Tag: media

People of no particular religion do NOT control the media

And if you suggest they do, they will terminate your career in the media.

Sunday Times Ireland columnist Kevin Myers will not write again for the paper, a spokesman said. The newspaper said it abhorred anti-Semitism after Mr Myers noted that two of the best-paid female presenters at the BBC, Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz, were Jewish in an article on the corporation’s gender pay gap. Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens has apologised personally to the two women for these ‘unacceptable comments both to Jewish people and to women in the workplace’.

Let me see if I understand this. Disparate impact is a terrible injustice and is not only policed by various government agencies, but requires financial redress to underrepresented minorities and special rules to ensure their advancement when whites are statistically overrepresented, but to even notice disparate impact is anti-Semitism and cause for immediate termination when people of a particular religion that shall not be mentioned are observed to be statistically overrepresented.

After all, of the 65,640,000 people in the UK, 269,568 of them are people whose religion shall not be mentioned at all, so doesn’t it only make sense that two of them would be the two highest paid women in British broadcasting? I mean, the odds against that happening are only 0.0041 squared, or if you prefer, a one in 59,488 chance.

That’s perfectly reasonable, right? Why on Earth would that strike anyone as unusual?

Thank goodness the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was there to demand that Mr. Myers should “no longer work as a journalist at any decent publication”!

It is clear that the column breached clauses 12(i) and 12(ii) of the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code by making discriminatory comments about Jews and also mentioning the religion of the Jewish BBC presenters at all. We have called on the Independent Press Standards Organisation to require the Sunday Times to prominently print apologies in the next edition; investigate the editorial process that allowed this column to be printed in the first place; and recommend that Kevin Myers no longer be employed by any newspaper as a columnist or journalist.


Frankly, I don’t think that mere permanent disemployment and expulsion from the industry is going far enough, as justice obviously demands that Mr. Myers be run over with a bulldozer before his family home is demolished. Also, the entire editorial staff of the Sunday Times should be fired and replaced by people of no particular religion that shall be mentioned at all.

Don’t talk to the media II

Like many of us, Le Chateau has seen an increase in the amount of media requests of late, and is wondering if he should reconsider his policy:

I’ve been receiving an increasing frequency of emails from gaystream media whores soliciting this blog’s lordship for a roll in the clickbait hay. All of them, to date, have requested absolute privacy (the irony), so I won’t divulge details on threat of (((legal))) recriminations, but I can offer a general impression of what they’re asking. For instance, one media whore speaking on behalf of a well-known whoresite is part of a team putting together a piece of agitprop art on the manosphere and wanted CH’s scintillating contribution to the effort.

I’ve wondered for a few months how best to respond to these inquiries. So far, the CH policy has been to ignore and plow. No j/k, it’s been to ignore. Period. I never respond, partly because, what’s the use? I won’t persuade a shriek of shitlibs to accept in their hearts the Rude Word of the Chateau, and I certainly can’t expect to be treated fairly by these toads. More practically, I am very careful to guard my shadowy dimensions, and there is a risk, however muted through multiple proxies and TOR nodes, that a reply by me would be scoured for identifying info by a black ops team at Fusion GPS (stands for Grabbing Pussy Systems).

But the inquiries are getting more insistent and coming from bigger and bigger names. So I’m reconsidering my standard policy of ignoring them; perhaps for an upgrade to a “lol suck a dik” response? I have toyed with the idea of a conditional reply. That is, I set the ground rules and they swear by them in writing before I offer any penetrating insights of my tumescent wisdom.

Short answer: no. He should continue to reject ALL media requests.

Now, isn’t that hypocritical advice, considering that I just spent three hours having lunch with a reporter from Rolling Stone and other mainstream media institutions?

Well, to put it into perspective, that is the first request I have accepted in the last 50+ requests I have received. Furthermore, I have not spoken – in the sense of actually speaking via TV, radio, or telephone – to a single mainstream media reporter since I made the mistake of speaking to Amy Wallace of Wired back in 2015.

In other words, you can see it as hypocrisy or you can see it as a rare exception to the rule. I leave it to you to decide which scenario is more applicable.

