[Bret L]

Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

Edmund Connelly



"As the Mainstream Media (MSM) digs itself further and further into the abyss of irrelevance, its former consumers turn increasingly to the Internet to find more reliable information on what’s happening in the world. The bad news is that this has resulted in a massive fragmentation of audiences.. But the upside is that it has also provided the opportunity for unmediated (by the power structure) new sources to burst through with perspectives that do not necessarily honor reigning taboos or spin news according to The Party Line.

For race realists, this has been a godsend, since one of our era’s
greatest (yet most easily refuted) taboos is that against revealing
racial differences. From The New York Times to every other MSM source,
worship of egalitarianism is enforced and anyone who steps outside
those boundaries is ruthlessly harassed. If a ritual apology fails, it
means job loss and a trip to the nation of Irrelevance. Some who have
flirted with this taboo are Trent Lott and Rush Limbaugh. Some who
have lost are James Watson, Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, and John Rocker.

We at this website and The Occidental Quarterly are self-proclaimed
White advocates, firmly believing that we as Whites are different from
other races. Without rancor toward those other races (well, not
usually), we believe that the civilization our race has built is worth
preserving.

The Internet has been a great boon here. Personally, I’ve found a
number of race realist “heretics” from whom I’ve benefited immensely.
First and foremost is the crew that writes for VDARE.com, Peter
Brimelow’s website devoted to combating the desire of what they
rightfully call the “treason lobby” to import a new people and
displace people of European descent in America.

But VDARE goes well beyond immigration issues. In general, it strikes
me as a solidly pro-White site. Further, it sometimes addresses the
pressing issue of Zionist influence in America and occasionally even
allows its writers to venture into the more critical area of Jewish
power in America (more below). (Note to VDA my annual donation is
largely contingent upon your running of Paul Craig Roberts’ courageous
columns. He’s priceless!)

While VDARE likely strikes most as a far-right forum, there are also
voices out there on the Internet from the left that are worth a
hearing. For example, retired Leftist professor James Petras is about
as good as you’ll get on the Zionist issue. (See my column, James
Petras Is Another Powerful Voice on the Neocons.)

Then we have a rather odd pair, E. Michael Jones and “former Jew”
Israel Shamir. How would you categorize them? But both are well worth
reading. (See my Strange Bedfellows: E. Michael Jones and Israel
Shamir — “A Report from Planet Mammon.”)

Two more that are not easy to classify are John Derbyshire, who writes
for The National Review, and Jeff Gates, a scathing critic of Zionist
power over America. (See Derbyshire on MacDonald and Jeff Gates’ Guilt
by Association.)

But one writer outside the MSM who has consistently impressed me in a
unique way is Steve Sailer, the quantitatively oriented pundit for
VDARE, for some years the movie reviewer for The American
Conservative, and founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute, “which
runs the invitation-only Human Biodiversity discussion group for top
scientists and public intellectuals.”

More and more I wonder if Steve isn't secretly hoping to write for us
at TOO or one of the TOQ venues (see here and here). As far as I can
tell, he's no longer with The American Conservative, and, if anything,
he's gotten stronger on both race realism and Jewish issues, which is
pretty much our forte at TOO and TOQ. His book on President Obama,
America's Half-Blood Prince, is a trenchant examination of Obama's
obsession with issues of race and how this is likely to play out
during his presidency (not well for Whites).

For instance, on Takimag.com recently, he had a film review of a South
African novel turned film, Disgrace. The review openly chronicles what
happens when Blacks take over a White country (or any country, I
suppose). Sailer describes Prof. Lurie, a wimpy old White man who is
impotent in the face of Black attacks:

One day, when Petrus [the house negro] is conveniently away, three
young Black men walk up to the isolated farmhouse, knock Lurie
unconscious, and rape his daughter. When he awakes, the home invaders
set him on fire, which he eventually douses by splashing himself from
the toilet. They drive off in his car with his books on Byron and the
rifle his daughter never learned to shoot: "It happens every day,
every hour, every minute, he tells himself, in every quarter of the
country. Count yourself lucky to have escaped with your life."

