More Faux-Conservative Jews . . .
& One Wild Card

We Whites are in an increasingly perilous situation. More and more of our lives are at risk as the White percentage of the population declines worldwide. As Kevin MacDonald recently wrote about Anti-White Violence in South Africa, “A constant theme on this website is that Whites living in societies run by non-Whites are in physical danger. From the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution to contemporary Africa, the lesson is the same: Loss of political power means murder and mayhem directed against Whites by minorities with deep historical grudges.”

Given the challenges we face, it would seem only prudent that we accept offers of help from others willing to carry water for our cause.

Except I would rather decline the “help” proffered by faux-conservative Jews.

For example, on paper radio show host and best-selling author Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) sounds good for our cause, as Wiki testifies:

Savage has summarized his political philosophy in three words: borders, language, and culture. Some, including Savage himself, have characterized his views as conservative nationalism, while critics have characterized them as “fostering extremism or hatred.” He outspokenly opposes illegal immigration to the United States, supports the English-only movement and argues that Liberalism and Progressivism are degrading American culture.

An early Savage book from nearly twenty years ago, The Death of the White Male: The Case Against Affirmative Action, sounded like its heart was in the right place, arguing that affirmative action was reverse discrimination.

Savage’s big publishing break, however, came in 2003 when his book The Savage Nation made it to the top of the NYTimes best-seller list. There he claimed to be saving us from a “homosexualized, feminized America” that is “unraveling the very fabric of this great nation.”

Next came The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military which argues, among other things, that “the Left operates specifically to undermine God, country, family, and the military” and that liberalism is “either treason or insanity” or “a mental disorder.” He also goes after immigration again, discusses “Hollywood Idiots,” and claims that Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s appointment to the Supreme Court was “akin to appointing the general counsel of the Ku Klux Klan to the bench.”

Since this all sounds pretty good, what’s my beef? Basically, my beef is that Savage seems to me to fit into the mold of the controlled opposition. By that, I mean that the largely Jewish elite in America attempts to appease and distract Whites from successfully pursuing their best interests by co-opting a genuine White movement.

Someone like Rush Limbaugh perfectly fits the bill. He’ll hit many of the crucial issues that Whites embrace, but he will never get close to the core of the problem: Jews fomenting these anti-White movements.

The result is that Jews are prominent only on the left, but also on the (faux) conservative Right. I’m not even going to talk about the neocons. I want to talk about the culture warriors who are Jewish and have elbowed aside more genuine White activists like Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis.

Sure, Savage mocks a few Jews, prompting at least one group to call him a self-hating Jew. But does his oeuvre do anything to help us get to the Jewish core of this “culture of critique” that Savage only superficially attacks?

Here he gives his views on “Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?” He blames four individuals, three of whom are Jews and all of whom are linked to the 1960s counterculture: Alan Ginsberg, Bella Abzug, William Kunstler, and Timothy Leary. But he never identifies them as Jews, and that’s as far as his “analysis” goes — perhaps all one can expect from mainstream talk radio.

Another example of a Jewish faux-conservative is Bernard Goldberg. His book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, is devilishly effective at feigning an attack on the problems of liberalism. Its real accomplishment, however, is that it lets Jews as Jews off scot-free. It creates the illusion of attacking the proper target but in fact leads readers off to pursue harmless remedies. Thus, Professor Connelly here will give Goldberg an “A+” for obfuscation.

This tactic has been necessary for the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, for it fends off the normal outrage of a dispossessed and mocked host culture. As Kevin MacDonald noted in the TOO Blog on the issue of Jewish loyalty to Israel, “This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas.”

The Jewish culture of deceit indeed.

One of the more sophisticated examples of Jewish faux-conservatism comes in the person of former radical David Horowitz, whose conversion book DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION: Second Thoughts About the ’60s is quite candid about Jewish behavior. His even more personal book Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey was one of the best insider views of the Jewish subversive mindset that I’ve read. It left me convinced that Horowitz to a large degree personally believes in his critique of Jewish thinking and behavior.

