Featured Articles

The BNP on the BBC’s Question Time: Fallout and Ramifications

Brits (mostly indigenous) protesting the BNP during Nick Griffin’s Question Time performance

Alex Kurtagic has already described British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on the high profile BBC Television programme Question Time, 24 October 2009). Here I add to Mr. Kurtagic’s account by focusing on the lessons to be learned from its reception including the ideological pathology it revealed. But first some observations on the program.

The event, 22 October 2009

This program amounted to a public flaying, a verbal lynching of a lone victim by a mob that somehow failed to apprehend the unfairness of their joint actions. The spectacle demeaned all involved.

Referees often take sides to help the weaker party, understandable if not quite Marquess of Queensberry. On this occasion the “moderator” took the side of the stronger party against the weaker. The result was a foregone conclusion.

The referee on this occasion, a Mr. Dimbleby, took sides with both feet. He interrupted and cast slurs. Griffin was rarely able to complete a thought let alone a sentence. Just one example: Near the beginning of proceedings: Dimbleby asked Griffin to explain his claim that the BNP would be the only party that would accept Winston Churchill in contemporary Britain. As Griffin began to answer Dimbleby, speaking in parallel and at reduced volume slipped in a follow-up question: “Why have you hijacked his reputation?” This second question simultaneously interrupted the answer and conveyed a slur against Griffin’s character and motives in a way that impeded his defending himself. Because Griffin was beginning to speak he might not have caught the gist of Dimbleby’s sotte voce thrust. Even if he had heard, attempting to deal with it first would have necessitated interrupting his own train of thought. Dimbleby’s tactics were as low as they come in a session that approached blood sport.

Griffin was brave to subject himself to such an onslaught. He held up for the hour, only flinching in the form of nervous smiles and laughs out of sync with the feeding frenzy centered upon him. He affected amiable banter with the Black American playwright sitting beside him — banter which was not reciprocated. Indeed, she commented that “at one point, I had to restrain myself from slapping him.”

Griffin: Amiable banter with a Black American playwright Bonnie Greer

Griffin’s performance was not adequate to impress the educated classes. Few individuals would have been adequate under the circumstances. Nevertheless some of the fault lay with Griffin. He could not provide examples of press bias when asked by the “mediator”; he did not or could not deny an embarrassing statement available on youtube.com in which he portrays BNP policies as a ploy intended to prepare the way for more hardline ones. His new policy of withdrawing criticism of Jewish subversion and supporting Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians is ill-conceived because it is unprincipled and sure to undermine the BNP’s credibility in the long run.

One gaffe was failing immediately to confess to once denying the holocaust when challenged. It is not pretty to see someone dodge and weave especially when there is no need. So what if he once doubted that an atrocity occurred? He should have attacked the question, should have boasted of a generally critical stance and suspicion of authority that mark the British character.

Another problem is overly rapid speech. This is a mark of intelligence but it can also appear harried. Statesmen speak with regular diction and do not allow themselves to be hastened, least of all by impertinent journalists. Statesmen often pause before answering. They show their ease and authority by leaving room for others to interrupt. Rushing to fill silences is self-defeating.

At present Griffin does not have the gravitas to attract the middle- and upper-middle classes. Until he improves or new leaders emerge, this limits the BNP to a populism unable to capture a significant segment of the intellectual and managerial high ground. It can slow the rot but as it is presently constituted, it cannot save the culture or the nation.

What is needed is the involvement of people of exceptional presence. Not superhumans but articulate, self-possessed, and principled. Perhaps the unimpressive way Griffin handled some questions would have been weeded out by conversations with more sophisticated colleagues. There is reason to hope. Griffin can perform creditably in one-on-one interviews. In one such encounter the interviewer, renowned for bullying interviewees, lost his professional demeanor when Griffin accused him and the rest of the media of betraying Britain.

Griffin has also shown intellectual leadership by introducing some needed ideological reforms — the main one being a clarification of the BNP’s constituency. Griffin maintains that the BNP represents indigenous ethnic Britons — the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. This improves on the vague conceptualization of the English and British as branches of the White race, by implication interchangeable with any other.

The new formulation is in line with what is known about history, culture and genetics and is supported by the best scholarship on ethnicity and nationalism such as Walker Connor’s Ethnonationalism. The Quest for Understanding (1994). An ethnic group is a cultural and genetic manifold with interests and solidarity dependent on both elements. Griffin’s reform makes good political sense because it positions the BNP as the flag-bearer of authentic British nationalism which a race-based policy cannot. We realize we are White, but for reasons of descent and history, we think of ourselves first and foremost as English, Welsh, Scots and Irish — then British; then perhaps as part of the Anglosphere including the pre-1965 U.S.A., Canada, and Australia; then Western European; then part of the European sub-continent. Thus Whiteness is the least compelling of ethnic identities, hardly something with which to attract mass support.

That is not to say that Polish immigration poses as much as a threat as Caribbean or Pakistani immigration of the same magnitude. Nevertheless large scale Polish or German or French or Italian colonization of Britain would reduce indigenous ethnic interests.

The prelude

The riot that took place at the gates of the BBC studios on the day Question Time was taped was a violent manifestation of the illiberal stance taken over preceding weeks by the Left and minority activists. One expects conflicts among tribes to be robust and often nasty. So it comes as no surprise that the Board of Deputies of British Jews has consistently advocated censoring the BNP, not only from this particular program but from the media in general. They see the fight against British ethnic nationalism as a priority on a par with defending their own nation state in the Middle East, and their opposition to restrictive immigration to Britain as compelling as keeping Israel for the Jews.

Jewish intolerance of English ethnic sentiment is understandable even if shortsighted. Neither is it difficult to comprehend their simultaneous protestations of liberal and democratic values once it is realized that all are means to the single end of ethnic welfare.

What is difficult to comprehend is how genuine leftists can juggle such inconsistent positions. Of course the left has its authoritarian wing as does the right. Stalinism is the mirror image of Nazism in its contempt for freedom of speech. But the influential type of leftism in Britain does not present itself as Stalinist but democratic.

Consider the quality newspaper The Guardian. This is a sophisticated cosmopolitan daily that is the most influential intellectual publication on the left in Britain. The paper editorialized against Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time. It rejects, when it is not ignoring, the BNP claim that there is an indigenous British people. It does not bother to discuss this issue despite it being critical for understanding the BNP’s position. The claim is indisputably true and well known in the academic literature on the subject of ethnicity and nationalism. (See for example the history of indigenous English nationhood by the late Adrian Hastings in The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, religion and Nationalism [1997]).

The Guardian left accepts as allies individuals and groups that are obviously motivated by ethnic sentiment. The Guardian is not at all interested in distancing itself from those who criticize the BNP for nefarious reasons, such as contempt for indigenous Britons. They did not cast a critical eye on the Board of Deputies and examine its motives for seeking to keep Nick Griffin off television. One gains the impression that anyone who attacks the BNP is acceptable as an ally no matter the motive.

Thus we find Gary Younge, a Black columnist for The Guardian who opposed Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. In doing so, he criticized those who attributed any cause of racial tension to minorities. The only cause of racism is racism itself, Younge asserted. In 2006 following the London transport bombings — by Muslims born and raised in Britain — Jack Straw urged Muslim women to cease wearing the naqab as a means of better integrating into British society. Younge thought this was “New Labour’s race-baiting rhetoric”. Racism, by which he means a strictly White malady, is produced by bad politics such as failing to service the White working class. Younge thinks that racism is not caused at all by minority behavior or numbers.

Thus the Guardian crowd not only overlooks minority chauvinist motives for hating British nationalism but tolerates vacuous analysis when it produces the desired result.

The British left is pathologically confused about ethnicity. Its adherents fail to admit that White peoples can have ethnic interests while implicitly sympathizing with minority and Third World ethnic and national sentiments and defending the perceived group interests of women and gays. In Britain the left equates Englishness and Whiteness, as does the neo-Nazi right. As if ethnicity is only a matter of race. The conflation serves the purpose of unleashing the powerful “racism” slur against all varieties of White ethnic affiliation — ethnic and national, affiliative and aggressive, moderate and extreme.

The left also confuses racial sentiment and authoritarianism, unleashing the “fascism” slur against all White ethnic loyalty. The representatives of a tradition that put class loyalty ahead of religion and nationality now look down snobbishly on those who have defected from a Labour Party that has abandoned its original White working class base.

The absolutism of the left’s anti-White nationalism needs explaining. The Guardian circle happily condemns in one breath the late Enoch Powell — in his time a professor of classics, cabinet minister, and conservative without fascist ties or sympathies — and declared neo-Nazis. This helps explain the campaign of violence conducted by the left against moderate and radical nationalists alike: The thugs are not trained to distinguish between them.

