My 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.

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.

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.