Posted on January 1st 2004
Alex Linder Interview 'One Sheaf, One Vine'
By Alex Linder
13 NEWS WITHOUT JEWSAlex Linder is thirty-five and has lived the past few years in Missouri after a decade in Washington, D. C. He operates an online white racialist news service called Vanguard News Network. His manner is energetic and direct.
I have a factual bias, you might say. I dislike anything or anybody that claims reality is one way when it's not. I don't like anything or anybody that gets between people and what is really going on. I consider myself a true conservative. True conservatism has to do with facts and limits. My mother's family are Christian Scientists and I was raised in that religion. Christian Science claims that disease is a product of bad thoughts. I don't believe that myself. I never did believe it. If you apply conservative principles, that's a
ridiculous claim. Just like the idea that Jesus walked on water. I am a white racist because racism is simply factual reality. And by the way, "racist' and "racialist" are interchangeable terms to me. Really, I don't label myself- "I'm a white nationalist," "I'm a pan-Aryan," whatever. Labeling is for the other guy. I don't worry about labeling. I just call myself white and know that I want to live in a white neighborhood, that's it.
I was born in Madison, Wisconsin and lived there until the fourth grade. I then lived in California, Illinois, and finally Utah, where I graduated from high school in 1984. My father is of German background and my mother's side of the family is English and Swiss.
We weren't rich, but thanks to my parents' hard work I enjoyed a comfortable, stable, middle-class childhood. My parents' stability and love for each other and me and my siblings showed me how a solid white family and society can work.
I didn't really grow up around blacks much at all. I went to suburban schools and was taught the same b.s. that everybody else is about race not existing and the rest of it. I basically swallowed the individualist bias they were pumping at me that we had to be color-blind. I do recall one incident that suggested to me that blacks are not like whites. I was about eight or nine. My family went to Magic Mountain down in L.A. It's an amusement park with big roller coaster rides. We were in line waiting to go on a gondola that went back and forth and two black teenage couples cut in front of us. My father isn't a shrinking violent and so when we got up to the front of the line, he said to the guy running the gondola, "These people cut in line. We were here before they were."
At that point, those fucking little niggers starting cursing and bitching and complaining. I remember one of the black girls saying, "I hope you fall off halfway across!" I was totally taken aback. I remember thinking, "These people are not like us.
There is a fundamental difference." It is like the scene in [the novel] The Turner Diaries where the niggers are pissing in the river. Jefferson said that the two races equally free can't live together under the same government and he was right. We are just different breeds of animals.
Growing up, I read a bunch of Mencken [iconoclastic journalist prominent in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s, H.L. Mencken], and his stuff seemed perfectly attuned to the way I think and what I find amusing and worthwhile. I decided that I wanted to spend my life creating the kind of joy you get when you read good Mencken or O'Rourke [contemporary political and cultural satirist, P.J. O'Rourke] or [Mark] Twain.
I went to Pomona [College], which is pretty good liberal arts school in Claremont, California. Generally, fairly well off liberal people go there. Since I had decided I was going to become a writer, I wrote for the school paper. I was co-opinions editor. I wrote some editorials and they started getting pissed at me. One was about AIDS. There had been a Newsweek cover with snapshots of about a hundred people who died of AIDS on it. Of course, it was "Semitically correct." Note that I used [syndicated columnist Joseph]
Sobran's term, Semitically correct, not politically correct, so the accent is on the Jews, who have set up the terms of the system.
Anyway, I pointed out in my AIDS article that these Newsweek guys were totally misrepresenting reality. They showed six-year-old kids and ninety-five-year-old grandmothers instead of a bunch of loose-assed, disgusting fags who slept with thousands of people apiece and already had forty or fifty venereal diseases before they got AIDS. Newsweek was just Jews lying about reality and I hate people who lie about reality. The difference between me and other conservatives, though, is that it wasn't enough for me to point out what they were doing in a boring footnote style, what I call remonstrating. I made it kind of funny and pointed and barbed. I also wrote a column called "Of (f) Color," just making fun of the term "of color." They used to be colored, then they were Negroes, then they were blacks, then African Americans, and now they are people of color. I mean, "ain't social change grand." Another article I wrote was after a speech on campus by [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel. I said that the best way to "never again" was for Jews to stop whining all the time.
Well, they got all mad. The college administrators denounced me and all the deans and everybody. They all signed a statement saying, "Mr. Linder is an example of how far we have to go." Then they started fighting among themselves. The faggots starting writing in, "The administration didn't say a thing when Mr. Linder was criticizing the homosexual community, but the minute he touches blacks, they just go nuts!" They held a couple of college senate meetings to decide whether to kick me out of school, although
that finally died down.