Of course the intellectual left does not condone violent attacks on the BNP. They just don’t take much notice. Meanwhile their concern for non-White victims of White racism rests on a hair trigger.

As a result of all this, British ethnic nationalists have nowhere to go except to parties such as the BNP because they are confronted with the choice of either surrendering what they see as vital interests or taking positions as intransigent towards the left and its ethnic allies as the left is towards them.

If the nice White consciousness types did create a more respectable middle-class party ,it would be called fascist and physically attacked for the reasons just described. To conduct public meetings and protect their officials they would need the protection of heavy-set men with short-cropped hair. Soon they would find that the bourgeoisie had deserted, leaving tough idealists willing to sacrifice all for their people. They would be pilloried, censored and mocked by the mainstream media. They would have created a duplicate BNP.

Let’s put these pieces together. By behaving with the selective intensity of an ethnically partisan movement, the left forces Anglo ethnic loyalists to either acquiesce or mirror this approach by adopting elements of fascism. Much the same observation was made by Kevin MacDonald in his book on anti-Semitism, Separation and its discontents: Toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. However, in that book the stimulus that produced the reaction of anti-Semitism was Jewish ethnic group strategies. What needs to be explained is why the modern left, ostensibly universalist and cosmopolitan, behaves like minority ethnic activists.

Leftist rejection of any expression of White ethnic solidarity is a puzzle because it is tribal in its intensity and inconsistency. This is not to be expected from minds imbued with universal and rational values. The intensity alone is unreasonable. Why should ethnocentrism expressed by Britons, and not that commonly expressed by minorities, produce absolute opposition? Why seek to punish mild White clannishness but not the far more intense clannishness shown by minorities? The Left has long been the most important source of criticism of Israel’s racial nationalism but why is it not also a critic of organized Jewry for its support of Israel? Indeed, why does it turn a blind eye to the ethnic loyalties of Jewish and other ethnic activists in its own ranks? And why the embrace of diversity, which has been shown to undermine many leftist values including equality, a sense of community, trust, high wages for labor, welfare, and democracy?

The aftermath

The most important aftershock of Griffin’s Question Time appearance was the exposure of the treason of Justice Minister Jack Straw. In the Question Time program, Straw was Griffin’s main antagonist apart from the moderator. Despite coming under some pressure during the program, Straw was generally allowed to appear respectable. In response to a questioner’s assertion that Straw’s own ruling party was responsible for the rise of the BNP because of its lax immigration policy, Straw claimed that he and his colleagues had taken strong measures to control run-away immigration:

I accept entirely people’s concerns about the pace of change and I’ve seen that in my own constituency. . . . What we have done sir . . . we have responded to the concerns very significantly for example by tightening border controls, introducing the kind of checks on people going out as well as people coming in . . . What we’ve also done is to introduce the Australian points system for work visas. (Question Time on Youtube.com, Part 5 of 7)

Within a day Straw’s claims about his government’s immigration policy were shown to be a lie. Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party adviser, revealed that the surge in immigration beginning in 2000 was not happenchance as widely thought, but in fact the objective of a plan by Straw and then Prime Minister Tony Blair. The goal was to swamp Britain with Third World immigrants as a means of demoralizing opposition to multiculturalism. They intended to “rub the Right’s noses in diversity” and make Britain’s demographic transformation irreversible.

As Melanie Phillips observed, the BBC failed to even report Neather’s bombshell:

“Yet last Friday Neather revealed that the demographic composition of this country had been deliberately altered by the government in a deliberate deception of the British electorate who had voted it into power and whose cultural identity was now being deliberately and covertly destroyed. And yet everyone is either too indifferent or too intimidated to talk about this. Truly, this country is in a lethal trance.

Nevertheless, it’s not lethal enough to drive Phillips (who is Jewish) to support the BNP, despite their newfound pro-Israel rhetoric.

The public response to Neather’s revelation was overwhelmingly negative, as revealed by the hundreds of comments posted on newspaper discussion forums. As one correspondent stated with typical British succinctness: “Straw and Blair are traitors to Britain and should be treated as such.” And another: “Every member of the Labour Party involved in this act of treason should be put on trial for treason and all the immigrants that have been allowed into the country should be told that they will be deported.”

Yet Jack Straw, with the able assistance of the BBC, played the noble moralist on Question Time, despite long ago having declared war on the British people. Perhaps his hostility was aided by identification with immigrants rather than ethnic Britons: “I come from immigrant stock . . . I’m third generation Jewish émigrés on my mother’s side. . . . We don’t want to pull up the draw bridge” (Question Time on Youtube.com, Part 5 of 7).

Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was valuable for showing just how desperate Britain’s situation is. This is a struggle of national life and death with powerful forces arrayed against us. For all their faults the BNP are the friends of the British peoples; they stand for national freedom and dignity and continuity. We should base our political choices on such fundamental issues: Better to have leaders who identify with and care about us than those who are indifferent or actually hate us.

The BNP are of great value because they give political expression to healthy ethnic sentiments increasingly evident in the British scene. Because they are the major force on our side, they are indispensible. While they continue to represent the interests of ethnic Britons, Nick Griffin and the other BNP leaders should be treated as heroes, warts and all.

Charles Dodgson (email him) is the pen name of an English social analyst.

Spitting Mad Jews and Angry Artists: Part 2

In Part 1 of this article, consisting of email responses to The Plot Against Art, I tried to give the reader a cross-section of emails I had received. Most of these came from failed artists who felt aggrieved at the insults and humiliations heaped upon them by an art establishment almost entirely controlled by organized Jewry. Here is a further selection of emails. I had intended originally to suppress these for fear of causing needless offence. I was finally persuaded to offer them for publication in the interests of free speech.

MIMI HOFFMAN: I won’t mince my words. I AM SPITTING MAD. I hated your article from start to finish. Because everything you said was false, false, false! Everyone I showed your article to, Jew and non-Jew alike, couldn’t believe such utter rubbish could ever be written. Why on earth would we Jews go out of our way to “create a hell on earth”? Would a people who’d experienced untold misery in the past, driven from country to country by bloodthirsty Christians — Christians who ended up killing six million of us in the cruelest circumstances — would a people familiar with suffering on such a vast scale attempt to “make life impossible for everyone”? For what purpose? Such sick behavior on our part would be counter-productive! It would only increase anti-Semitism! Don’t tell me you think we’re actually going out of our way to get ourselves hated!

DARKMOON: The quotations I provided in Part 1 of my article, in which leading members of the Frankfurt School openly state their agenda, are not quotations I concocted. The people who said these things were influential Jewish intellectuals, originally from Germany, who later taught at American universities. They are connected to a vast infrastructure in the media and the educational system. They said quite plainly that they wanted “to create a culture of pessimism”, “to corrupt society’s values”, “to make Western civilization stink,” and, finally, “to make life impossible for everyone.” So I’m not making anything up. I’m not inventing anything or spinning fancy theories. I am simply quoting these influential Jews.

Tell me this: Do you think the goyim are likely to love Jews more if you say to them: “Look, we’re going to corrupt your values! We’re going to push you to the edge of despair and drive you nuts! We’re going to make Western civilization stink and do our best to make your life totally impossible!” I seriously suggest that, if you and your fellow Jews want to be more popular in the countries which gave your forefathers hospitality, that you mind your manners! Treat the peoples and cultures where you live with respect! You want to be loved? Well then, be nice to your neighbors! Don’t spit in people’s faces if you want them to love you! Above all, don’t keep spitting on the Cross!

STEVEN K RYMER: These articles are EXCELLENT! Some of the best stuff I ever read. Especially these memorable quotes: “To summarize [the Frankfurt School agenda]: “Let’s create a culture of pessimism. Let’s make Western civilization stink. Let’s create a godless world and drive people to despair. Let’s corrupt society’s values and make life impossible. In short, let’s create hell on earth.” And this:To undermine. To corrupt. To create discord. To drive crazy. To destroy. Verbs to remember.” The Frankfurt School in a nutshell. Yes! They are destroyers — trained for destruction like killer dogs — determined to create a hell on Earth! I don’t think I have ever heard a better description of the basic core of the issue before.

DARKMOON: Thanks for these kind words of encouragement. I need to remind you, however, that when I speak of the “Jews”, I mean organized Jewry — not ordinary Jews. It’s necessary to bear this distinction in mind. There are four possible statements we can make about Jews: (1) All Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West. (2) No Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West. (3) Some Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West. (4) Most Jews are hostile to the people and the culture of the West.

