[Bret L]

Channeling Steve Sailer

Edmund Connelly



"When I first started writing my Steve Sailer column two weeks ago, I initially titled it “Channeling Steve Sailer.” Now I wish I had left it at that because his Sunday VDARE piece that appeared just after my essay really did seem like we were operating on the same wavelength. His essay was indeed perfectly timed as far as I was concerned.

Sailer’s piece, called Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? Not
Good Enough, is a reflection on leading neocon Podhoretz’s book of the
above name. And throughout, though Sailer advances into the no-go zone
known as anti-Semitism, he is certainly right about what he wrote. For
instance, he commits a foul (according to the imposed rules of
discourse today) when he writes that Podhoretz’s book “is a
combination of history of the last 2,000 years of Jewish
victimization, voting analysis of 20th Century Presidential elections,
and latest rendition of Podhoretz’s autobiography, all from a single,
relentless perspective: Is it good for the Jews?”

Whew, that’s pushing it. I thought that was a bit too cavalier a
reference to the suffering Jews have endured throughout their
existence — all of it, of course, having nothing to do with any
concrete Jewish behavior. Worse, however, is his thoroughly
nontheological estimation of Podhoretz’s motivation: “Is it good for
the Jews?”

Most of us know that even Jews sometimes point to this ethnic calculus
for determining actions, but non-Jews are not normally given such a
prerogative. Sailer, though, may well qualify for limited rights to
make such quips if having one biological parent counts. As Sailer
informs us, he was adopted and is now Catholic. And so far he hasn’t
been arrested on hate crime charges.

What I really like, however, is a subtle amendment Sailer made to a
claim by conservative Jewish writer Michael Medved. In September,
Commentary magazine featured a symposium based on Podhoretz’s book
called Why Are Jews Liberals? In it is found the source material for a
quote Sailer took where Medved admitted that Jews hate Christianity:

For most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isn’t
solidarity with Israel; it’s rejection of Christianity. … Jewish
voters don’t embrace candidates based on their support for the state
of Israel as much as they passionately oppose candidates based on
their identification with Christianity … This political pattern
reflects the fact that opposition to Christianity—not love for
Judaism, Jews, or Israel—remains the sole unifying element in an
increasingly fractious and secularized community. …

Sailer made the telling change to Jewish “hostility toward Christians
— anti-Chritianism, you might say.” Now it’s the people rather than
the religion. That, of course, is far closer to the truth, for it is
likely Jews would exhibit the same hatred of Whites no matter what
religious veil we might adopt. We are not witnessing a fundamentally
theological competition; rather, what we have is old-fashioned ethnic
animosity and struggle.

And here’s where Sailer hits the nail firmly on the head:

What America can’t continue to afford is the pervasive unrealism
imposed by the current code of silence about Jewish power and
interests. Thus Jewish demonization of immigration reform
patriots . . . is the single most important reason that America’s
immigration disaster is still above criticism, long after it has
become obvious that it is a disaster, and despite the fact that an
overwhelming number of Americans are strongly opposed to it.

Absolutely. To remedy any of the problems American Whites face now —
many of which involve Jewish activism over the last century (need I
even refer to Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique on this
point?) — we indeed have to forthrightly discuss Jewish power. But
good luck trying, especially if you aren't a Jew.

This “discouragement” of open discussion of Jewish power can be found
across the gamut of mainstream life, from the well-funded offices of
the ADL to editorial rooms in all the major news organs, to the
offices of mainstream publishers, to the academics who staff our
middling to great universities. The taboo is enforced: Do not discuss
Jewish power.

Consider, for instance, how this ban exists around discussion of Jews
in Hollywood, where the rule of thumb is simple, well-known, and
vigorously enforced: A Jew may make note of it or explore it at
length, but a non-Jew must remain silent on the issue. As Joe Sobran
so succinctly put it in his Sobran's Newsletter, ("The Buchanan
Frenzy,” March 1996):

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is
impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests
as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. . . . Not that
the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful,
and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-
limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They
themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they
panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised.
Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced
silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life
requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A
hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are
powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll
destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but
of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.

