To Unite Against Our Common Foe


Guest writer J. Michael Hudson is an American author, musician and technologist. Four of his books are available for free at Library Genesis or for sliding scale at He is currently seeking to produce a collection of short plays for theater and/or digital animation. He also posts commentary at and is a prolific creator and collector of memes.

By J. Michael Hudson

When deciding what to do, simply ask yourself, what would the world be like if everyone did this?’ — Anon

Totalitarian tyranny requires obedience. It needs subjects, objects that perform roles and do little or nothing outside of those roles. Subservient objects who love what they are told to love and hate what they are told to hate — or at the very least, play along for show — recognize that society “is what it is”: a master and slave relationship.

There was a time in the United States when this was what was required of black people who had to “know their place” and “de-center” themselves from society, recognizing that their opinions did not matter, and that they were second-class citizens based merely upon the color of their skin. There was no Oprah, there was no Lil Nas X, no Obama. There were no advertisements or movies with “positive role models” for black people in the United States beyond “token” roles.

At the same time, there was definite overplaying of the white-knight hero spokesmodel, such as John Wayne, Ronald Reagan and Tom Brokaw. Most Americans recognized that this had to change, and most Americans really did not have much to say about what Hollywood and New York City decided were the limits of culture anyway. As evidence of this, I ask you to try to find the great protest against Oprah, or observe the general popularity of President Obama.

The United States has always been an oligarchy. It was designed that way, to be a Republic with limited democracy and powerful business entities that decided what would be on offer. The founders of the United States rightly determined from the vast record of history and political philosophy that absolute democracy is for simpletons, a direct avenue to tyranny (something to keep in mind as you continue reading).

I watched all of this change over the course of my adult life. As a “white Anglo-Saxon,” I now have to admit that the societal changes, under the hand of the entities that actually own the media and institutions, resulted in a national chaos in which few, if anyone, even bothers trying to speak as an American.

In fact, as I write this, heavily cop-infiltrated blacks are now “colonizing” Colorado and Minnesota with “autonomous” zones where I would have to “know my place” and “de-center” myself in the name of ending and combating “systemic racism,” according to “critical race theory.” The color of my skin simply says that I am permanently, unavoidably, an oppressor — especially if I dare speak anything about the topic of racial identity whatsoever. Of course, I reject this entirely, as I do all arbitrarily applied principles.

In any revolution or social upheaval, there is always the danger of simply replacing one form of oppression with another, and we are experiencing one of those cases. Furthermore, it is not any kind of revolution, because those who hold the power in the United States and world — the banking class plutocracy — are not being threatened whatsoever by this tragic street theater. The violence and division has only served their interests and has done so perfectly. They watch the United States burn its pillars to the ground that once were an envy of the world. None of them are threatened when statues of Civil War generals are torn down or if an urban black person mugs a suburban white person. Much to the contrary.

As long as people are fighting each other over what color they are and not over the fact that the entire economy is a parasitic scam, they will clink their champagne glasses and watch it all burn from the safety of their yachts or vampiric perches in foreign countries.

The same goes for the role of women in society. A mutant form of feminism is teaching women not to seek freedom of choice and equality of rights in society but to pursue power for the sake of power, to want a female president not because she is a great person but just because she can speak as a woman. They can see a tiny bit of themselves reflected in those who rule over them, even if they share nothing in ideology beyond shallow slogans.

As women and minorities seem to now be united in their universal hatred of the white “racist,” I would like to remind them of some of the actual history of these things. A little known fact, unless you have read the “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, is that the Revolutionary War for independence from the British king was fought by slaves. White slaves. They sadly did not know it at the time, but they were promised a form of “40 acres and a mule” once the British were defeated. That check of promises was never cashed, to borrow a phrase. Those who revolted to demand their recompense were brutally shot and imprisoned in what became known as Shay’s Rebellion.

A hundred years before, it was the realistic, everyday, practical fear of every Anglo, Scandinavian, Celt, Sicilian, Caucasian and Teuton that ships from Africa or Turkey would raid their villages and take white women into slavery in Africa and Asia. White women have always been a prize of Asians, Arabians and Africans, and for reasons I cannot completely understand.