To say that no Jews have these negative attitudes is as absurd as saying that all Jews have them. We are therefore left with a choice. Either we say that some Jews have these attitudes or that most Jews do. To say that some Jews are bad is pretty safe; most Jews would agree with that, although they would probably deny that these Jews have much influence. But just try saying that most Jews have these attitudes, and that such Jews are a critical force in creating a culture hostile to traditional Western mores and values, and you’re in deep trouble.  Someone sent me an email the other day that said: “If Jews act hatefully, isn’t it only natural to hate them? If they make it clear they’re out to destroy you and your cherished values, doesn’t it make sense to destroy them first? In such circumstances, isn’t there a case for anti-Semitism?” Frankly, I didn’t know what to say. I’d never heard it put like that before.

DALE RUSHTON: I would like to thank you for your brilliant article The Plot Against Art. In fact, I had been waiting for something like this to happen for years. An honest exposé of the contemporary art world. And it finally came! Thank you! I was myself an artist once. I tried to build an artistic career. It was pure madness on my part. I wasted ten years trying to achieve it with a truly fanatical determination; ignoring education, income, health, and success in every other occupation. I had nearly reached the point when my wife was about to walk out on me. I chased this pipe dream along with the best of them. And finally I began to suspect that this sort of career, this sort of artistic ‘fame’, was basically a form of prostitution. Art had been replaced by art business — a politicized and commercialized activity that no sane or moral person would even touch.

DARKMOON: If it’s any comfort to you, I have received scores of emails from artists who have traveled through the same dark wood that you have: years of passionate dedication to their work, the acquisition of exemplary skills, and, finally, the creation of beautiful objects which the Jewish art mafia decided to reject because they failed to satisfy their peculiar demands. The works produced were simply not shocking enough, not ugly enough, not depraved enough. They failed to produce that “culture of pessimism” so beloved of Georg Lukács and Walter Benjamin leading lights of the morally bankrupt Frankfurt School. Having failed to undermine moral values, poison the springs of life, and induce in the general public a state of suicidal despair, these artists were naturally fit only for the scrap heap.

DALE RUSHTON: I am quite familiar with almost everything you have mentioned in your article. For instance, an influential Jewish art critic once offered to help me with my career. He told me he would give me a favorable review if only I would “come out of my closet.” This happened in San Francisco where I lived for many years. I ignored these distasteful suggestions, being entirely heterosexual, and so I decided to persevere on my own. I succeeded in selling some of my work to private art lovers who seemed to appreciate my style, but no established art gallery showed the slightest interest in my work. Without the backing of this Jewish art elite, I was doomed to failure.

DARKMOON: Artists such as yourself, working in the old tradition, were under the false impression that what was needed were beautiful objets d’art to elevate the minds of the public. The opposite was in fact the case. The quest for beauty had been replaced by the systematic uglification of life. That was the new aim. “We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink, Marxist revolutionary Willi Munzenberg said. “Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the protelariat.” (My emphasis).

At least you know why you failed now. You failed because you aimed for beauty, not ugliness. Because you refused to promote “a culture of pessimism”. Because you did nothing “to make Western civilization stink.” Because you forgot the critical ingredient: to “make life impossible for everyone.”

DALE RUSHTON: I’m sorry if I come across as sad and embittered. That was not my intention. I still can’t understand how, after all my efforts, I managed to fail so spectacularly.

DARKMOON: You failed because you didn’t give the Jewish art establishment what it wanted. You refused to stuff your excrement into a can, for example, and try and pass it off as “art” — as Piero Manzoni did. If you had done so, you might well have sprung to international fame a few years later when your canned feces went under the hammer at Sotheby’s for $180,000.

Piero Manzoni, Artist’s Shit. The perfect symbol for modern art? Unfortunately, many people appear to think so.

Did you ever turn up at a prestigious art gallery in New York and demonstrate your masturbatory skills for your adoring fans? Victor Acconci stole a march on you there! You could have tried putting on a frock and a woman’s wig, like British artist Grayson Perry, and produced pottery depicting scenes of sexual perversion. You didn’t do this, did you?

The potter wore bobbysox … Grayson Perry poses with his wife Phillippa and daughter Flo after winning the Turner Prize.

DARKMOON (next day): Consider only these titles by one world-famous artist, Tracey Emin and draw your own conclusions: Everyone I Have Ever Slept With, Fucking Down An Ally (sic), Asleep Alone With Legs Open (several large-scale canvases of her splayed legs and vagina), I’ve Got It All (legs splayed again, clutching banknotes to her crotch), Weird Sex, CV Cunt Vernacular, Is Anal Sex Legal, Masturbating, Get Ready For the Fuck Of Your Life.

With titles like these, Tracey Emin could hardly fail. Her rich Jewish patron, advertising mogul Charles Saatchi, knew he was on to a good thing. As the Gadarene swine hurtle over the cliff top, Tracey Emin leads the pack.

Demon-possessed Swine

‘DMITRI’: I am a Russian Jew who settled in California forty years ago when my Paris-based family emigrated to America. I would like to correct two distortions which your otherwise excellent article has helped to promote: (1) that Jews have an inbuilt “visual deficiency” which always makes them second-rate artists, and (2) that the Jewish “art mafia” favors Jewish artists over non-Jewish ones and gives them preferential treatment. You are wrong on both these counts. I am a visionary artist who paints in the same style as Jewish artist Joseph Parker. See his painting below. How can you say this meticulously drawn painting shows a “visual deficiency” on the artist’s part? Isn’t it stunningly beautiful?

This is what I aspire to paint like. For the last 20 years I have painted hundreds of paintings in this style. No one recognizes my genius. I am regarded as a “poster artist”, as painting in a retro and outworn style. I have been damned with faint praise. They call me King Kitsch. The Jewish “art mafia” will do nothing to promote my work. Why? I suspect this is because my work uplifts the human spirit, and this is precisely what they do not want. They want ugliness and moral squalor. I could tell you about my failures and humiliations as an artist, but I won’t.

I will just say this. I have lost everything — my wife, my children, my life’s work. All I have left is my sanity and the new religion that saved me. Christianity. This gives me the will to go on. (By the way, I no longer consider myself a Jew). I go round the galleries with three small canvases in a carrier bag. I try to persuade the gallery owner (and the dealers I sometimes meet there) to look favorably on my work and give me a break. I dream of an exhibition. Of final recognition. Nothing happens. They won’t even look at my canvases. I have recently started taking round slides and leaving them with these important people — all of them, incidentally, Jews like myself. They have lost the slides. Or they have returned them with the rubber bands in exactly the same position as I’d arranged them. Showing me they’d never even bothered to take a look at my slides.

Why do I tell you this? So that you may know the truth. These rich Jews have no time even for their fellow Jews when they produce uplifting art. They much prefer the Useful Idiot Goyim who march to their drum and produce the crap they crave.

DARKMOON: Thank you for these fascinating insights into the art world. You have persuaded me to change my mind. Or rather, to modify my position from “extreme” to “moderate”. I readily concede now that some Jewish artists are striking exceptions to the general rule that Jews make lousy artists.

TIFFANY BLACKSTONE: Your amusing essay on art brought to mind Charlotte Whitman’s witty remark: “Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” Still, I regret to say that in your haste to take a swipe at the Jews, you failed to point out that the emergence of the female artist can be attributed largely to Jewish influence. But for the feminist movement, which the Jews have been so active in promoting, we female artists — I am myself one — would have been neglected and scorned and forced to take a back seat by the male chauvinist patriarchal swine who call the shots in our society. We have the Jews to thank for the emancipation of the female artist, don’t you think?

DARKMOON: I’m afraid I cannot agree with your basic assumption that women have been “held back” by chauvinist pigs for centuries, and that their hitherto hidden talents have at last received recognition — thanks to the benevolent patronage of the Jews! The facts speak for themselves. How many great female musicians and artists can you name? The fact that more women have muscled in to these areas recently has nothing to do with the sudden recognition of their amazing talents, previously suppressed by “the male chauvinist patriarchal swine who call the shots in our society.” It has more to do with publicity and the promotion of silly girls with sex appeal.

I ought  to mention at this point that some of the same promoters of the “Silly Girls” are also the promoters of the “Swaggering Boys”: such as tearaway shark artist Damien Hirst, transvestite potter Grayson Perry (see above), and painter of porno Madonnas Chris Ofili. All these artists were made famous by Jewish advertising Tsar Charles Saatchi. They were his Frankenstein monsters.

Damien Hirst

It can truly be said that wherever artists are to be found with a penchant for insulting Christianity or giving maximum offense to the public, there you will generally find the munificent Mr. Saatchi with his open check book.

DARKMOON (next day): There is nothing intrinsically admirable about Tracey Emin’s unmade bed or her attention-seeking leg-and-vagina paintings. If you were a man of taste, which of these two depictions of the Eternal Feminine would you prefer: this gorgeous creature by Botticelli or the feminist icon who appears below?