When one young rapist is caught peeping in on his victim, the White
father finally reacts and beats him:

Never has he felt such elemental rage. He would like to give the boy
what he deserves: a sound thrashing. Phrases that all his life he has
avoided seem suddenly just and right: Teach him a lesson. Show him his
place. So this is what it is like, he thinks. This is what it is like
to be a savage!

And to think that a novel that would describe a Black rapist as a
savage won the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature!

Sailer is far more realistic about Black-ruled South Africa than
anyone in the American MSM. For instance, his movie review of District
9 makes similar politically incorrect points. In my view, Sailer's
take of the story is spot on. For instance, he writes about "the
film’s strikingly caustic portrayal of Black Africans" and how "the
movie is largely a post-apartheid parable about illegal immigration
and Malthusian despair."

Writer-director Neill Blomkamp is a refugee from violence-plagued
South Africa, and Sailer quotes him repeatedly about how savage Black
rule is:

Amidst the beauties of Vancouver in summer, [Blomkamp] meditated on
the bleakness of the high veldt in the parched winter. Eventually, his
dream/nightmare of Johannesburg shantytowns and razor wire-protected
garden suburbs merged with his other obsession, science fiction: "I
actually think Johannesburg represents the future."

And Blomkamp doesn't mean it in a good way, which he made clear in an
interview with Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir:

O’Hehir: You know, these images are pretty uncomfortable, especially
for Americans who tend to be so careful in public discussions of race:
Here’s a white guy from South Africa making a movie with scary,
murderous black African villains.

Blomkamp: Sure, I’m totally aware of that. . . . Unfortunately, that’s
the reality of it, and it doesn’t matter how politically correct or
politically incorrect you are. The bottom line is that there are huge
Nigerian crime syndicates in Johannesburg. I wanted the film to feel
real, to feel grounded, and I was going to incorporate as much of
contemporary South Africa as I wanted to, and that’s just how it is.

(Incidentally, this whole discussion reminds me of an excellent cover
story on South African history from American Renaissance that ran last
year. Once again that magazine has offered a corrective to the anti-
history so common in Western nations today. See “When the River Ran
Red: A Great Boer Victory That Was Later Undone” by Arthur
Kemp.)

As in these two examples, I get the feeling Sailer is using the words
of others to say what he himself wants to say. For instance, notice
how he crafts his VDARE piece “Last Of The Nice WASP Progressives:
Otis Graham And The Long War For Patriotic Immigration Reform.”

The Otis Graham in question has stumbled upon the great paradox of
Jewish attitudes toward immigration. Jewish journalist and author
Theodore White, for one, exhibited this tendency. Though supporting
open borders, he also realized how unchecked immigration undermined
another of his favorite youthful socialist causes, union support.
Later in life, in 1983, an interviewer asked White about this
skepticism toward immigration: “White recoiled, almost frightened. 'My
New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right, but I
can’t go public on this.'”

Sailer then notes that “At that point, the 68-year-old Teddy White was
probably the single most respected print journalist in America in
1983. White’s fear shows you how severe are the penalties in the media
business for questioning immigration.”

Sailer next zeroes in on Graham’s surprise at these Jewish mixed
feelings:

Hearing White’s agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the
especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo [against
immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all
his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public
with his worries about the state of immigration.

Graham continues:

I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme
of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were
exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons.
They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public
policy in America.

Sailer at this point observes that

Indeed, on 2009’s Atlantic 50 list of most influential columnists,
bloggers, and broadcast pundits, almost exactly half are Jewish, even
though only about 2 percent of the population is Jewish. In
particular, White Jewish males are represented at rates more than 50
times higher than the average American.

Once again Sailer really wants to address the question of Jewish power
but will go only so far. Still, as a VDARE writer, he is clearly aware
of Kevin MacDonald’s elaborately argued thesis on the Jewish attitudes
in favor of open borders. (See Immigration and The Unmentionable
Question Of Ethnic Interests.)

Apparently, a reader in Japan agrees with Sailer, beginning his letter
to the VDARE editor:

I commend Steve Sailer for yet another on-target laser beam concerning
America’s death-by-immigration and the bipartisan roots of this self-
made disaster.

An irreversible disaster too, for this is the one lunacy that can
never be expiated—except through untold misery, nation breakup,
violence, and not infrequently, civil war. . . .