As for the interview yesterday, I agreed to it after reading the reporter’s various articles and seeing that she was a smart and perceptive writer who was clearly more interested in getting to know the subject and presenting a compelling in-depth story than writing generic hit pieces upholding the current narrative. Not only that, but she was clearly willing to go to far greater lengths, and put in a lot more time and effort into a piece, than was necessary for anyone simply bolstering a preconceived narrative, even when the subject was someone for whom it was very difficult to have any sympathy.

Now, obviously we’ll see whether my decision was a foolish one or not when the story eventually runs in a few months, but there were no gotcha questions asked, and it was interesting to learn, in the course of the interview, that she correctly observed something about Castalia House’s protagonists that neither I nor anyone else had picked up upon before.

When “bestseller” lists don’t list bestsellers

The impossibility of social justice convergence in action:

The influential German news magazine Der Spiegel has deleted from its bestseller list a book that one of its own editors had pushed up the rankings, after it was found to be “antisemitic and historically revisionist”.

Finis Germania, or The End of Germany, collects the thoughts of the late historian Rolf Peter Sieferle on the position of Germany, including how it deals with the Holocaust. The book is currently at the top of Amazon.de’s bestseller chart and this month it entered Der Spiegel’s bestseller list, which many bookshops use as a basis for promotional displays, in sixth place.

Finis Germania is missing from the list in this week’s issue of the magazine. Many bookshops have followed suit and are not displaying the title.

Susanne Beyer, Der Spiegel’s deputy editor, said Finis Germania had been omitted because the magazine considered the book – posthumously published by a small house, Antaios, known for its far-right leanings – to be “rightwing extremist, antisemitic and historically revisionist”.

Since Der Spiegel understood itself as “a medium of enlightenment even on historical subjects”, Beyer continued, the magazine had decided not to help advance the sales of such a book.

Social justice prevents every institution and organization from fulfilling its primary purpose. In this case, Der Spiegel now has a “bestseller list” that comprises a list of books that are not bestsellers. This is why Castalia House will become a dominant publisher without anyone who is dependent upon the mainstream media ever even realizing it.

Diasporans, cucks, and free speech

This is a bit disjointed, but that is an unavoidable consequence of the second article’s lurching from one topic to another. First, demographics has its consequences: the inevitable divide between increasingly religious right-wing Israelis and increasingly secular left-wing Diasporans in the US is growing, if Haaretz is to be believed.

The basis for Netanyahu’s diplomatic activism is his assessment that America is growing weaker and gradually withdrawing from the Middle East. The visit to Haifa Port by the aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush, the first such visit since the beginning of the second intifada, doesn’t change the overall trend.

Oil is cheaper, and America no longer depends on the Middle East for its supply. Public opinion is isolationist, opposed to wars far from home. America’s internal rifts are deep and getting wider, and Netanyahu has taken the conservative side without even a pretense of bipartisanism. Perhaps bipartisan support is no longer even possible when Americans are so divided over everything. It’s better to have the Republicans’ support, since their control of Congress seems unassailable.

Netanyahu sees the Christian community as Israel’s most important bastion of support in America, alongside Orthodox Jews. His recent decisions against the Reform and Conservative movements – canceling the Western Wall deal and advancing the conversion bill – reflect a strategic disengagement from liberal American Jews.

This wasn’t a caprice caused by momentary pressure from Israel’s ultra-Orthodox parties, but a calculated decision that won almost wall-to-wall support in the cabinet. Netanyahu’s circle sees liberal Jewry as a transient phenomenon that will disappear on its own in another generation due to intermarriage and disinterest in Jewish tradition or Israel.

For years, liberal Jews have threatened to break with Israel if it continues discriminating against their denominations, and some have also vocally opposed the unending occupation of the territories. They didn’t expect a right-wing Israeli government to break with them first.

Whether the divide is real or not – and it probably is, many liberal Diasporans hate Netanyahu as much as they hate Trump – Netanyahu would be well-advised to rein in AIPAC and encourage the Israel Firsters in the U.S. Senate and Congress to abandon the proposed anti-American law S. 720, presently co-sponsored by 43 U.S. Senators of both parties, and supported by 234 Representatives. It is a tone-deaf action that is absolutely guaranteed to backfire on Israel… unless Netanyahu is playing a deep game and intends to make life in the USA less comfortable for the diaspora.