Botticelli’s Venus

Feminist icon Tracey Emin: “I’ve got it all”

The sad truth is that so many female “artists” have nothing to sell but vaginas. I need mention only these twelve, though there are scores of others queuing up to flash their fancy bits: Tracey Emin, Annie Sprinkle, Karen Finley, Hannah Wilke, Carolee Schneeman, Andrea Fraser, Sarah Lucas, Marlene McCarty, Vanessa Beecroft, Malerie Marder, Katy Grannan, Kembra Pfahler.

Some of these vaginocentric exhibitionists, like lesbian “performance artist” Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), maintain websites blocked by porn filters. The aptly named Sprinkle — a nom de porn in honor of “urolagnia — is the lady who douched her vagina onstage in 1991, before lying down and opening her legs so that members of the audience, mostly male, could inspect her cervix with the help of a flashlight and speculum. There was a “Public Cervix Announcement” of the event at the Brooklyn Museum’s Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art (whose main claim to fame is “The Dinner Party,” a depiction of the vulvas of 39 mythical and historical famous women by Judy Chicago [nee Cohen]). It’s not “performance art” we’re dealing with here, it’s pornography — an area of expertise in which, as we all know, Jews reign supreme.

Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), whose show was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, masturbated on stage with sex toys, inserted a speculum into her vagina and called up audience members to examine her cervix with a flashlight. Please note: all this depravity is indirectly funded by the American taxpayer without that taxpayer’s knowledge or consent.

MIRIAM KATZ: A friend of mine gave me a printed copy of your ridiculous essay to read. I took it into the bathroom with me, hoping to peruse it there at my leisure, only to find to my dismay that I’d run out of toilet paper. Guess what? I used your inspired work of fiction to wipe my ass. Handy, no?

DARKMOON: I’m pleased to hear my article made an impact, if not on your brain, at least on your behind. Actually, I’m surprised to hear you make use of toilet paper at all. Well done. 

MIRIAM KATZ: Touché! I guess I asked for that. The contemporary art scene, I have to admit, looks pretty bad. But why blame the Jews for it? It seems to me you go out of your way to be needlessly anti-Semitic.

DARKMOON: Why do I blame “the Jews” for what they have done to art, music and Western culture in general? Perhaps you should reread my essay, particularly the distinction I draw between organized Jewry (bad) and ordinary Jews (often good). Why do I do blame “the Jews” for their ongoing genocide in Gaza? Why do I blame them for their penchant for committing war crimes? Why do I blame them for the theft and plunder of Palestine? Why do I go out of my way to be “needlessly anti-Semitic” like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, like Ex-President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu, like John Meersheimer and Steven Walt, like Israel Shamir and Israel Shahak, and like billions of other disgusting anti-Semites? I honestly don’t know. I can only speculate. Could it have something to do with the behavior of the organized Jewish community?

DARKMOON (to Paul Norrland, translator of The Plot Against Art into Czech): Dear Mr Norrland, I came across this comment today in an article by Gilad Atzmon, “I learned recently from an American Jewish professor who teaches in Prague, that convoys of young American Jewish students make their way to the beautiful Czech capital every summer. They apparently use the opportunity to spit on the many Churches and golden crucifixes around. [My emphasis]. I also learned from the professor that the crucifixes on Prague’s famous Charles Bridge were initially decorated with the Hebrew words Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzvaot — “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts” — back in the 17th century just to stop Jews spitting on Christian symbols and the Crucifix in particular”. I wonder if you could comment on this bizarre phenomenon of “spitting mad Jews” who apparently fly all the way from America to Prague in order to spit on the image of Jesus Christ.

RED AVENGER: fuck the Jews. may they burn in hell forever. if I could build a hundred new auschwitzes and put all fifteen million of these vermin in it, i’d do it right now. good one darkmoon, keep it up…

DARKMOON: I am saddened by your comment. I sincerely hope my essay has not contributed to your sickness. There are many good Jews and I’d ask you to remember this. Your anti-Semitism is getting out of hand when you’ve reached the stage of thinking that all Jews are evil and wishing they’d all died in Hitler’s death camps. I’m afraid this puts you beyond the pale. I’ve recently made friends with a Jewish painter — a truly remarkable woman, generous and caring — and I’d hate to see her come to any harm for no other reason than that she happens to be Jewish. The only hope for mankind, in my opinion, is the mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity. A collective exorcism is what they need. Building new Auschwitzes will not solve the problem.

RED AVENGER: well then, fuck off you sad Jew lover…

MIRIAM KATZ: Anti-Semitic bitch, you win first prize for insolence! Freud thought anti-Semitism was caused by sexual frustration. Not getting enough, eh?

DARKMOON: Enough already! (From you, I mean). I must remind you that Freud has long since been exposed as a fraud and psychoanalysis dismissed as “a sectarian political movement masquerading as science.” (See Chapter 4 here). A Freud fan who spent his life producing smut and who offers a convenient paradigm of Talmudic attitudes to Christianity is Al Goldstein — he likes telling people that “Christ sucks”.

Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, said (on lukeford.com – note: is adult content), “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”

When asked if he believes in God, Goldstein says: “Fuck God. I am your God, admit it. We’re random. We’re the flea on the ass of the dog.” When his partner is asked what attracts her to this foul-mouthed pornographer, Goldstein butts in: “It’s my big Jewish dick.” One can’t reason with men like this. One can only refer them to the nearest psychiatric clinic. Unfortunately, thousands of such Goldsteins are now to be found everywhere, spreading all over America like a mad rash: in Hollywood, the media, the judiciary, academia, high finance, and in the higher echelons of the government. Even the best torture experts are now Jewish, as Alan Dershowitz would be the first to testify.

DARKMOON: (later, unsent email): And now for the final twist of the knife. Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, author of Kosher Sex and The Kosher Sutra, has just announced that “Jewish values” are America’s way forward. Jewish values? Did I hear the good Rabbi correctly?

Are these the “Jewish values” America needs: ADL National Director Abraham H Foxman denounced Mel Gibson’s Passion as “anti-Semitic”, but nevertheless waxed eloquent about the Jewish role in the porn industry. “Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream,” he enthuses fatuously.

Or perhaps this charmer will provide America with its new “Jewish values”?

Sarah Silverman: “I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again — in a second!

To summarize: Al Goldstein: “Christ sucks!” Abe Foxman : “Porn, the American dream!” Alan Dershowitz: “Let’s have some torture!” Sarah Silverman: “I hope the Jews did kill Christ!” American Jew in Prague: “Hey, let’s spit on the Cross!”

If these are the Jews who are going to heal America and lead it into the future, God help America.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.

Spitting Mad Jews and Angry Artists: Part 1

y article, The Plot Against Art, elicited an unprecedented number of emails. These came mostly from angry artists who believed that they had produced works of high quality that had been spurned by the art establishment. The artists who had achieved world fame, on the other hand, had in many cases done so only because they had produced decadent works of trash designed to deprave and corrupt the public: such as pornographic Madonnas, crucifixes offensively placed in urine, cans stuffed with the artist’s own excrement, and unmade beds with condoms and blood-stained panties conveniently scattered around as “significant” litter.

These puerile charlatans had set out to destroy traditional values, promote sexual perversion, mock Christianity, and, in general, create ugliness and despair — a sorry situation promoted by an art establishment that has been dominated since the early 20th century by Jewish art critics, collectors and dealers. This Jewish influence on art is of course in accordance with the openly declared  aims of the Frankfurt School, a Jewish revolutionary movement dedicated to the destruction of traditional Western values — and indeed to the very people who live by those cherished values.

Unbelievable? Absolutely. If it weren’t unbelievable, it wouldn’t be true.

I ought perhaps to mention my reasons for discussing these emails in public. (With one exception, pseudonyms are used, because this was generally insisted on as the condition for publication. I also had to do some editing for style and brevity.)

First, I appear to have touched on a raw nerve without meaning to do so. While most articles to this site, my own included, seldom attract more than a handful of responses within the first few days, The Plot Against Art has given rise to a phenomenal 100 pages of emails, including one from Czech academic Paul Norrland who informs me that the Occidental Observer has made an impact among the intelligentsia of Prague. “I was very happy when I discovered TOO,” he confides, “and could read Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique. I believe it is one of the most important works of this young century. I am sure its true impact is yet to come.”

Much to my delight, he told me he had just translated my article into his native Czech. To my dismay, however, I found I was unable to understand a single word of this gobbledegook. Talk about being Czechmated!

MIKE UPTON: Your analysis of modern art — and by extension, atonal music — is incisive and insightful. Thank you. It should be required reading for every college undergraduate but of course it won’t be, at least for the foreseeable future. How could we, the descendants of those who created the great Western culture, have been so thoroughly overpowered by a tiny, pathological and destructive minority? It defies belief.