Read “Setting the Record Straight: White Europeans Were Captured and Traded as Slaves for Centuries”

Whites did not invent slavery. In fact, in white northern European countries, such practices were frowned upon; whereas further south, and even among the Incans, Aztecs and Iroquis, it had been standard practice for millennia. It’s being shamelessly re-introduced in Africa and Arabia as I write this.

To now hear white people of European heritage be called “oppressors” simply because we are white Europeans is not just wrong, it is idiotic. These are ranting of fools born yesterday who simply want to justify theft and barbarity.

It also turned out to be white men who nearly exclusively fought to free the slaves and later protect the banking system from other white men who happened to be German. It was not until Vietnam, and later Iraq and Afghanistan, when the racial burden of mercenary imperialist bankers’ wars were shared by the different colors of people in the United States. No blacks or women to my knowledge were demanding equality for Picket’s Charge or on Omaha Beach. In fact, at least one non-white demographic is on record as having schemed to avoid any dangerous service in those, and other, wars.

These things were all ancient history by the time I was born in 1976, the 200th anniversary of the birth of the nation. I grew up happily, watching women, blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans gradually become more accepted in media, politics and society in general. I watched in good humor as my “demographic” became the butt of more and more jokes and in less good humor. I had to accept that fewer and fewer of my dreams as an artist, writer and entrepreneur were “realistic” in a country that had heard enough from people with my inherently racist skin tone.

Films like “Pleasantville” and “Mona Lisa’s Smile” rightly questioned a rigid, repressive patriarchy. Eventually, I noticed a certain trend in media, such as “Kill Bill” or, more recently, “A Handmaid’s Tale” in which women are outright slaughtering men by the dozen, men who are arbitrarily portrayed as deserving such treatment — as if there is or was ever a threat of fundamental Protestant Christianity ever ruling the United States, like really.

Now, in 2021, I look around and it has progressed so far that I cannot find a “positive role model” for myself in any media at all.  Nor are my attempts to write stories attempting to resolve this given any chance. My attempt to remind people of the larger history of these issues — or the purpose of a secular republic or of the greater threat of the banks and aristocracy — is falling on the deaf ears of maniacs, calling for blood in the streets without any attempt toward a solution that will not simply re-enthrone the original foreign enemies of the American Revolution: old money aristocrats, central bankers and their cults.

Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the Proud Boys are all simply subjects, objects or cartoonish marionettes, dancing for their crocodile-grinning pleasure, burning neighborhoods to the ground so that the land underneath them can be purchased in the near-term future for bargain-basement prices.

No one, literally no one, is saying that black people and women have not been repressed in the United States. But a lot of black people and women seem to have adopted a fashionable and self-serving viewpoint that all white men have equally shared in the good fortune of the nation, as well as the outright silly viewpoint that whiteness itself is oppressive when the white northern European nations have historically been the only source of anti-slavery movements in the entire world.

Furthermore, blacks and women now seem to be happily volunteering as apparatchiks of the rebranded, of course, Old World Order, enthusiastically sacrificing the political rights and liberties that were intended to be the basis of the actual New World Order. Censorship is favored over free speech, so long as their perceived enemies are silenced. A panopticon over privacy, so long as they get their favorite “apps” and entertainment.

This Old World Order is happy to call itself the liberator from its own tyranny, just as it is happy to label itself the doctor of the maladies it is causing. Certainly, everyone wants to be free of this vast, illegitimate debt, but are you really ready to beg for “forgiveness” for your failures under this absolutely rigged, parasitic, lawless system or to scapegoat all white men for it, which is their obvious intent?

They are the ones who should be begging for our forgiveness, by any sane assessment of the situation. Those with the most power should be most responsible for this mess, should they not? Yet, only I seem to dare ask this question, in the whirlwind of other issues they intentionally stir to distract us from it.

Who really holds the power in the United States, which has brought this dystopia upon us? I promise you, it is not white men, although I admit many of us have hitherto been the apparatchiks and enforcing apparatus. It is certainly not I. I have been censored, abused, mocked, mugged and impoverished as much or more than any minority. Try walking a mile in the shoes of a dissident white male intellectual between the years 2000 and 2021, I dare you. My whiteness has bought me absolutely zero of anything other than a target on my head.

Who owns Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Match Group, Intel, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs and Palantir? They were censoring and “de-centering” me long before they censored a sitting president.

