Mission Statement


Archives


Links


Contact us 



Home
Subscribe to The Occidental Observer Newsletter and be notified of updates through emails. To subscribe, go to our Subscribe Page.

Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

Edmund Connelly 

October 22, 2009 

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 VDARE: 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.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Permanent Link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Sailer.html

 

 

 

 

Edmund Connelly Archives

  (Via PayPal)

  OR

  Donate Anonymously