DARKMOON: Many others have written to me expressing their outrage over the art scam. But it’s more than just art, as you know. The evils being practiced upon us extend to all areas of life. It’s a sad and sorry situation, but aren’t we ourselves to blame for letting ourselves be led by the nose over the precipice’s edge?

HILDA PRETTY: The Plot Against Art is one of the most revealing pieces of literature to detail organized Jewry’s implacable hatred of European culture I have seen. The many photo captions of obscene and hideous “art” along with the in-depth information detailing the immense Jewish involvement and influence on the Western art world, shocks and appalls. People will not soon forget it.

DARKMOON: Thank you for these kind words. They help to compensate for some of the abuse I have received.

MARQUIS DE FRANCE: Madam, I had the extreme displeasure of reading your vile essay on art yesterday. My valet brought me the printed version in bed, on my own instructions, carefully arranged on the breakfast tray beside the toast and marmalade. He omitted, however, to bring rubber gloves and pincers. You have a doctorate? From what university, pray? I think you are a charlatan, madam. Your essay is factually unsound and tendentious in the extreme. It made me feel quite ill just reading it. I am not Jewish, by the way, but I adore Jewish women — the most beautiful in the world. Your essay caused great distress to my Jewish girlfriend. She almost tore it up in her rage. She flung it across the room. “F*** this c***!” she screamed. If I knew your address, madam, I would track you down and give you the thrashing of your life. Marquis de France.

DARKMOON: The Marquis de Sade, I presume? 

DAVID HOXTON: Your article on the prostitution of art to Jews is like a soothing melody. The composer Wagner made the same observation about the Jewish destruction of art by marginalizing true art which inspires to higher motives. Last weekend I presented some of my sculptures at an art show in Sacramento Ca. It was an art show in name only. For the most part, it was a combination of scramble figures on canvas and photographs in frames. I am so lonely here, all isolated as if I am the only artist who knows the truth. Please respond to this email, and give me some hope. I need a pat on the head like a lonely little puppy.

DARKMOON: I’m afraid an email from me is unlikely to put the world right. It will probably come as no consolation to you to learn that you are not the only person to have been victimized by the Jews of the art world. I have received dozens of emails from artists who feel desperate failures. They have struggled all their lives and their efforts have all been wasted. The beauty they offered the world has been scorned. This is because the arbiters of art — mostly a Jewish cultural elite — have decided that henceforth only ugliness shall be beauty. A mesmerized public has been brought, like blinkered horses to foul ponds, and forced to drink filthy water.

BENJAMIN TROTT: Good try, Darkmoon, but it won’t wash. Your essay seriously flawed. Idea that Jews have genetic defect that makes them lousy artists totally absurd. Many good Jewish artists around. Israel Shamir says Modigliani and Chagall, born Jewish, suddenly morph into brilliant artists after becoming Christian. You parrot this absurd view. Never heard such hooey. How can baptism make one more deft with a paintbrush?  Back to the drawing board, Darkmoon.

DARKMOON: If I were to rewrite my essay, it would have to be more nuanced on this point. The idea that all Jewish artists, because of some inherent “visual deficiency”, are fundamentally inferior in artistic talents to non-Jewish artists, is simplistic. It needs to be modified. Apart from Modigliani and Chagall, other Jewish painters of note are Pissarro, Soutine, Max Ernst, Roy Lichtenstein, Tamara de Lempicka, Helen Frankenthaler, Lucien Freud. The top art forger of all time, Elmyr de Hory, was a Hungarian Jew. He forged so many Dufys that even the experts were fooled. They actually rejected genuine Dufys because they thought de Hory’s Dufys were the real thing!  An artist needs extraordinary technical skills to perpetrate such consummate forgeries.

Two of de Hory’s forgeries. He is said to have produced over a thousand. Many a Modigliani, Monet, Matisse, Dufy, Derain and Picasso, hanging in private galleries right now, were in fact done by de Hory. It says little for the vaunted skill of the so-called “art experts” that they have been fooled so often by fakes.

Having said this, however, Israel Shamir’s excellent point that “Jews bend art to suit their abilities” has more than a grain of truth in it. Abstract painting largely caught on because inferior artists, many of them Jewish, found abstract art a piece of cake. Here are three abstract paintings which a zoologist friend of mine thinks a trained chimpanzee would have no problem painting:

Mark Rothko, ‘Light Red Over Black’, 1957; Oil on canvas (Saatchi Gallery)

Helen Frankenthaler, Magic Carpet, 1964, Acrylic on canvas.

Jules Olitski, Tin Lizzie Green, 1964.

The three artists above were all Jewish.  They succeeded only because “Art had been  bent to suit Jewish abilities.” (Israel Shamir). Witness also Joseph Albers’ endless variations on the same theme in Homage to the Square.

JORDAN DUBRAY: I was accepted at Yale university grad school for painting in 1968.  The school  had an unwritten rule. Each student had to paint in their assigned open cubicles. Those who refused to paint in those cubicles were all thrown out of Yale. This rule may have been started by Joseph Albers, right after he came from Germany and took up his position there as chairman of the grad school.

I believe that the faculty enforced this rule because some of them had been stealing ideas that grad students were in the process of developing in the open cubicles. The faculty were all very well known and had galleries representing them in NYC, and the unknown grad students provided a wealth of ideas for them.  I know for a fact that some of the students’ work was far more creative than the tired crap most of the faculty was doing. Anyway, I needed privacy to do my work and so I decided to disobey the unwritten rule of painting in an open cubicle.

During the next two years one individual member of that faculty, a Jew, tried to find some weakness in my work.  He was unable to do so. I admired the classical masters, I studied their work, I modeled myself on them, I attended all the classes and completed all the assignments — so there was nothing this Jew could do to get me expelled from Yale. I received my MFA in 1970, being the only person to graduate from Yale who had refused to abide by the university’s rule of painting in an open cubicle.

NOTE FROM DARKMOON: Jordan goes on to relate his subsequent adventures as a struggling artist in the Jewish-dominated art world. The slights and humiliations he was to receive at the hands of this Jewish “art mafia” could fill an entire book. Indeed, they did fill an entire book — for Jordan was to write it himself, taking seven years to do so. Unfortunately, Jordan was unable to find a publisher. In 1971, an exhibition of his paintings was held at the school where he worked. The curator of the Whitney Museum happened to be there. He was sufficiently impressed to offer Jordan the unique opportunity of showing two of his major paintings at the coming Whitney Biannual exhibition. Jordan was delighted. Recognition at last! Alas, it was not to be. Jordan’s dreams were soon to turn to dust.

By sheer chance, a member of the Yale faculty had visited the Whitney Museum and badmouthed Jordan to the curator, Robert Doty. Doty broke off all communication with Jordan. Suddenly, Jordan’s paintings were no longer welcome at the Whitney. No reason was offered for this bizarre U-turn, but it is easy enough to speculate what must have happened. One Jew had poured his venom into the receptive ear of another. “Don’t show this man’s work! He’s a known anti-Semite!”

When Jordan attended the Whitney exhibition a bit later, he was to find that the wall space originally assigned to him had been allocated to a Yale art faculty member. Several years later, he was to learn the identity of the man who had been spreading calumnies about him.

JORDAN DUBRAY: After 23 years, in 1993, I was told the name of the man who had been slandering me to the art galleries. Who had got me blacklisted. It was the Jew I previously referred to — the man who had been a constant thorn in my flesh at Yale. This man had the most power on that faculty and, I believe, the least talent. But it was easy to see that he was a cruel and vicious individual.  The students even tried to get rid of him and many of us signed a petition to have him removed from Yale. We all believed he was incompetent and a danger to the students there. But it didn’t work, and he remained there longer than any other member of their faculty.

I went into a terrible rage soon after I received information that I had been blacklisted.  I could not focus on my painting any longer, so I decided to do an investigation of what it was all about and find out who exactly was involved. And so I did an investigation lasting about 7 years, then I also wrote a book about the whole experience. But it has remained unpublished to this day. Yale was later to buy an old Jewish Synagogue and place the Yale graduate art school in that building. A fitting place for that school, don’t you think?

DARKMOON: I am shocked to hear all this. Truly shocked. There’s nothing I can really say…

JORDAN DUBRAY: I’ve learned that practically everything in this world is basically upside down. I couldn’t stop these people from sabotaging my career, from doing all they did to injure me, but I guess it gave me an interesting story to tell…

DARKMOON: That’s why I’m telling it.

JORDAN DUBRAY: I believe your important essay has helped me to see things in a new light. Have I failed as an artist? Maybe. But not as a man. To refuse to be part of this evil trade is to succeed. To be embraced by them, however, and rewarded with riches after selling one’s soul to the devil — that is to fail in life. And so I send you my blessings, Lasha Darkmoon.