They may look white in photographs, but they have as much to do with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy as the Sultan Saladin. And they will writhe in agony in response to this accusation, pointing fingers in every direction other than their own, if anyone dares publish it against their demands and thinly veiled yet very real threats.

I hope this helps inform you of who your real friends and enemies are, in the interest as always of uniting against our common foes and protecting the Republic whose future we will either evolve together, or whose collapse we will perish, or be enslaved, beneath.

— JMH May 7, 2021

‘When deciding who rules you, simply ask, who am I not allowed to criticize?’ — Voltaire
‘When deciding who stands behind a certain deed, simply ask yourself, who benefits?’ — Cicero
‘Find the helpers.’ — Mr. Rogers

14 Comments on To Unite Against Our Common Foe

  1. If anything the anti-whiteness of the Establishment has developed even faster than the homosexual and now transsexual agenda, which accelerated after gay marriage became an officially accepted ‘thing’ — and this in a country that historically had a white super majority before allowing, in what has to be one of the biggest mistakes any society has ever made, what is probably more non-white immigrants than all the other majority white nations combined — I mean think about it: the president stood before Congress and declared ‘white supremacist terrorism’ (whatever that is) to be the greatest threat to the country — and it seems increasingly clear that any White who does not want to live as a minority in America, the nation his ancestors built, and says so openly, is a ‘white supremacist terrorist’.

    Today non-whites are indoctrinated to believe that ‘whiteness’ is a societal problem, and that what Whites have is due to some unearned ‘privilege’, as well as the exploitation of non-whites by an ‘institutionally racist’ system — make no mistake: concrete acts will follow this rhetoric as the population fraction of Whites shrinks and their political power erodes further — you already see this not only in the streets, but also in the media and judicial system, where crimes against Whites are ignored and relativized, and Whites are persecuted, including for defending themselves.

    I hope more Whites, especially white men, are waking up to how dangerous all of this is for them and their descendants.

    • linkNEW – Walt Disney Corporation claims that America was founded on “systemic racism,” encourages employees to complete a “white privilege checklist,” and separates minorities into racially-segregated “affinity groups.” … According to whistleblower materials, Disney has launched a “diversity and inclusion” program, called “Reimagine Tomorrow,” which includes trainings on “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “white saviors,” “microaggressions,” and “antiracism.”

      Disney and the Ford Foundation are two of the America 1.0 institutions that have become hopelessly corrupted in America 2.0.

  2. Mr. Hudson,

    Nice thread.

    What I might suggest is that before all of the allegations and court proceedings, Mr. Bill Cosby worked very diligently to present successful ideas both to and about the African American family through his television program, The Cosby Show. If I recall correctly, the “Must See Television” marketing campaign, which the NBC television station promoted in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was based on the Thursday night success of the Cosby Show and the programs that followed it on that night.

    Mr. Cosby’s enormous success with audiences of all sizes, shapes and colors permitted him to make a bid for the NBC television organization in 1992:

    As I recall at the time, there was ZERO resistance to Mr. Cosby’s success by patrons of his shows, comedy specials, product endorsements and / or any of his other investments. Those patrons were extremely diverse and I would suggest represented a wide, as well as varied, representation of the greater American citizenry.

    So to your point here:

    “As evidence of this, I ask you to try to find the great protest against Oprah, or observe the general popularity of President Obama.”

    I would suggest that even as I have issues with these two individuals (too long for this post), Mr. Cosby would equally fit right in with you point. Until larger corporate sponsored groups and some of the corporations themselves decided that Mr. Cosby’s more conservative principles no longer matched with the direction the nation was taking, the American public respected the man, took his seriously and even welcomed his success.

    The “great protest” came so much later and of course we now know the result. For anyone who is interested, WW has some excellent threads on Mr. Cosby, here:


    and here:

    Please recall that NBC was The Cosby Show’s home, and both parties reached incredible success as partners in the 1980s and 1990s. Further, as I mentioned (above), Mr. Cosby did try to organize a bid to purchase NBC in the early 1990s.

    Thank you for the post Mr. Hudson. Although I am sure other WW participants will most likely post about different aspects of your thread, I just had a “light bulb” moment regarding Mr. Cosby and the diversified support that was behind him, without judgement or protest during that period (1980s and 1990s) of time.