One of Sailer’s most important contributions is to highlight the
prominent role that American Jews have had in this dissolution.

It’s a brave thing for Steve to do, for it exposes him not merely to a
barrage of “nativism” and “racism” projectiles but also to the
concussions of “anti-Semitic hate” grenades lobbed from the well-
fortified trenches of the Treason Lobby.

The letter writer, Takuan Seiyo, admits that Jews played a prominent
role not only in our disastrous immigration policy but also in our
disastrous civil rights legislation and “the dysfunctional
minoritarian tyranny that has resulted from it.”

Sailer shows no signs of backing away from these very un-PC topics. In
a more recent Takimag piece, Blackballed?, he addresses the likely
prejudice against White running backs that keeps them out of college
and professional football. Here he’s playing on a theme highlighted
extensively by J. B. Cash at Caste Football. (The Occidental Quarterly
has also run a similar story here.)

As Sailer writes:

In contrast to their crusade for more Black quarterbacks,
sportswriters, who may be the single most politically correct category
of all journalists (because the reality of human biodiversity is so
blatantly obvious in sports), have devoted negligible attention to
wondering if White running backs suffer from stereotyping and
“channeling” into other positions. (For example, USC inquired about
local boy Gerhart, but only wanted him to play fullback to block for
their Black tailbacks. USC started last season with ten running backs,
all high school stars and all Black.)

The true test of a respectable sportswriter these days is his
adamantine ability to not mention the elephant in the living room—
racial differences in physiques—and to persecute anyone who does let
slip an acknowledgment of reality. Earlier in this decade, for
instance, sportswriters hounded out of their jobs Notre Dame radio
announcer Paul Hornung and Air Force coach Fisher DeBerry after they
mentioned in public that Blacks tend to be faster.

Then to prove that he's just dying to write more about Jewish power
and influence, he constructs this long thought game about the above
self-censorship:

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians
and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball
long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish
players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldbergish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is,
roughly, that:

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that Blacks
might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting;
then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe Blacks have lower
average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for
genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and
therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A
from ever happening.

Note his implicit assumption that Jews have the power to enforce their
will on what the rest of us will or will not hear about.

To me it’s fairly clear that Sailer is fully aware of Jewish power
but, not wanting to permanently end his writing career, writes
carefully about it. For instance, in noting that an Italian Jew wanted
to dilute the Italian Catholic nature of Italy, he quipped, “Do you
ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a
controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its
articles to make them prove his theories correct?”

One of the bravest things Sailer has done is to write about the
connection between Jewish networks, Jewish oligarchs, and the massive
defrauding of the Russian people. And this involved none other than
the former president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers. It’s a
long story, but Harvard paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming
from various improprieties associated with Harvard professors. As
Sailer illustrates, however, it is the Jewish aspect of the entire
scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and
they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew, Harvard President Larry
Summers. The upshot of the scandal was that the "reform" of the
Russian economy "turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees in
all history, and the Harvard boys weren't all merely naive
theoreticians." Indeed, they ended up wealthy and managed to retain
their academic positions at Harvard.

And guess what: The New York Times, Washington Post and Financial
Times decided that this was not a worthy story. Gosh, why not? In the
article, Sailer surmises that it is because of Jewish power.

Sailer claims that he had not known about the Jewish identity of the
"oligarchs" until he read Yale law professor Amy Chua’s book World on
Fire (where Chua correctly noted that six out of the seven of Russia’s
wealthiest oligarchs were Jews, her Jewish husband quipped to her,
“Just six? So who’s the seventh guy?”) These oligarchs had "paid for
Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election in return for the privilege of buying
ex-Soviet properties at absurdly low prices (e.g., Mikhail B.
Khodorkovsky was put in charge of auctioning off Yukos Oil, which owns
about 2% of the world's oil reserves—he sold it for $159 million
to ... himself).” Meanwhile, Jews in Russia represented about one
percent of the population.