My editor was a Jewish feminist and my co-opinions editor was a Kennedy-esque liberal. They did a number of intrigues behind my back and sprung stuff on me. The co-opinions editor was promoted to senior co-opinions editor over me and got to make all the decisions. They let a mulatto friend of a girl I knew write in my space. I was pretty much shut out of writing for the college paper even though my articles had drawn more student response than anything in its history.
I just shook my head and laughed at how intolerant and really hateful and vicious all these people were. When I was co-opinions editor, I had never in any way tried to suppress anyone who wrote for me. In fact, I had more liberals than conservatives writing for me. My attitude was, let everyone speak and let the reader sort out what's best. I came to see the left as completely anti-democratic.
They absolutely hate freedom of speech. They want to win and they don't care by what means they win. They will do anything to you.
If you aren't prepared to fight on those terms, you might as well give it up. One thing that stayed with me was how when all this hubbub was going on, a lot of people came up to me on the side and said, "Thanks, man, for saying what you did and standing up." I realized if you display a fighting spirit or courage, people will come to you.
What really struck me in college is that there is no institutional support at all for anybody who is white, traditional, and conservative. It is rigged to help anybody who is liberal or a minority, and particularly anyone who is Jewish. There is resistance to anyone who is on the right. The place is completely geared to furthering what is basically the Jewish agenda, which is ninety percent of liberalism. Everything is geared in that direction-- ”the courses, the books used in the courses, the faculty picked to teach, all of it.
The Jews have [the campus organization] Hillel, and they get funding to put out their little newsletters. For the right, there is nothing. I have unlimited contempt for the people who administer colleges. They are very weak and unprincipled people. I consider them worse than Mexicans, the absolute lowest. I despise Mexicans. They are an off-brand people.
Stupid conservative parents send their kids to these schools. All they see is Stanford or whatever, and that is what they buy. They don't look at what kind of books the students actually read there and what is actually taught. These parents pay these people $20,000 or $30,000 a year to indoctrinate their children. They just trust, and they put their faith in the wrong thing. I majored in international relations. Basically, I read a bunch of Institute for Policy Studies stuff from the communist [Richard] Barnett. I've probably read every book he has ever written. I heard crap about Vietnam I didn't believe.
I was ready to drop out when I was a sophomore. I figured I would never spend my own money on this, so why was I wasting my parents' money? But I was playing on the baseball team and got into writing for the paper and I enjoyed that, and I had a lot of friends there, so I stayed. Conservative parents are just propping up a system that has disdain for them. They figure I'm getting my son a degree from wherever. They think they are buying a name, but in most cases they aren't. Unless it's Harvard or Yale, I don't think that the name is worth much. Being a Pomona graduate hasn't gotten me shit. College was fun, but if I had children I would never spend that kind of money on it. It's just not worth it. It's four years of your life at a time when you are at your strongest physically. Is that really what you want to buy with all that money? There might be a case for it if you are in the hard sciences, which are harder to corrupt, but for anything in the liberal arts, I think there are better alternatives.
You could find someone who is the best at what you want to do and copy off them, or go directly to them and try to get them to teach you. And now with the Internet, you can figure out what is going on and teach yourself. That's what I would say at thirty-five. Just before I graduated from Pomona, perusing the stacks at the library I discovered the American Spectator magazine and loved it. I thought, "This is funny, like Mencken's stuff was!" In one of the issues, there was an ad for an intern, so I applied, and they
actually gave me the position. I was absolutely thrilled. "Boy, it is going to be fantastic to work for the Spectator," I thought to myself.
"It is somewhat satirical, more than the National Review is, and it's got great writers. Whatever I wanted to do in college, mocking and all that, I am going to be able to do at the Spectator. I am going to carry on the Mencken tradition. I'm going to criticize everybody, take on the world. I'm going to be free!"
So I worked at the Spectator and I did enjoy it. It was mutually good for me and for them. They said I did a great job. But after the internship ran out, there was only one editorial position open and they gave it to someone else. The guy they gave it to was very qualified, though.
The founder and editor-in-chief of the Spectator is R. Emmett Tyrrell. I literally trembled when he walked in the room because I had so much respect for him. One day, I showed him my "Of (f) Color" article. I'll never forget this because it was a turning point in my life. He read it over and got a long face and said, "Well, we are very careful about this sort of thing." Now, I make a distinction between people being little and being big. Mencken, with his accomplishments, deserves the title of big. Tyrrell pulled up short where Mencken would never have pulled up short. I thought to myself, "He's little, and I'm going to do whatever I can to be big, because I'm not afraid of whatever he's afraid of." Tyrrell is a really good guy, but that is the judgment I made about him when I was twenty-two years old.