William Cash, a young British journalist, ran head on into this
barrier when in 1994 he wrote about the then-new Spielberg-Katzenberg-
Geffen "Dream Team" that "in one respect at least this particular
combination of talent, or 'talent combo' in the local argot, will
start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early
studios—and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants—
they are Jewish." Though he was defended by his Jewish editor, Dominic
Lawson, young Cash still bore the brunt of a furious rebuke from
American shores.

Marlon Brando made a similar mistake while appearing on "Larry King
Live" by bluntly asserting that Jews run Hollywood and exploit
stereotypes of minorities. "Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by
Jews," he began, and then went on to blame Jews for exploiting
stereotypes of minorities, "but we never saw the kike because they
know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around."

The topic of Jewish power in Hollywood is one of my favorites, and I
write about it often. Last Christmas I wrote in TOO that “the Jewish
dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles
Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently made it official. What else can
you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews.” I’ve
written on this theme extensively in The Occidental Quarterly (here—an
editorial mix-up gave me the wrong name, The Jews of Prime Time, and
the ongoing series “Understanding Hollywood” 1, 2 [Spring 2009], and 3
[Summer 2009]).

Or you could read Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People,
where the authors mock Gentile concern about the concentration of
Jewish power in Hollywood. For instance, Chapter 8 is titled
“Conspiracy Theories: Do Jews Control the World?” They then note that
of the ten major Hollywood studios discussed, nine were created by
Jews (Walt Disney being a Gentile) and all ten are run by Jews.
“Conclusion: Yes, we do control the movie studios. All Jews please
report to the World Conspiracy Headquarters immediately (don’t forget
to bring your pass code).” They then do the same for TV networks,
finding a leadership figure of seventy-five percent. Discussing print
media, they find seven of ten major publications are run by Jews.
“Conclusion: Jews have lots of opinions that they love to write about
and charge you money to read! Cool.”)

Playwright David Mamet gets it just write, however, writing, “For
those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews]
constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of
America’s movie directors and studio heads.”

To his credit, Sailer has been consistent in focusing on Jewish power,
as well as proffering reasons that Jews don’t want non-Jews to notice
it. At the end September, for example, he wrote about the decline of
the WASP (Last Of The Nice WASP Progressives) and rise of the Jew in
America, and outlined the likely reason for Jewish insistence on not
noticing differences among various groups of people.

Then in last week’s column, he addressed Jewish power again — and how
that power is used to enforce certain manners of discourse:

Although political correctness is usually marketed on the grounds that
we must protect Non-Asian Minorities from learning facts about
themselves, the media figures actually doing most of the enforcing of
political correctness tend to be members of a high average IQ group
that seems to believe that the peasant majority will come for them
with pitchforks if anybody smart ever clues them in on the facts about
IQ. For example, only one of the Atlantic 50 ranking of most
influential pundits is NAM, while half are Jewish. Jewish
organizations have striven tirelessly to make Americans more poorly
informed and more naive.

Indeed they have. After all, better to cloak the realities of power
than discuss them openly.

In case writers need to be reminded, polymath John Derbyshire explains
the ground rules when it comes to writing about Jews. First, he admits
that any criticism of Jews may well spell career destruction. A while
back, he made an excellent case for this risk in a remarkable exchange
with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com,
asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I
was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism,
most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone
who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not
ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages,
The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York
Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors,
involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

No wonder one of his exchanges about Jewish power was titled ”Be Nice,
or We’ll Crush You: Criticizing Jews is professional suicide.”

In any case, let me again say that I am grateful to have access to a
writer like Sailer, and I am pleased that his editor at VDARE, Peter
Brimelow, as well as the Takimag crowd, allow Steve to write such
needed prose. As usual, I’m looking forward to what next Sunday’s
VDARE column will bring."

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...-SailerII.html