    White men and women broadly accepted Mr. Cosby, supported his businesses and wished him (honestly lent hopeful ideas) well in his success. When his son was murdered, many Americans, from all walks of life, grieved with the gentleman.

    Our nation and its history is always more interesting, hopeful, and even more complicated than many people are trying so hard to have us (currently) believe. (Humbly) It is never simply black or white (pun intended) when we thoroughly analyze as much of our own historical truths as we can.

    All my best,
    Simple Citizen

      • Sure, which I think you made clear in the threads that I referenced. It might be redundant for me to draw the same conclusion; however, I am glad you have surmised it here.

  3. As Winter Watch editor, I just want to say to the women out there who are readers of Winter Watch that we appreciate you and know you’re not part of the problem as described by Mr. Hudson. As we know, there are many women who are part of the problem, and we need to call them out and challenge their beliefs whenever possible.

    That said, I don’t like or condone lumping together in one big “basket of deplorables” all women, blacks, etc. It’s unfair and a non-starter for productive dialogue. Same goes for women who gripe about all men or for blacks who push “white privilege” narratives.

    Rather than lazily lumping together entire groups of people, how about actually naming the bad actors who are key to promoting and perpetuating a socio-political strategy of distract, divide and conquer? Just sayin’.

    PS – Happy Mothers Day

      • Yeah, I am chiming in to say that I appreciate you both, and the post / response up here. Both of you are “class acts” (110% serious and sincere), and I hope Mother’s Day was wonderful for each of you.


    • That said, I don’t like or condone lumping together in one big “basket of deplorables” all women, blacks, etc. It’s unfair and a non-starter for productive dialogue.

      Depends on the context; in an appropriate context it definitely has its place as part of an honest, ‘productive dialogue’ — in fact, it’s an essential element of a demographic argument, which out of necessity ‘lumps people together’ in order to compare average group characteristics and outcomes.

      Liberia became an independent nation about the time California became a state — here is what the CIA World Factbook says about the economy of Liberia (link):

      Liberia is a low-income country that relies heavily on foreign assistance and remittances from the diaspora. It is richly endowed with water, mineral resources, forests, and a climate favorable to agriculture.

      If California was a country, it would rank #5 in the world in terms of the size of its economy (not the only or perhaps even the best measure of life quality of course), while Liberia, after 170 years, is still ‘a low-income country that relies heavily on foreign assistance and remittances from the diaspora’ — Liberia clearly has economic potential, but the people who live there have apparently not been able to exploit this — what kind of people live there? — Blacks — in fact, Whites are not allowed to be citizens of Liberia (it’s in their constitution — link).

      What amounts to a moral prohibition against making group demographic comparisons (prejudice, discrimination, ‘racism’ etc) has led directly to the current very serious predicament for Whites, who are on track to become minorities in all of their countries.

      • the current very serious predicament for Whites

        linkBesonders viele sind aus Tunesien, der Elfenbeinküste und aus Bangladesch: Innerhalb von 24 Stunden landeten 2128 illegale Migranten in Booten in Italien — Within 24 hours, 2128 ‘migrants’ land in Italy, most of them from Tunisia, Ivory Coast, and Bangladesh (the same thing is now happening in the Canary Islands).

        Just as predicted in ‘Camp of the Saints’ — when/how will it end?

        Whites can no longer afford to allow the usual/expected moral intimidation (‘racism’) to prevent them from making group comparisons and deciding to defend themselves and their countries — there’s a lot more at stake here than being called names.

      • eah,

        You mean the fake nation of Monrovia that we set up over there (lest we forget, the whole nation was once named after President James Monroe, not just the city)? We may wish to consider U.S. foreign policy in Africa from 1947 forward, CIA interference (which is why Barry has the cover story of being an Obama and not a Davis) and the continuation of operations through Africom.

        Right now we and _________________ (anyone want to guess; they like cheese, wine and wear berets — no I am not talking about Mr. Winter’s high school photo — its France) are providing a world of grief over there, while pushing that Monsanto. The best thing we could do as citizens of the United States is find a leader who is willing to remove us from Africa and simply leave them alone to do whatever it is they are going to do. If they wish to still sell there own people to one another, so be it. If they wish to be corrupt and destroy their resources or sell them to China as a part of “get rich quick schemes”, so be it. Trust me, I shall be the first person to pray for everyone on that continent. Also I will appreciate all of the rich history they have contributed to our world. Yet in the end, I think we need to stop messing around with their nations. If the French still want to do that BS so that the Foreign Legion has something to do, fine, but let them do it ALONE and with out our help.