After leaving the Spectator, I went on to the National Journalism Center, a journalist training school in D.C. After that, I worked for [conservative syndicated columnists] Evans and Novak doing research for them. I saw that there was no way I was going to be able to get paid to write anything approaching the truth about Jews or coloreds in the professional conservative industry. So I went to work at Phillips Publishing. They do newsletters for companies, that sort of thing, desktop publishing. I saw it as uninspiring but honorable work.
After three years with Phillips, I started my own company doing the same thing. I was successful and it was profitable financially, but I was bored as hell writing about computers and health care. I just had to do it my own way and see what happens. So I quit what I was doing, broke up with my girlfriend, and, after a decade in the D.C. area, went back to the Midwest. In 2000, a partner and I started Vanguard News Network, and that's what I am doing now, and it's been great.
I became fully racist by living in D.C., which is, except for maybe Detroit, the blackest city in America. I saw that if you are going to embrace color-blind individualism the way the Jews that control both the liberals and the conservatives say you should, it is white genocide. Whites cannot live around people like this, period. What you'll eventually get is South Africa or Zimbabwe, where whites are completely destroyed as a race. Marion Berry, the mayor of Washington when I was there, was busted for crack, and he is the kind of person blacks elect over and over when they are left alone to vote. There is something general going on with these people. It's not individual at all. I came to realize that if you stick to individualism and you refuse to generalize, it's going to kill your race.
During this time, I read a book by John Murray Cuddihy called The Ordeal of Civility, and it blew my mind probably more than anything I'd read in my whole life. It's very hard to find that book now because the Jews have suppressed it. The Cuddihy book tracks the hostility of the Jewish intellectual giants, Freud, Marx, and Levi Strauss. It shows the hate for the white race that underlies their supposedly objective theories. Marx, for example, says, well, yes, the Jew may look like a scheming, dirty, nasty little creature, but that is just a class thing. Once we go through these revolutions all that will disappear. And Freud says that if a white person is reserved, dignified, private, and classy, he's repressed. You're the sick ones, not us. And so on. These theories are aimed at destroying us. The Cuddihy book tied together a thousand little things I had
noticed about Jews and set them into a pattern.
Kevin MacDonald's books are good, too. I especially recommend his book, The Culture of Critique. There is not a better book to read if you want to understand how America got to be the way it is and, closer to home, why your son is a wigger and your daughter is a lesbian and your neighbors are Mexicans and Filipinos. The neoconservatives will criticize the Frankfurt school, but they will always refer to them as German or European, never as Jews. The Cuddihy and MacDonald books are the kind of stuff you should be taught in college, but you never are because you are paying money to exactly the same people who are promoting these race-killing theories.
I knew coming out of college that the left lies about everything. Everything they say is factually untrue. Equality of racial intelligence, whatever it is, they are lying about it. My problem was I made the illogical leap to conclude that if the left is lying about everything, the right must be telling the truth. And a lot of what the right says is the truth, but not everything, that's the big point.
Conservatives don't tell the truth if it conflicts with the Jewish agenda, simple as that. "Race doesn't exist" and extreme egalitarianism” the Jews have been pushing that dogma for a hundred years and will cut anybody out of the loop who disagrees with it. The Jews are big liars, and one of their biggest lies is about what America was founded to be. They put out there that the United States was founded as a place that is purely about some ideas, democracy and equality, and where race and history and the background of people don't matter. That's just garbage, the big lie. It is not good for Jews that whites know their roots and their own true history. It's good for Jews if whites think, "Oh, anybody can become an American and we ought to have open borders."
You may think, "But [black intellectual] Thomas Sowell never did anything wrong. He's screwed if you adopt racism." And that is true. But unlike the conservatives, I admit the cost of my position- it screws some blacks. But the conservatives never admit the huge cost of their position. Whole countries get screwed. Like, to name three, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and, in another fifty years, the United States. Conservatives never admit that failing to treat blacks as a general group is the way to the cultural and racial death of white people. Conservatives won't tell you that because they make too much money off of what they are telling you. Or they're like [pro football player and Vice Presidential candidate] Jack Kemp. America has to die because Jack Kemp showered with some black men. Some black guy soaped Jack's back and I'm supposed to ignore a million black-on-white crimes every year. Sure, I'll do that, Jack, just for you.
