in to your ideas, or 2) buy in to the risks. There are multiple ways of approaching your SO.  They include moderating your level of dissent as well as explaining your intent.   Keep in mind that this may be a continual process, maintaining respect for each person’s right to have their own ideas.  Tone down the condescending, demeaning, and sexist comments, because nothing will result from your ideology without the female White race on board.  If you intend to go forward with oppressing our views, you will never achieve your end game.

Anne and Charles Lindbergh may have had differing opinions as to how much finger-pointing should occur when blaming others for world issues, but their honesty with each other is what kept their relationship strong.  Hiding the true nature of dissent will never work in relationships.  If the choice is shutting down versus keeping lines of communication open, an SO would always choose keeping lines of communication open.  With any SO, it is always a bad idea to tiptoe around a topic. That is, unless you are prepared for future conflict and spending your life alone.

I would like to close by quoting Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s introduction to her final volume of her diaries.  Her story was (in her words)

“an intensely personal story of two individuals: a complex man and his struggle to follow what his background, his character and integrity demanded; and a complex woman of quite a different background, who must reconcile her divided loyalties in a time of stress.”

As I am well aware, issues of divergent political values between couples is a complex and difficult problem, and requires effort and compromise on both sides.  Generally speaking, the men contributing to TOO are intelligent and well-meaning.  And surely their SO’s are similar.  Perhaps “live and let live” is the best advice here, if a true meeting of the minds is impossible.