DARKMOON: Goodbye, dear Jordan. Words fail me at this point. Let me offer you these ancient words of wisdom as a parting gift: What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?

ANTHONY HILTON (retired Professor Of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, and frequent contributor to TOO): Here’s a  thought I’ve had concerning ethnicity and art. It is that the Jews themselves seem to be genuinely fond of the psychology of Sigmund Fraud [sic] as well as the type of “art” favoured by the Jewish art establishment. To the extent that this is true, it would mean we’re dealing not so much with a deliberate attempt to undermine WAS(P) culture but rather with a cultural incompatibility —  accompanied by a normal human tendency to assert dominance over any domain the Jews happen to like. There could even be an element of “altruism” in it — a bit like garlic lovers proselytizing their food tastes.

DARKMOON: I won’t disagree with you. Your garlic metaphor is particularly apt. Pathological liars, sooner or later, come to believe their own lies. I’m sure there was an element of that in Bush and Blair when they plotted the destruction of Iraq and were looking for an excuse for genocide. I’ve just read a comment today on another site, where  someone says you have to hand it to the Jews that they’ve  managed to take over the world — mass media, politics, finance, the judiciary, academia et al — on a miniscule 0.2 per cent of the world’s population. His conclusion? Maybe they deserve to rule the world, being so smart and superior. Maybe we ought to sit back and let them get on with it. Who knows, he muses, they may be doing all this for our own good — out of sheer altruism! Point to ponder: is this Animal Farm? Are we like cattle being coddled and cared for by the People Farmers?

DARKMOON: [unsent email to Anthony Hilton, Nov. 12, 2009]: Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, claimed that Jews had invented ideas like human rights and universal peace. He concluded his speech by stating, “we are a small people but a great people; a people generous enough to pave a path toward a lasting peace; a people brave enough to thwart the dangers that confront us; and a people creative enough to once again help steer humanity towards a better future for all. By a curious coincidence, it bears out what you said earlier about possible Jewish “altruism” — they are doing things like dispossessing the Palestinians for the good of humanity. It also echoes my own comment about the Jews in their role of “People Farmers”: Superior people that they are, they are steering humanity in the proper direction — over the precipice’s edge.

I should like to conclude this discussion by suggesting that if Jews continue to behave in a provoking manner, as they have for centuries, anti-Semitism is inevitable. Dismissing the irrelevance of the Protocols as a source of anti-Semitism, Israel Shamir says“Arabs have no need to import anti-Semitic arguments from old and far-away sources, provided they have a fresh round-the-clock local source: actual behaviour of the Jewish state and its Jewish citizens.” (My emphasis).

DARKMOON (Final email, to an artist friend who is also a cartoonist):  Here are two political cartoons — a potent art form in its own right — that say more in one smack of the eye than a thousand words can:

Steve Bell, acclaimed Guardian cartoonist, won the British Political Cartoon Society 2003 Award with this cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon devouring babies. The usual suspects were incensed and Bell was stigmatized as an anti-Semite.

Finally, here’s one of my favorites: a cartoon with a witty nursery rhyme added as a special bonus.

 

Steve Bell cartoon, The Guardian, 02/18/2004

Land-grabbing Izzy built a Great Wall,

Land-grabbing Izzy had a Great Fall.

All America’s armies, missiles and men

Couldn’t put Izzy together again!

Unknown Poet

Prophetic?  Time will tell.

Go to Part 2 of this article.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.

Artful Race: The Idea of Physical Beauty and Ugliness

Albrecht Dürer: Self Portrait

The idea of physical beauty — and its plastic, graphic, or verbal expression — is of European origin. The grotesque reality is that non-White races and ethnicities know this fact, but for obvious reasons do not wish to admit it. Or rather, over the last half a century, they have been forced, by their White repentant masters, along with their leftist Marxist acolytes — not to admit it.  The irony is that even when racial out-groups publicly rebuke the European idea of beauty for its alleged Eurocentric and xenophobic message, or when they forcefully attempt to express their own endogenous beauty — they end up mimicking the White European style and form.

Therefore the much vaunted noun ‘diversity’ is both a lexical and conceptual fraud — whose victims are not just Whites but also non-Whites. Diversity presupposes that that there is a plurality of beauties. Yet in real life within Western societies, ‘diversity’ carries the denominator of distorted Whiteness — in style, looks, form, narrative, etc.

The examples are startlingly numerous — beginning with the physiognomy of Oprah Winfrey to that of Barack Obama, or for that matter to movies from Bollywood (India) in which, as a rule, a Hindu hero displays some European features,  sports a quasi-dolicochephalic face, or short of that, postures with his tall stature. Soap operas throughout Latin America notoriously feature blond, blue-eyed Whites in the main roles.

Racial Self-Image: The Ideal of Beauty

Theologies and ideologies come and go but the merciless laws of racial biology are here to stay. One can flee his country’s oppressive rulers, but one cannot escape his heredity. It was not some wicked proverbial “Nazi,” but the Jewish British Prime minister and author Benjamin Disraeli, who said“The difference of race is one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist; because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance.”

Not tons, but megatons of book titles were  seized, burned down or simply shoved down the Orwellian  memory hole by the victorious Allies in defeated Germany. And among those were works by prominent European geneticists, anthropologists, artists and biologists, whose work long predated the National Socialist seizure of power.  The entire Allied inquisition against European scholarship and science was euphemistically called the “The List of the literature to be singled out (Die Liste der auszusondernden Literatur); see here and here. The Lamarckian-Marxian idea of racial equality and human interchangeability has become so powerful that the most modest academic skepticism regarding contemporary “self-evident truths” is severely punished.

Figurative and plastic forms of art are the best vectors for studying racial types and subtypes, but also an ideal mirror of physical beauty among Western men and women. Ideas of race and beauty were perhaps best described by Paul Schulze Naumburg, the much acclaimed art critic and artist himself in the Third Reich, and Hans Günther,  a racial anthropologist. Both were among the thousands of authors banned by the post-WWII Inquisition.

One does not need to be an expert in anthropometry or eugenics to distinguish between racial ugliness and racial beauty. Glancing at classical art exhibits in European museums tells us all. 

As a rule, artistic creation reflects not just the personality and the race of a depicted human, but also of the subject, i.e., the artist himself. Portraits and pictures of naked women tell us much about the idea of race and beauty of a given nation, at a given historical time period.  Schulze Naumburg writes that every artist crafts his characters in his own image. Sandro Botticelli’s face, his blue eyes,  lank stature, and  his racial Nordic-Mediterranean (“westisch”) makeup found their way on his canvasses, particularly in his famous, elegant and long-limbed Nordic looking, beauty with high cheekbones,  the Primavera — albeit embellished in a timely fashion.

Botticelli: Primavera

Botticelli: Self-portrait

So does Rembrandt’s own facial combination of a Nordic-Dinaric-Mediterraneanman, including his stocky limbs, find its way on his canvass. The portraits of Titian’s naked females tell us two things: a) the idea of female beauty in Europe of his time; b) the personality and Nordic racial makeup of Titian himself. A Black artist or an Asian artist can never ever have such racial empathy.

One could probably explain the relationship between the artist and his work simply as a preference of every human being for his own race and his own type. It appears quite obvious that each artist presents that which in his perceptions lives and what is preferably his subject of preoccupation. Decisive is the choice of the role model based on preference for his own race or (corporal) type. (p. 31–32)

When two races mix, there is a likelihood that the rhythm will be upset or that it will disappear. Surely, there are cases in which harmony occurs — which is more likely the closer the races that are to be mixed are. Thus the relation between the Nordic and the Dinaric man will be easier achieved than the relation between a member of the Nordic race and an Oriental man (“einem Mongoloiden”) (p. 34) (my translation) Schulze-Naumburg, Kunst und Rasse (Art and Race) ( 1928, 1942)

[adrotate group=”1″]

Japanese or African art differs from European art because it reflects a different gene pool. The African woodcutting has nothing in common with the German woodcuts of Nordico-Dinaric artist Albrecht Dürer. What strikes the eyes of the White observer is that the women bathing, shown on some of the 17th-century Japanese woodcuts, have expressionless faces, flat hips and breasts, and instead of the eyes one can see two slits above their tiny nose. The brush of vivid and different colors is nonexistent.