What I came to see, and this is the big story here, is that conservatives are a fake opposition. They are fake in the sense that they won't take on the most vital questions confronting us: race and Jews. That's the fault line right there and they won't cross it. If something touches on the truth about race or is critical of Jews, they won't go near it. I guess I was naïve, but I figured that something that is obviously true would make people on the right stand up for it. Well, it's not like that. As Sobran pointed out in his pamphlet How I Was Fired by Bill Buckley, it is all just a game to conservatives, just a way to make a living. But it's not like that to me. It's blood, complete blood. If you're a writer and you're pulling your punches, if you are writing things you know aren't true, if you're withholding the truth, what are you? How can you have any self-respect at all? I got into writing to be Mencken. You've got the American Spectator that is supposed to be the heir of Mencken--they have a dummy of Mencken sitting there in their office, for Christ's sake!-- and you're afraid??
I had learned what liberalism is by living through my editor and co-opinions editor in college conspiring behind my back and totally shitting me over. Then I learned what conservatism is by working at the American Spectator and seeing that they were just as scared as the weakling liberal college administrators were about anything that touched on race. I mean, what needs mocking more in our society than niggers? It's fucking ridiculous. You can't read word one about them that is disrespectful. Just today, I was online
reading some black guy writing an opinion column about an Oliphant cartoon [political cartoonist, Pat Oliphant]- "Oh, that is racism!" Racism is anything or anybody opposed to the black agenda. Blacks take that directly from the Jews. An anti-Semite is simply somebody who is opposed to any item on the Jewish agenda. You oppose a Jew and you are an anti-Semite, it doesn't matter what it is about.
Blacks and the Jews have these terms they stick on anybody that doesn't go along with them and the right just plays along. I'm not doing that. I'm the true heir to Mencken. I'm not pulling punches. The conservatives pull their punches. They won't criticize blacks. Now, what could be more ludicrous than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Jesse Jackson is a nigger extortionist. Everybody in America knows that. You're supposed to be a conservative journalist following the line of Mencken and you don't say that in a crude, crass,
nasty, and direct way? If you don't say it like that, then what are you?
Plus it takes the joy out of it to write cautious, coded, weak little trivial things. People don't want that. They want what we're doing at VNN, which is full of joy and slurs and truth. Slurs and the truth go together. To call someone an African American when he's a nigger? I refrain from calling Thomas Sowell a nigger, but I don't refrain from calling niggers niggers.
[Conservative columnist] George Will wrote a column the other day about yet another great black guy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. It's just stupid. I spit on them all. People are responding to what we're doing at VNN because it's clear that we are free. Something that is free has a distinct aroma and the conservatives don't have it.
The basic idea of Vanguard News Network is that it is news without Jews. It is an online newspaper. Its purpose is to do something daily that's carefully edited, reliable, pro-white, and anti-Jewish, with absolutely no Jewish participation at any point in the process. The American public understands there is something wrong with the media, that it is very biased, but they don't understand exactly what it is that is wrong. The conservatives who pretend to tell them, gutless clowns like Brent Bozell and Reed Irvine, will only go so far as to say the media is biased, which a child of three can see after watching Dan Rather for five minutes. What these people won't tell you is why the media is biased and in whose interest it's biased. It's biased because it is owned and controlled by Jews and serves their racial interests. VNN says that openly, forthrightly, and explicitly daily. Whatever attractiveness we have is
attributable to that. We don't have as many readers as some of the big-name conservative sites, but we are going in the right direction and we are going to pass them eventually.
We have people who contribute original articles, opinion pieces, book reviews, cartoons, whatever, and we post those. I edit the things people submit. People also feed me links to news articles they think I might be able to use. We do a kind of ju jitsu on the Jewish media: their reporters write articles for the various newspapers and wire services, and then we pull the articles we want and link them but with our own spin. We call our introductions "spintros." An example of what we might do, a guy on our side might write up an article on a National Alliance demonstration and at the same time we'll link to the Washington Post description of the same thing.
The idea is to create an alternative medium that is free of Semitic bias. It mostly comes down to selecting the right articles and presenting them in the right way. There are people working with me, but it is all done over the Internet. People from all over the country chip in writings and suggest articles to spin. We can't afford to pay anybody. Basically, VNN takes one monomaniac with a computer to do it, and that's me.
We are saying stuff on VNN you can't really find anywhere else. And it's not just that we are racists and reliable that attracts people. We're aggressive and people hunger for that, they love that. People sense that we really believe what we say, and they don't sense that when they read libertarians and conservatives. People see their stuff is just hackwork. There's a spiritual difference between us and the others. And we're funny. You can't get genuine humor any more because it is censored. It's dangerous. You can't make fun
of Jews and "Mexcrement," but we do it all the time. We subject them to ridicule. We don't remonstrate, we ridicule. Anything can be destroyed by ridicule.