        And no eah, this is inaccurate:

        “Depends on the context; in an appropriate context it definitely has its place as part of an honest, ‘productive dialogue’ — in fact, it’s an essential element of a demographic argument, which out of necessity ‘lumps people together’ in order to compare average group characteristics and outcomes.”

        (RESPECTFULLY) it actually depends on the PERSON NOT THE CONTEXT. If a person truly does not feel like subscribing to the notion of lumping folks together and sticking a broad label on them, then they will not do so. Lazy minded individuals might; however, those of us who believe in a meritocracy will examine the individual, not the group.

        All my best,

      • You mean the fake nation of Monrovia

        linkAlong with Ethiopia, Liberia is considered to be one of the only two African countries never to have been colonized by European powers during the Scramble for Africa from 1880 to 1900.

        Liberia is a normal sovereign nation (Monrovia is its capital); has been since 1847 (before CA statehood) — there’s nothing ‘fake’ about it; some early settlers were former American slaves — once independent, it was never colonized, had no external wars — of course like any nation it faced the huge challenge of creating an economy and civil institutions, e.g. an educational system, to support national development — per conventional egalitarian wisdom, after 170 years and given its economic potential Liberia ought to be nearly Wakanda by now — but it’s not; instead it’s (still) a shithole — this is because Blacks have low average intelligence and, on average, seem to lack important behavioral characteristics, e.g. willingness to sacrifice and postpone gratification in favor of a future time orientation — there is overwhelming evidence that average intelligence in a racial/ethnic group is genetic — the evidence that important behavioral characteristics are also primarily genetic is substantial and growing.

        For any group, IQ distribution roughly follows a normal curve which is centered about the median value for that group — this positioning also determines the smart fraction, defined as the % of the population with an IQ above, say, 115 — these are the people who typically succeed in higher education, then go on to form the intellectual, professional, and entrepreneurial classes which drive development — due to their low average IQ, the smart fraction among Blacks is very small compared to Whites and Asians.


        • “this is because Blacks have low average intelligence and, on average, seem to lack important behavioral characteristics”

          And yet they built all those pyramids (as well as other structures), developed early astronomy charting (after an examination of the Sumerian data it would seem), modernized agrarian society along the Nile, created art, developed language / handwriting, made paper, built boats / developed techniques for sailing, created tools, had a system of laws (not my favorite laws, but a system none the less) and built a rather sizable empire. All of that was accomplished on a low I.Q.? Really?

          Also, my friend at one time Liberia was known as Monrovia (in total) not just the city, which I did try to mention. Speaking of low I.Q.s, was the concept of returning slaves to Africa generally a wise idea, once the diaspora already had American born kids? Even Lincoln wanted to try this idea out, and he still could not really wrap his head around the disconnect.

          Honestly, humbly and respectfully, I really do think that it is a personal choice to think of an individual as being responsible for their own actions and not simply lump them together in a group. If we consider that the argument that this group is bad or that group is better, may be turned around to justify any number of heinous crimes, then the criminal may use the defense:

          “You honor it was not my fault…I was born to a group of _______________, and that is why I did ____________________.”

          We then permit the individual to get a pass on their actions, even if they were a very bad criminal. Plus there are many positive examples of successes in any human group we can discuss. Now these successes may not be yours or my dream of success, but they are successes none the less.

          Now I do consider you a very wise individual, so I am going to put forward the idea again and ask a question; I think we should remove all military assets from Africa ASAP (close Africom and simply leave).

          What is your opinion on that idea?

          As usual, many thanks.


  4. My role models don’t come from them, and the fact that they come from them would be reason enough to reject them.

    This inverted, decadent, and hopelessly corrupt civilization has reached the pinnacle of its’ nadir. Its’ standard bearers are utterly wretched degenerates devoid of any objectivity. To hell with them.

    Being their enemy is an endorsement.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch

Discover more from Winter Watch

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading