Media Massacre

The Main Stream Media are Propaganda machines. Enforcing the party line is central to promoting the stories they want us to hear, to see, to believe. Dissent is verboten, forbidden. The National Review has just shown it.

National Review's Purge May Have More Victims
Is the purge at National Review complete? John O’Sullivan may be next It ain’t over at National Review. The guillotine may get another victim besides John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg. Yesterday the metrosexual lefty blogger from Salon, Alex Pareene, outed yet another long-time NR figure, John O’Sullivan, in one of his “Clean out the racists!” posts. He denounced O’Sullivan as the editor of NR when it was strongly against mass non-White immigration back in the 90s, and employed Peter Brimelow to write on the subject. O’Sullivan was also the editor when NR defended The Bell Curve and other research showing racial differences in IQ. (O’Sullivan was eventually demoted to “editor at large” by William Buckley when Buckley decided to open NR to more liberal views.) Pareene also condemned O’Sullivan as a former board member at, which published “extremist white nationalists” like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, and for the other high crimes and misdemeanors you might expect.

It’s hard to expunge white nationalist racism from respectable conservatism when some of the most respectable of conservatives dabble in white nationalist racism. John Derbyshire, accomplished as he was, was just a contributor to the National Review. John O’Sullivan is a former editor of the National Review, a current “editor-at-large,” a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a former speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, and Commander of the British Empire. He’s also on the board of directors at the foundation that publishes VDARE, the nativist site listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


O’Sullivan was demoted from editorship by National Review ouster-in-chief William F. Buckley during a 1997 purge of Peter Brimelow, a virulent anti-immigration writer (and English immigrant) O’Sullivan championed who went on to found VDARE. VDARE has published a wide variety of extremist white nationalists, like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis.

O’Sullivan is still on the masthead at the National Review, and he was published defending Derbyshire at length at NRO a few days ago.


Yes, “anti-white racism” is obviously a huge and growing threat in our corporate executive suites, as any glance at the Fortune 500 will demonstrate.

Having allowed that Derbyshire’s piece was sloppy and a bit racist, O’Sullivan goes on to defend each point anyway. Sure, Derbyshire believes that black people are innately criminal and stupid, but is that really a fireable offense? He might be right!

After half-purging O’Sullivan more than a decade ago, what possible reason is there to keep him around to embarrassingly defend his more explicitly awful colleagues? Especially while he’s working with the wackos at VDARE.

This apparently frightened O’Sullivan into making the obligatory “I’m not racist!” post on the National Review blog. Perhaps Rich “Baby Stalin” Lowry nudged him with a Bushian proposition: “You can be with us, or you can be with the racists.”

Earlier today a website reported that I was on the board of directors of, which it described as “a white nationalist website.” Here are the facts:

I told Peter Brimelow that I was resigning from the Board of V-Dare in 2007. I played no part in it thereafter. I never had any responsibility for editorial content. But I didn’t want to take even limited responsibility for the publication of ideas and arguments I might not agree with. (The current climate of Left McCarthyism shows that I was right to be cautious.)

In addition, I felt that my position on the board was inconsistent with my continued work with, and loyalty toward, National Review when the two organizations were on a collision course over important questions.

I was personally reluctant to take this step because Peter Brimelow had shown me great loyalty during an earlier period of difficulties at NR. But we discussed the matter and parted company amicably.

Peter himself has always denied that V-Dare is a white nationalist website. For the record, however, I have no sympathy with white nationalism whatsoever; indeed, among other things, I think it is silly.

It’s all rather sickening. O’Sullivan was once a staunch ally of ours, but has crumbled. I wonder if his shameful groveling will save him. (I’m guessing yes, in this instance, because he goes way back at NR.) Still, Pareene most be gloating about the power he has, and the Left clearly smells blood.

So the purge continues, at least in spirit. When I think about “liberals” vs “conservatives” now, I’m reminded of the last scene in “Animal Farm,” when the other animals look into the farmhouse and see the humans and the pigs together.

If NR keeps “eating its own” like this, there won’t be any White gentile males left there, just people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Maggie Gallagher and Jonah Goldberg. For those who grew up reading a National Review that was truly conservative, whose writers were all White males, and which had respect and admiration for the South, watching it become what it now is must be truly disgusting.
What can I add?


The Electronic Whorehouse by Paul Sheehan
Mr Sheehan was the editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and he is like a butcher with his sausages. He knows what goes into the product and it is not a particularly pretty sight. 70% of it comes from public relations outfits so the truth is immediately subordinate to the agenda. He goes through some issues that have received attention and does it very well. John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia has been accused of lying about the children of illegal immigrants being thrown overboard. The fact is that throwing them into the sea is a standard tactic. It triggers a legal obligation in the Australian navy to rescue. Boats are then sabotaged so that they cannot be sent back to Indonesia. Passports are thrown overboard too. This is destruction of evidence. The press does not say much about these things because of the agenda. He gives references to the Parliamentary Report and many other sources. It is checkable. He also goes over the ground in l'affaire  Windschuttle and gives a good account; one that will not please Marxist historians. A good read from a forceful writer.