John O’Sullivan on White Nationalism


John O’Sullivan writes:

“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.”

How embarrassing.

You can literally see O’Sullivan “having a little quake” in his pants at the thought that Gus802 and Alex Pareene are on to him!

Note: Once again, “mainstream” conservatism is nothing more than a sockpuppet of the Left. Just as there is no real wrestling in professional wrestling, there is no real “conservatism” in “mainstream” conservatism. In order to be a “mainstream” conservative working in a Manhattan office, you are required by definition to embrace liberalism and reject conservatism.

A “conservative” is someone who is motivated by a sense of honor. The “mainstream” conservatives are completely and utterly devoid of traditional conservative virtues like loyalty, integrity, and duty. A “mainstream” conservative has no integrity, no duty to anything other than preservation of his own career, and no loyalty to his friends and is perfectly willing to denounce them in public when called before a tribunal of liberal eunuchs.

O’Sullivan says that he was “right to be cautious” (beware of Alex Pareene!) in light of the current climate of “Left McCarthyism” which is a product of their own cowardice.

Isn’t this a confession that the Left determines (1) what a “mainstream” conservative is allowed to believe and (2) with who a “mainstream” conservative is allowed to associate?

Isn’t that saying the whole “mainstream” racket is rigged? Isn’t that like saying it is consciously designed to fail because the Left is the boss man?

When you are getting pushed around by the likes of Alex Pareene, you should become a laughingstock in the eyes of your own audience. It is time to throw in the towel because you have already lost.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. “But I didn’t want to take even limited responsibility for the publication of ideas and arguments I might not agree with. ”

    Yes, God forbid a Conservative ever risk being associated with other Conservatives who might espouse ideas he might not agree with. Why does this precaution never prevent them from associating with leftward “conservative” groups that invariably espouse ideas they do not agree with? Oh yeah, because they are spineless.

  2. Annie I knew it had to be a Nig!!!

    I just friggen knew it! I searched high and low for description of the perp, and all I could find was a clothing description, nothing on physical appearance, so I knew it had to be black.

  3. All this reminds me of the odd spectacle during Stalin’s show trials.

    Western culture is totally dominated by the Left. People live in fear of being professionally and personally ruined and the Left gloats, there’s little hand-wringing regarding free speech now. I guess McCarthyism is quite alright after all as long as the Left is holding the stick!

  4. Cut and past from the article Jim:

    “Witnesses reported hearing as many as seven gunshots outside the clinic, shortly after 2pm local time on Tuesday. The shooting suspect is described as a “thin, gold-haired black woman, apparently in her late 20s or early 30s,” Norris said. They also said the Lexus was sky blue or light green.”

  5. I went out with the Hubster tonight. Ran into a local couple, at a local joint. The hubster in this couple is as big a loudmouth as I am. This guy knows I’m a racialist. He kinds plays it up a bit – I don’t know how sincere he is. His wife and my Hubster are small town folks, very sweet White people. But we have both spent serious time in Big Cities. We were regaling each other with Tales’ O Trayvon. He said he was hosting a party of “sportsmen” from the Biggest Big City on the East Coast – that would be Jew York City – a few weeks ago. He said the folks leave JYC to get away from JYC, on weekends. He told me that they were all technically “liberals” for porfessional reasons – but they are all on the same page. They all there is going to be a Race War. They are all waiting….every-one’s waiting….

    Who knows? I don’t know if he was telling me the truth. But, in an odd way – I have no reason to doubt him. What’s the point of the hypocrisy? I thnk the veneer is very weak, and chipping off. Creatures like O’Sullivan don’t mean a bloody word of the Party Loyalty Oaths”. Not a syllable.

    Why do they bother? Whe nthey get this….sweaty….and grovelling….it’s almost over.

    I saw that story, Annie. So sad. So awful. O’ Sullivan, and those freaks Lowry and Pareene have that mother’s blood on their hands.

  6. National Review has been in the news so much lately I think it’s high time to re-link Joe Sobran’s classic essay How I was Fired By Bill Buckley.

    Sobran’s essay provides valuable information on many important issues that are timely right now: 1) it shows how Jews (aka neocons) on the “right” work to silence critics and control discourse, 2) it shows the craven, treacherous, morally corrupt and cowardly behavior of White Gentiles like John O’Sullivan who serve them, and 3) it provides insight into the destruction of one Gentile’s mind by Jewish influence.

    The essay is filled with one gem after another.


    Bill and I had been good friends for most of the 21 years I’d worked for him. But the friendship was strained in 1986, when he took the side of my attackers in a row over Israel. When Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter accused me of “anti-Semitism,” Bill wrote a weird public disavowal of my columns on Israel, saying in effect that I wasn’t anti-Semitic, but deserved to be called anti-Semitic. What made it so bad was that I knew he didn’t even believe what he was saying. It was a failure of nerve. That was clear even from the disavowal itself, which included a sweaty digression on Jewish retaliatory power.