Sailer's further observations only cast more light on the extent and
value of these ethnic connections:

As I've said before in the context of exploring how Scooter Libby
could serve as a mob lawyer for international gangster Marc Rich on
and off for 15 years and then move immediately into the job of chief
of staff to the Vice President of the United States, the problem is
not that Jews are inherently worse behaved (or better behaved) than
any other human group, but that they have achieved for themselves in
America in recent years a collective immunity from anything resembling
criticism [emphasis added].

Sailer goes on to discuss a number of Jewish reactions that square
with what MacDonald has written on Jewish deception and self-
deception, including the ability to frame all criticism, no matter how
valid, in terms of an anti-Semitic animus. Harvard professors Alan
Dershowitz and Ruth Wisse defended Summers in this way, with Wisse
asking, “Was anti-Semitism the driving engine of the coup [against
Summers]?” Former lecturer Martin Peretz joined them in the suspicion
that Summers’s strong support of Israel played a role in the attack.

You have to admit that it’s pretty gutsy of Sailer to swim in such
dangerous waters. One writer who did so didn’t feel so good after
publishing a book on the subject was Robert I. Friedman. His expose,
Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America, came out in 2000;
it wasn’t long before Friedman “died of a tropical blood
disease.” (See M. Rafael Johnson’s account here.)

To make this even more interesting, Sailer believes he is half Jewish,
having been adopted as a child. Thus, when writing about the
intersection of WASPs, Jews and such, he can say,

I have one foot in all three camps (I guess that makes me a
campstool): I'm Catholic; I've always assumed I'm biologically half-
Jewish (I'm adopted); and I'm an Anglophile and an admirer of WASP
culture. So, I wish everyone well.

So what’s in store for a talented writer and intellectual like Steve
Sailer? Clearly, the MSM is not about to suddenly embrace him, for he
has his share of critics who call him a “racist,” the kiss of death in
these times. (See also here.) Of course our friends at the $PLC loathe
Sailer as well, claiming that his site

“is dominated by crude racial and gender stereotypes as Sailer mocks
professional golfer Annika Sorenstam for her muscles, [and] claims
that Asian men have a hard time finding dates because they look "less
masculine" than other men.”

While I think he’d find a warm home among The Occidental crowd, most
likely it’s best to have him continue at Takimag and VDARE, where his
work is invaluable to the cause of exposing sensitive truths that our
masters and MSM simply won’t. Should he ever want to “take a walk on
the wild side,” however, I’m sure he’d be welcomed writing with us."


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ly-Sailer.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 5:24*pm, Bret L wrote:
Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

snip unread 2400 line brainless cut-and-paste

Bratzi, when the premise is wrong there's no sense in continuing to
read. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

snip unread 2400 line brainless cut-and-paste
Bratzi, when the premise is wrong there's no sense in continuing to
read. LOL!

Scottie, your pal Shhhh is repressing Bratzi's differing viewpoint. See
there? He said "unread" plain as day. Shhhh is clearly a fashiscist, you
should sic yourself on him.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 6:43*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

snip unread 2400 line brainless cut-and-paste
Bratzi, when the premise is wrong there's no sense in continuing to
read. LOL!

Scottie, your pal Shhhh is repressing Bratzi's differing viewpoint. See
there? He said "unread" plain as day. Shhhh is clearly a fashiscist, you
should sic yourself on him.

I'm sure you meant "oppressing". Get a dickshunairy. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

snip unread 2400 line brainless cut-and-paste
Bratzi, when the premise is wrong there's no sense in continuing to
read. LOL!

Scottie, your pal Shhhh is repressing Bratzi's differing viewpoint. See
there? He said "unread" plain as day. Shhhh is clearly a fashiscist, you
should sic yourself on him.

I'm sure you meant "oppressing". Get a dickshunairy. LoL.

Your evel, no mistake's about it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 6:28*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:



Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

snip unread 2400 line brainless cut-and-paste
Bratzi, when the premise is wrong there's no sense in continuing to
read. LOL!

Scottie, your pal Shhhh is repressing Bratzi's differing viewpoint. See
there? He said "unread" plain as day. Shhhh is clearly a fashiscist, you
should sic yourself on him.

I'm sure you meant "oppressing". Get a dickshunairy. LoL.

Your evel, no mistake's about it.

Making another usless Internet resume claim? How childish. Your not
worthy. Im above all this. LoL.