Amazingly, even the pro-Israel cucks at National Review understand that the proposed law is a terrible idea, and to their credit, have come out against it. Of course, they couldn’t help but try to take the opportunity to tangent into taking shots at the pro-free speech Alt-Lite in the meantime.

Sometimes in the course of our political life, someone proposes something so mind-bogglingly stupid that it’s hard to know exactly what to say about it. Senate Bill 720 is one of those things. Over the past few years, a small but prominent movement has cropped up, using the age-old tactic of boycott to protest what it sees as Israel’s unjust occupation of territories that are assumed to belong rightfully to the Palestinians. Called “BDS” (boycott, divest, sanction) after the strategy it employs against the state of Israel and goods produced therein, it has acquired a certain notoriety on college campuses, not least for its uncomfortable associations with veritable anti-Semites.

Israel’s supporters in the Senate, justifiably seeing this as a problem, have come up with an innovative solution: Make participation in BDS or other boycotts of Israel a felony, punishable by enormous fines and up to two decades in prison. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act enjoys remarkable bipartisan support: It’s not often you can get Ted Cruz and Ben Sasse to sign onto a measure alongside Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. Its proponents number 43 in the Senate and 234 in the House….

And, yes, when it comes to Mike Cernovich and Milo Yiannopoulos or Tomi Lahren, that’s more or less correct; they really are distasteful hypocrites who care not one bit about free speech and who use the principle instead to advance their particular cause. They are of the new breed of conservatism that views its primary goal as melting special snowflakes and doesn’t give much of a damn about anything beyond that. But we knew that already; we’ve always known they’re unprincipled actors seeking only to aggrandize themselves.

Their silence on Lisa Durden tells us nothing new or interesting about their character. Their place in the intellectual debate over free speech is marginal in any case, and what really matters is not what they think but what the more rational, principled minds of the Right and center say.

I tend to suspect their “silence on Lisa Durden” is because a) what is an Essex College? and b) who is Tyler Lisa Durden? There are massive violations of free speech every single day; most of us are far more concerned about Patreon shutting down Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone for their defense of Europe than we are about some employee of a minor college that no one has ever heard of being held accountable by her employer. Why aren’t these more rational, principled minds of the right and center speaking out against Patreon? I guess they must be distasteful hypocrites who care not one bit about free speech….

And it is downright bizarre to see National Review – NATIONAL REVIEW – questioning the principles of others who actually fight the Left when their only observed principles involve a) gracefully going down to noble defeat and b) not overly upsetting the editorial page of the New York Times. But to return to the point, if you’ve lost the cucks, you’ve lost everyone.

The Alt-Right is inevitable, even in Israel, as it is in every nation that wishes to survive the 21st century.

DO talk to the media?

Although I initially turned it down, after consulting with Mike Cernovich, I decided to accept a request from a Rolling Stone reporter to do an interview concerning “a profile of Castalia House—particularly its success in sci fi and fantasy.”

Why do this after repeatedly instructing people to not talk to the media? Isn’t it hypocritical? Allow me to explain.

First, there is a massive difference between being used as filler to support an existing narrative and simply marketing one’s products. I have turned down dozens of interview requests this year. I expect to turn down even more over the second part of the year. If this reporter tries to pull a bait-and-switch like other reporters, such as David Pakman and Amy Wallace, have done before, I’m simply not going to answer those questions. I am there to talk about Castalia House, its books, and its authors. I’m not there to discuss the Alt-Right position on immigration.

(That being said, I still enjoy this quote from Wallace’s piece: “Having a conversation with Day feels sort of like walking around a room designed by M. C. Escher.” If nothing else, that should suffice to explain the concept of the 2SD communications gap.)

Second, as the Lead Editor of Castalia House, I have a professional responsibility to talk to the media about our books, and given the 100-percent year-on-year growth we have averaged for three years, it’s not surprising that the media has begun to become aware of our existence. I am not personally interested in talking to the media or becoming a public figure, nor, as an editor, is that a likely consequence. It is the books that are the compelling subject, not me or my political, religious, or sporting beliefs.

Third, the most interesting narratives about Castalia House do not involve the fact that one of its editors are Alt-Right. We have world-class authors from across the political spectrum publishing with us, from Steve Keen and Martin van Creveld on the Left to Vox Day and Tara McCarthy on the Right. We have first-rate scientists, such as Dr. Sarah Salviander and Dr. Christopher Hallpike. We have authors from around the world publishing with us, everywhere from Israel and Japan and Singapore to the UK, France, and the USA.

Fourth, as Mike pointed out, Rolling Stone is one of the few media institutions that is sufficiently important to our potential readers to justify spending the time. Few media institutions are interested in books, after all.

And fifth, even if it is a hit piece, what are they going to say? That our books suck? That’s laughable, as even a cursory glance at the Amazon reviews will suffice to show. That they’re all Nazi Nazi tomes written by Nazis? That’s absurd on its face. Charles Stross alone publishes more about Nazis than all the Castalia House authors combined. That we’re a sophisticated institution of unmitigated right-wing evil run by highly intelligent individuals who are actively engaged in the literary cultural wars?

You know, I tend to think we can live with that, said the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil.

A conversation with the ADL

I had an interesting conversation with Mr. Marvin Nathan of the Anti-Defamation League this morning. He was genuinely curious about my connection with the Alt-Right, and I explained to him that while I am certainly of the Alt-Right, it is a much broader political philosophy than the mainstream media has generally attempted to portray it, and that the narrative being pushed by his organization’s “hit list” of 36 Alt-Right and Alt Lite individuals was not merely a false narrative, but one that was very easily proven to be false.

I explained that I wanted a public retraction for both me and the others falsely accused, and that while I take no personal offense at their overheated rhetoric, I saw no benefit to the ADL of engaging in rhetorical conflict with all of the falsely accused individuals. On his part, he agreed to take a detailed look into the matter, which at this point is really all that one can ask of an executive who was quite clearly not involved in the writing and publication of the article in question.

I don’t know if Mr. Nathan will rectify matters or not, but as it is often noted, I am a kind and patient man who believes it is always best to give diplomacy a chance. (I can hear the VFM howling “NOOOOOO” even as I type this.) And if, for whatever reason, the ADL elects to double down on its false narrative instead of retracting it, well, we can always bring the noise at our leisure.

His skin was wrong

His skin was wrong
But his heart was strong
He fought for social justice.


And now he’s gone
His account withdrawn
Saint Godfrey, pray for us!

And yes, although our hearts are heavy, we’re still fighting the Daily Meme Wars with courage and resolve. Join our crusade. Saint Godfrey would have wanted it that way. And he is with us, always.


UPDATE: Amazingly, Saint Godfrey is already performing miracles.

theanniechrist‏ @theanniechrist
I walked on the beach with Godfrey. When I looked behind us, there was only 1 set of footprints ?

Adieu, sweet prince

The bravest and most noble of us all, Godfrey Elfwick, is fallen.

Sir Godfrey had the effrontery to take on one of the BBC’s overpaid luvvies, thereby offending the Trust & Safety Council, which exists primarily to protect celebrities on Twitter. This was the tweet that sealed his fate.

When the narrative fails

Following the strategy that the New York Times and other mainstream media publications have utilized with me, NPR buries its interview with Milo:

Former Breitbart Senior Editor MILO flew to New York specifically to take part in an extensive interview with NPR about his bestselling book, DANGEROUS. During the July 10 interview, which MILO has provided exclusive footage of, the host stated that the interview would be going live the next day. MILO was then reportedly contacted by an NPR producer that clarified that the interview would be published the following week.

When the interview was still not published, leading MILO to question why it had not gone live, he was reportedly informed that a short version of the interview would be published “sometime in August.”

When asked for comment, MILO said, “It’s perfectly obvious from the constantly shifting deadline from NPR producers and the line of questioning from the host that they were expecting a low-rent troll — someone who would assure the broadcaster’s ossified audience that anyone sympathetic to the President must be a redneck or an idiot.”

“What they got was me: an articulate, New York Times bestselling author in complete command of his material,” he noted. “If America were finally to hear a provocative, intelligent, fabulous but eminently reasonable gay free speech crusader who leans to the Right — yes, I’m still talking about myself — it would be devastating to the Left’s speech codes and dedication to political correctness and identity politics. So NPR did the only thing they could in the circumstances to protect the narrative: they nixed the interview.”

You can hear the interview here.