    Earlier that year, he’d taken me to dinner to warn me of the dangers of being “perceived,” as they say, as an anti-Semite. His book makes it sound like a long campaign to set me straight, but it wasn’t like that at all. Bill didn’t suggest I’d done anything wrong or that he disagreed with anything I’d written. But Norman Podhoretz was mad at me. That was enough. Later that evening when I told Bill about some Irish Catholic fans of mine who told me they prayed for me, he sneered, “You don’t need those people.” Bill denies having said this (I was fired for quoting it), but he said it, all right. In itself it would be a small thing, but it describes his own policy: ignore the Catholics, cultivate the powerful.

    I think it tells you something about Bill’s real attitude toward Jews that he thinks the way to propitiate them is by offering up a member of your own family — Isaac sacrificing Abraham, so to speak. Actually, it smacks of the Soviet era, when children were urged to inform on their parents; nothing was private. Bill’s own attitude reminds me of the way Stalin was regarded: public fawning, private dread.

    Bill himself used to be accused of anti-Semitism and even Nazism, which ought to have taught him something about loose charges. But he learned the wrong lesson: he learned that the best way to be safe from them is to make them yourself.

  7. Yes, most men have their price. For Judas it was thirty pieces. For Buckley it was his prestige.

    Those who can’t be bought get something else. They crucified Jesus.

  8. By the time I first learned of National Review, David Frum was writing his “Unpatriotic Conservatives” article at the height of the patriotard Iraq War mania. I believe I heard of National Review through Lew

  9. This “scoop” on National Review was already well detailed around 1960 by Revilo Oliver and Willmoore Kendall. Oliver tells it again in his book, “America’s Decline.” Kendall was the man who brought Buckley on the scene. Apparently Buckley was a hotshot conservative debater at Yale. Kendall was a professor there and mentor to him. Buckley’s dad was a very wealthy hardcore anti-semite. There wasn’t any “intellectual” conservative publications worth a damn at the time, and Kendall had perceived that what was going on in America already was primarily caused by the flood of liberal intellectual magazines and journals. Kendall thought that needed remedied and that a good counter attacking intellectual conservative magazine was needed. A new magazine always takes a couple of years to make money and looses its ass at first. They knew this. Buckley’s dad could well afford to take the temporary hit until the magazine took off. So wallaw! National Review was conceived and made it’s debut. Kendall couldn’t find a high powered intellectual professor with the ass to go public and write about reality. Him and Oliver were friends. Kendall told Oliver he couldn’t find anyone to step up to the plate. Oliver said he had found one now, he was the man for the job. For about two years it lasted and was hard hitting. Then Buckley got the itch to be in the “black tie” crowd and sold out and turned traitor. Kendall and Oliver quit and told everyone National Review had become “just another Liberal rag.”

    The rest you know.

    Except probably for this little tid bit that Oliver told and actually tells you all you need to know to have estimated the integrity of Buckley. Right when the magazine was getting ready to start, some Jewish “conservatives” who were editing and running another Right Wing publication approached Buckley and offered to torpedo the other publication and send out mail to tell the subscribers to sign up with National Review instead. In other words, they were going to fuck over the people who were putting out that publication and steal all their subscribers for Buckley. Buckley took them up on the offer. But in never came to pass! The owners of the other publication managed to beat them, weather the financial storm and attempted sabotage, regained momentum and stayed in business for many years.

    Like I said, this latest shenanigan is no newsflash about mainstream “conservatives.” There is no reason, no reason at all, for everybody to not have known for decades about how they are.

    He has been dead for 18 years now, but he is still speaking to us from the grave through his damn extensive writing and has plenty to tell to plenty of people. Oliver was the best. You didn’t see him run. OR LOOSE HIS JOB! He was too good an academic and they couldn’t lay a glove on him. He made full professor in just a couple of years, an extraordinary feat, and his philology, literature and historical publications take up several pages of fine print. He made mince meat out of Arnold Toynbee in about 1962 and could criticize and correct even Spengler. BTW, Buckley liked him and bragged about knowing such a man. He was still actually talking and writing about him in his books as late as the late 80s. Oliver was amused by this.

  10. The ‘eunuchs’ are being exposed and cut from the ranks. This is a good thing. What’s left will be more hard-core.

    He could have made a statement clarifying the difference between ‘White nationalism’ (which I see as an oxymoron since races are not nations, they are broad biological categories) and what he believes without bending over backwards and looking like a wimp. He could also have blasted the enemy rather than sounding so pathetic.

  11. Wow—- Child Protective Services is “hanging onto the child” a bit longer. They have not yet returned the 3 day year old child to its real (biological) father.

    And no one mentions that at all.

  12. Dixie, thats they’re way of saying they’re investigating the bio father. They don’t give a damn about families, especially fathers.

Comments are closed.