Dürer: The Knight, Death, and the Devil

African Woodcut

For obvious reasons, despite their high verbal IQ and their proverbial ears for music, Jews have never excelled in plastic and figurative art. Their religion strictly forbids them worshipping of idols and their pictorial representation. The poor sense for imagery and the lack of the metaphor seems to be primal racial traits of Jews. A good connoisseur of the Jewish spirit, the French linguist and philosopher, Ernest Renan wrote that “the desert is monotheistic” (Le désert est monothéiste“) — hence by definition devoid of mystery and pictorial imagination. It is debatable to what extent the much vaunted Jewish Russian painter, Marc Chagall fits into the European artistic and racial consciousness. His paintings depicting flying goats or Jewish newlyweds floating in the sky above a shtetl in Russia make one wonder whether Chagall was high on vodka at the moment of his artistic exuberance.

The Frankfurt school attempt at pathologizing European art and particularly the concept of European physical beauty was in full swing shortly after WWII. But one could use exactly the same procedure, albeit in a reverse manner, to describe racial psychology of many Jewish writers, as for instance Franz Kafka.  In his convulsive prose, the main Kafka’s hero identifies himself constantly with images of ugliness (The CastelThe Metamorphosis). For that matter even books by the famed Jewish “father of psychoanalysis, ” Sigmund  Freud testify of a troubled man with compulsive neurosis, whose work today, after having done so much damage in creating guilt feelings among Whites, is no longer considered very serious —  even by his former disciples.

Scores of Jewish  intellectuals, like Bruno Bettelheim went to great lengths in order to criminalize the beauty of European fairy tales (and by detour provoke guilt feelings among non-Jewish parents), ascribing them a barbaric character — while prudently avoiding to delve into morbid tales  from the Old Testament — whose violence is proverbial .

In his classic Rasse und Stil (Race and Style, 1926), Hans Günther writes that different White racial subtypes are not only physically and facially different, they also express artistic feelings differently. A Western man with predominately Nordic features (Scandinavia, Northwestern Germany, Holland, central Britain) shows unwavering perseverance, “will to power,” and disinterestedness — what Nietzsche called the “pathos of distance.” This is despite the fact that Nietzsche and scores of “Faustian-Promethean” Western thinkers had a clear streak of Dinaric genes, as seen on Nietzsche’s own face. From the architectural point of view the Nordic spirit is best embodied in Gothic cathedrals.

Günther points out that vividness, verbosity, occasional theatrical posturing, yet amazing courage in military close combats, are racial features that one encounters in the European Dinaric racial subtype (Bavaria, Lombardy, Austria, western Balkans). This is best seen in popular folk costumes, love for music and dance, unwavering friendship, and love for ornaments — so typical for the spirit of the Central European Baroque.

The Alpine round-headed man (‘ostisch’) appears all over the White race in the USA and Europe, although historically the bulk of Alpine Europeans are located in Eastern Europe and Russia. The Alpine man is sentimental and home-bound, but also tends to be moody and cranky. Older comics and caricatures in Europe and the USA, when depicting a petty bourgeois, or an un-intellectual person, use the round-headed Alpine as a symbol of social derision.  Günther writes that “the work of an artist with an Alpine (‘ostisch’) trait is mostly calm, conciliatory, in contrast to the Nordic artist whose work appears shocking and demanding. … ‘German accuracy’ is a Nordic-Alpine feature. Nordic man is punctual; he loves order and discipline — as long as he can combine this proclivity with generosity.… The Alpine streak transpires in precision, combined with pettiness and grumbling” (pp. 70, 79).

A Dinaric-Mediterranean Macho Touch?

It is no accident that the ideal type of White male beauty in the West never appears in a single racial type but rather as a combination of all three. Historically, the ideal type of an attractive White male has Nordic stature and skull with dark Dinaric or Mediterranean hair.  No wonder that White women in the West are attracted to this combination, as embodied by films stars Antonio Banderas, Sean Connery, etc. Seldom is a pure Nordic male specimen viewed among White women as the epitome of male attractiveness. There are jokes in continental and southern Europe about blond-haired White males being “albinos” or “faggots.” Manliness, with a grain of machismo, has traditionally been associated with the Dinaric and Mediterranean subtypes.

The ideal type of woman for a White male is also supposed to have other admixtures — next to her Nordic substance. Surprisingly, for many White males attractive White woman must have high cheekbones and a slight Oriental touch — to be fully “sexy.” (White males in the US are courting and breeding en masse with Asian women — perhaps partly due to Asian women poaching into the White gene pool. This is a socio-psychological topic that will be addressed separately in a later column).

A touch of Oriental lasciviousness, if not outright vulgarity, is what makes many White males seduced by the likes of Michelle Pfeiffer.

Michelle Pfeiffer

Is it an accident that the Nordic Botticelli’s Primavera has very un-Nordic high and sexy cheekbones with a seducing glance lurking in her eyes? This feature we never find among classical Nordic nudes whose perfect bodies, yet with serene and tragic looks on their faces, rarely ever trigger erotic fantasies among White males.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former Croatian diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007). His new book of essays, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, will soon be released. Email him.

The Party is Over

Morphine is said to be good for people subject to severe depressions, or even pessimism. Although the drug first surfaced in a laboratory at the end of the 19th century, its basis, opium, had been used earlier by many aristocratic and revolutionary nationalist thinkers. A young and secretive German romantic, Novalis, enjoyed eating and smoking opium juice, probably because he had always yearned to alleviate his nostalgia for death. Probably in order to write his poem Sehnsucht nach dem Tode (“Nostalgia of Death”). Early poets of Romanticism turned inward to their irrational feelings, shrouding themselves in the pensive loneliness which opiates endlessly offer.

Revolutionary-Conservative, Anarcho–Nationalist Aesthetics 

Once upon a distant time we met Homer’s Odysseus, who was frequently nagged by the childish behavior of his pesky sailors. Somewhere along the shores of northern Africa, Odysseus had strayed away into the mythical land of the lotus flower. As soon as his sailors began to eat the lotus plant, they sank into forgetfulness, and immediately forgot their history and their homeland. It was with great pain that Odysseus succeeded in extracting them from artificial paradises. What can be worse for White race or than to erase its past and lose its collective memory?

The escape from industrial reality and the maddening crowd was one of the main motives for drug use among some revolutionary conservative poets and thinkers, who could not face the onset of liberal mass society. The advent of early liberalism and socialism was accompanied not only by factory chimneys, but also by loneliness, decay, and decadence. The young English Tory Thomas De Quincey, in his essay Confessions of an English Opium Eater, relates his Soho escapades with a poor prostitute Anna, as well as his spiritual journeys in the aftertaste of opium. De Quincey has a feeling that one life-minute lasts a century, finally putting an end to the reckless flow of time.

The mystique of opium was also grasped by the mid-19th-century French symbolist and greatest poet of all time,  Charles Baudelaire.  He continued the aristo-nihilistic-revolutionary-conservative tradition of dope indulgence via the water pipe, i.e., the Pakistani hookah. Similar to the lonely albatross, Baudelaire observes the decaying France in which the steamroller of coming liberalism mercilessly crushes all aesthetics and all poetics.

Charles Baudelaire

The nationalist, traditionalist and right-wing answer to the decadence of liberal democracy is cultural pessimistic counter-decadence. The main difference, however, between these two is that traditionalist and rightist addicts do drugs in order to escape feelings of cultural despair. When a great right wing poet, such as Edgar Allan Poe drinks himself to death, it is not for having fun, but rather to escape the burden of time and the ambiance of liberal ugliness.

Here lies the main difference between leftist and rightwing intellectuals, scholars and artists. Leftist escapism, by definition, means instant gratification. By contrast, the whole rightwing spiritual heritage is immersed in cultural despair and magic words of “Weltschmerz.” It must be a matter of individual character, psychological strength and moral perseverance for all Euro-American White thinkers not to fall into cheap oblivion but to continue Faustian and Promethean resistance against all odds.  As Friedrich Nietzsche warned us long time ago: “A free man is a fighter”!

Unquestionably alcohol consumption has done more damage to intelligent nationalist and traditionalist poets, thinkers and politicians than all Marxist and liberal foes combined. When in the 21st century the flow of history switches from first gear into fifth gear, many among them (among us?) may rightfully pose a question: What do we do after the orgy? The French author Jean Cocteau knew the answer: “Everything we do in our life, even when we love, we perform in a rapid train running to its death. Smoking opium means getting off the train.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Don’t ‘Bogart’ Political Correctness!

Hashish and marijuana change the body language and enhance the babbling about “human rights” and “social philanthropy.” Smoking joints triggers abnormal laughter. Therefore hashish may be described as a communistic drug — custom-designed for multiracial individuals who by their lifestyle loathe solitude and indulge in vicarious humanism and unrepentant globalism. In the permissive society of today, one is allowed to do everything—provided one does not rock the boat, i.e., “bogart” political correctness.