We aim to destroy Jewish control of the United States. And we are going to reveal and destroy the fake opposition in the form of conservatives and libertarians. True conservatism is racist. The people who are presented to us today as conservatives are not truly conservative. Every day since we started, we have been saying what they won't say. We point out their financial interest in keeping the truth from people. And we are doing the same thing to libertarians. We are going to make it clear that white nationalism is the only real
opposition to the Jewish tyranny. The rest of what is going on is just a game. The two major political parties are both racial egalitarians selling the idea that race doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
We aren't considered respectable because respectability is defined by the Jews who control things as not mentioning Jewish power and not criticizing Jews as Jews. Conservatives will criticize the left or liberals or atheists or secular humanists, but never, never, NEVER will they point out the Jewish roots of these things. We point that out every single time. That is the fundamental difference between us and the rest of them. That is the market niche my partner and I saw. The only thing limiting us is distribution. If we could get our stuff on newsstands, people would buy it right up. But the Jews control news dissemination everywhere but on the Internet, and they are trying to get control of that. Except on the Internet, Jews control which writers and artists have access to the public.
If you are going to take on the Jews, you can't do just what you do and leave it at that. You have to do every other thing, too. You have to do printing and promotion and distribution. I come from trade publishing and I know how hard it is to get a couple thousand of something out. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time. But on the Internet, I just put it out there and anybody can read it. So the Internet has been a real godsend.
We take donations at VNN, but you wouldn't do this for the money. I had to do it for my soul. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's the truth of it. I wasn't going to fucking die without taking my shot at it. VNN has allowed me to do something that's fulfilling and it proves that people want to read what I write. Now it is purely a question of whether the Jews can shut us down. What we do would be illegal in Europe. They'd bust in here and crack my head and take the computer. Jews believe Jews should be legally beyond criticism. That's a fact. They withhold from the American public that people in Europe are being arrested for writing books with views of history that the Jews won't tolerate or putting something critical of Jews on the Internet. Do you ever see the New York Times write about that?
What the Jews are trying to do right now is insert the concept of hate speech into the public mind. They get hate speech opposed to free speech and get the public asking, "Is this hate speech or is this free speech?" When the Jews get that way of looking at it in place, then they can silence the speech they don't like by calling it hate speech. Jews are very clever, you have to give them that. Their terms preclude any debate. You can't oppose any item on the Jewish agenda without being medically or morally ill. If you oppose their
position on race, you're a racist; fags, you're a homophobe; women, you're a misogynist. If you are an environmentalist and want to stop immigration, it's "the greening of hate." I think one of their greatest crimes is what they've done to women through feminism.
Most college-educated women think in feminist terms without realizing it. It's sad. Jews want to win. They don't necessarily want blood to flow, but they will go to that if necessary. They are fighting us as a race and most people aren't conscious of that. At VNN, we're making them conscious of it. Marxists like [Johns Hopkins University professor] Mark Crispin Miller say the media are all owned by corporations, that that's the way to understand the media. Newspapers all over the country have declining circulations. So how come these big corporations
don't hire people who could build revenue? I could do it a lot better than the people who are running these big city papers. I know what people actually want to read. But they wouldn't publish it for the same reason they produce agit-prop movies- to brainwash white people. If we had a few million dollars we could do everything [media conglomerate] Viacom does except it would be non-niggerish. We'd produce white novels, white films, even white clothes.
The other races are encouraged to identify with their own people and to promote their racial interests, whereas we are called haters if we do it. Conservatives might point that out, but they'd be very careful and cautious about it. We do it straight out and we laugh when we do it. That indicates that we are free. People get that. That spirit comes across. People think, "These guys aren't scared of the Jews. They're not worried about them. They don't measure what they say against some kike's reception of it." When people see us being free, they start to feel freer themselves. That's why I want my name on this. I want my name used because openly speaking it is part of the whole deal, not only for me but for everybody. This "I'm Otto 94" doesn't make it. We need to move forward to a brighter future, and you don't do that with a bunch of anonymous people. They can say whatever they want to say about me. I don't care. They are going to have to put a bullet in my chest if they intend to stop me. I'm not fucking stopping. I don't have any money. I guess I have a lot of reasons to be unhappy. But I can honestly say I am completely happy and completely fulfilled. This is exactly what I am able to do and was meant to do and was trained to do. I should be doing it for some major media outlet, but the situation is such that I can't really do that. So I have to make my own way.
[ The above is from a forum thread posting. ]