If Stalin had been a bit more intelligent he would have solemnly opened marijuana fields in his native Transcaucasia. Instead, communist tyrants resorted to needless and senseless killing fields of the Gulag. The advantage of liberalism and its multi- racial promiscuity is that via sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll, by means of consumerism and hedonism, they function perfectly well. What communism was not able to achieve by means of the solid truncheon, liberalism is achieving by means of the firm joint.

Cocaine induces eroticism and enhances the sex act. The late French fascist dandy and novelist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle took coke, and in addition loved all possible and impossible women. The problem, however, is that the coke intaker often feels invisible bugs creeping from his ankles up to his knees, so that he imagines himself sleeping not with a beautiful woman but with scary reptiles. In his autobiographical novels Le feu follet (“Sparkling lights”) and L’homme couvert de femmes (“Man Loaded with Women”) La Rochelle’s hero is constantly covered by women and veiled by opium and heroin sit-ins. In his long intellectual monologues, La Rochelle’s hero says: “A Frenchwoman, be she a whore or not, likes to be held and taken care of; an American woman, unless she hunts for a husband, prefers a passing relationship… Drug users are mystics in a materialistic age. Given that they can no longer animate and embellish this world, they do it in a reverse manner on themselves.”

Indeed, La Rochelle’s hero ends up in suicide-with heroin and revolver. In early 1945, with the approaching victory of the Allies, and in the capacity of the intellectual leader of the defunct Euro-fascist International, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle followed his own advice: he also opted for suicide.

The English conservative and aristocrat author, Aldous Huxley is unavoidable in studying communist pathology (Brave New World Revisited) and Marxist subintellectual schizophrenia (Grey Eminence). As a novelist and essayist his lifelong wish had been to break loose from the flow of time. Mexican mescaline and the artificial drug LSD (‘acid’) enabled him new intellectual horizons for observing the end of his world and the beginning of a new, brave new one. In his book The Doors of Perception, Huxley notes that “mescaline raises all colors to a higher power and makes the percipient aware of innumerable fine shades of difference, to which, at ordinary times, he is completely blind.”  On his deathbed in California in 1963, he asked for and was given LSD. Probably to depart more picturesquely into timeless infinity.

And what to say about the German essayist and novelist Ernst Jünger, whom the young Adolf Hitler in Weimar Germany liked to read. Jünger is today the greatest literary icon among European nationalists and revolutionary conservatives.  In his book Annäherungen: Drogen and Rausch,(Rapprochements: Drug and Getting High) Jünger describes his close encounters with drugs.. “Time slows down. . . . The river of life flows more gently… The banks are disappearing.”

Ernst Jünger’s compatriot, the cultural pessimist, anticommunist and anti-liberal essayist and poet, the medical doctor Gottfried Benn, also took drugs. His observations, which found their transfigurations in his poems “Kokain are indispensable in studying the decaying liberal, democratic pre-National Socialist Weimar Germany. He records in his voluminous poetry nameless human destinies stretched out dead on the tables of the mortuary. He describes the dead meat of prostitutes out of whose bellies crawl squeaking mice. A connoisseur of French culture and genetics, Benn was sympathetic to National Socialism, which explains, why after the end of the war, like thousands of European artists, Benn sank into oblivion. Probably because he once remarked that “mighty brains are strengthened not on milk but on alkaloids.”

Modern psychiatrists, doctors, and sociologists are wrong in their diagnosis of drug addiction among large segments of Western youth. They fail to realize that to combat drug abuse one must prevent its social and political causes before attempting to cure its deadly consequences. Given that the crux of the modern liberal system is the dictatorship of well-being and the dogma of boundless economic progress, many disabused young people are led to believe that everybody must be entitled to eternal fun.  In an age of TV-mimicry, headless young masses become, so to speak, the impresarios of their own deadly narcissism.

By contrast, drug abuse among a handful of anarcho-nationalists and revolutionary conservative thinkers has historically been an isolated death wish to escape time and feelings of cultural despair.  Their drug abuse also dispels the myth that right wingers are  prim and prudish, and prone to living in the past. The fact that they were very intelligent  dispels the myth that they are stupid. Quite to the contrary: modern right-wingers, who appear today under different names such as “national-anarchists,” “ anarcho- traditionalists,”  “revolutionary conservatives,” or “archeo-futurists,” have always combined past heritage with hypermodernity, while strictly avoiding cheap and deadly physical thrills. And they have been very intelligent.

However, when the same joint finds its way into the liberalo-leftist dirty hand, it does more than just burn the stained forefinger: its multiracial promiscuity destroys the entire white society.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former Croatian diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007). His new book of essays, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, will soon be released. Email him.

All Things Not Considered: Why NPR Won’t Tell Listeners Why It Fires Its Black Employees

National Public Radio has always struck me as a highly-polished jewel in the crown of hard-left, Jewish-dominated media. On my drive home from work, I listen to Robert Siegel, a quintessential liberal Jewish male, and Michele Norris, a quintessential liberal Black female, co-hosts of All Things Considered, the nightly news reflections program.

All Things Considered is a laughable title, given that the only things NPR will consider are jazz, the Holocaust, and the plight of the yellow-breasted Amazonian snail darter.  The voices ooze with calm contempt for the White suckers whose tax dollars pay their salaries — a uniquely twisted form of White dispossession.

I once called it Not So Fresh Air.

So I had a chuckle when I heard about the recent firing of Greg Peppers, a long-time Black news producer for NPR, and the reaction it caused.  Reportedly, Peppers had to be escorted from the building.

A Black media blogger, Richard Prince, reported the firing, and the reaction of the National Association of Black Journalists.

Neither Prince nor the NABJ, of course, is actually interested in whether the firing was justified.  Any time a Black person is fired, by their standards, it’s because of “racism.”

I personally have no idea.  If you do, send me an email.

NPR’s response is predictably apologetic about not having enough non-Whites, NPR President Vivian Schiller stating, “I couldn’t agree more that NPR must increase the diversity of its staff — particularly in management and editorial.”

Surprisingly, the response pointedly notes that listenership for NPR’s flagship programs is made up of a much lower percentage of Blacks and Latinos (5% and 4% respectively) than their percentage of the population — even though these groups constitute 18% and 25% of the entire radio audience.

It’s not clear why they point this out, but the most obvious interpretation is that they are suggesting that NPR management ought to reflect the ethnic composition of its listenership, not the population at large.

This would be rather obviously illiberal for such a far left outfit. Imagine what that might do for, say, sports management where one could argue that the management of the National Basketball Association should reflect the audience, not the percentage of Black players. Networks that appeal primarily to Whites would be able to have White management. Companies that sold products mainly to White people wouldn’t have to worry about diversity quotas.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Sounds like leftist Whites (and Jews) in the media are starting to get worried about all that diversity they are pushing on the rest of us.

I have only speculation about Peppers’ firing.  In my journalism experience, Blacks were erratic and profoundly incompetent.  The notorious Jayson Blair was less of an aberration from Blacks than Stephen Glass was from Jews. (In general, Jews — hostility to Whites aside — are amazingly hard-working journalists).  The Black journalists I came across made mistakes, didn’t put in much effort, and generally put out lousy work-product. Inappropriate behavior wasn’t uncommon.

One of their arguments was that only Blacks could properly cover Blacks, an argument that, if consistency reigned, would mean that only Whites can properly cover Whites.

As recounted in books like Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, loading the paper with Blacks often meant that criminal Black politicians, like Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry, got cover-ups instead of coverage.

Yet Blacks demanded to be anywhere and everywhere, and could rely on the bullying of racial interest groups like the NABJ to get their way.  Blacks would be promoted over much harder-working — and much more talented — Whites on a regular basis.

All of which created a particularly sticky problem for American journalism, dedicated to multiculturalism and liberalism as it is.  It desperately wants to hammer Whites and elevate Blacks, but it ran into the problem of actually executing this plan internally because of Black incompetence.

NPR, I’m sure, would love to have dozens of smart and talented Black reporters and producers. But they don’t, for the simple reason that the talent pool isn’t there.  And NPR is not about to squander its reputation as a left-wing media powerhouse in order to indulge the demands of Blacks.  Viewed more broadly, NPR is a deadlier weapon against Whites when controlled by smart liberal Jews than incompetent, erratic Blacks.

I have this fantasy (which I do not intend to act upon) of breaking in to the NPR studios in the middle of a story about Afghanistan troop levels, grabbing the microphone, and reading some key passages from The Israel Lobby.

It’ll never happen.

But it’s comforting to know that the racial reality NPR hides from listeners can be found right there in its own building — the raucous and uncomfortable clash between Blacks and Whites (or Jews) clamoring down the stairway, soundproofed out of the studio where Michele Norris’ warm voice smothers us with notions of multiracial harmony.  It’s enough to make me want to make my pledge.

Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Channeling Steve Sailer

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 right, 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.

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