Be that as it may, it really does nothing to absolve his work from the charge of subterfuge — in this case on behalf of Israel and the wider war on Islam. His book Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom, for instance, appears sincere in some parts in its attack on the Left. But for anyone wishing to look carefully, it is abundantly clear that the main point is to attack leftist critics of Israel.

I’ve been studying these Jewish faux-conservatives for some time now and am impressed with the way the mainstream media accepts them as authoritative, all the while going through the motions of labeling them as dangerous because of their “extreme” conservative views. In fact, however, they are all part of the game — members of the inner circle. And they can get away with far more than their Gentile counterparts.

Now comes a conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, slathered with lox and cream cheese (and maybe followed by a whiskey chaser): the case of one Andrew Breitbart, Internet phenomenon, and socially constructed Jew.

Last month, TIME magazine ran a long story on him, “Citizen Breitbart: The Web’s New Right-Wing Impresario.” Before knowing anything about the man, I thought the first part of the story sounded good, as he was attacking our rotten, anti-White liberal system:

“Their entire structure is writhing in diseased agony on the side of the road, and they don’t even realize it,” Breitbart says. But the left isn’t the only object of disdain. “I’m sick of this effete GOP nothing sandwich,” he adds, growing more animated. “As long as everyone is so pristine and socially registered, we’re going to lose.” . . .

Breitbart perceives himself as a new-media David out to slay old-media Goliaths. As he sees it, the left exercises its power not via mastery of the issues but through control of the entertainment industry, print and television journalism and government agencies that set social policy. “Politics,” he often says, “is downstream from culture. I want to change the cultural narrative.” . . .

Great, he’s on to Jewish cultural hegemony. I then wondered how far he would go.

Before I got an answer to that, I ran into this shocker:

Breitbart was raised in Brentwood, on Los Angeles’ privileged west side. The area is home to studio executives and producers, and the politics are Democratic. Breitbart was never fully comfortable in L.A.’s ’80s social milieu. His parents are Midwestern Jews. (His father ran a Santa Monica steak house.) They saw life differently than the other kids’ sophisticated dads and moms did. “My folks are from an older and very silent generation,” Breitbart says. “My dad is as conservative as William F. Buckley was, but without the same presentation.

Oh, so Breitbart gets a seat at the conservative table because his parents are from the Midwest?

The problem is, my J-Dar was not set off by the photo TIME magazine ran with the story:

Here’s another shot of him:

To my mind, that is not a Jewish face. In fact, it reminds me of some of the stock Irish actors Hollywood uses to denote an Irish face, such as that of Colm Meaney, who played Miles O’Brien on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

Or John C. Reilly, who appeared in The Perfect Storm, among other films:

It seems my J-Dar was right; Breitbart is not really Jewish . . . sort of. TIME may have opted to go with a self-description, but Slate gives us more nuance. In “Big Breitbart: Andrew Breitbart is messing with you,” we learn that “He’s Irish-American by blood. His sister is Hispanic. Their father is Jewish. Their mother was born Midwestern Protestant.”

Well if this doesn’t open up a box of postmodern multicultural worms, I don’t know what does.

In one sense, Breitbart is treated like TIME tells us—as a powerful new Jewish media mogul. In other words, just more of the same old tired controlled “opposition.” Like James Howard Kunstler, he’ll talk a good game about the problems. (Kunstler is no conservative, but he attacks our parasitical bankers, etc.) But nowhere will he connect those problems to the Jews who cause them.

(Frankly, I’ve had the same feeling about Laurence Auster as well. In fact, just recently fellow-Jew Paul Gottfried accused him of the standard neocon crime of hating Muslims. Auster defends himself here.)

Getting back to Andrew Breitbart, his story has all the trappings of staged opposition. Plus he’s media savvy and full of self-confidence as well, two traits some have said Jews possess in generous amounts.

The TIME writer gushes that Breitbart “has become the Web’s most combative conservative impresario — part new-media mogul, part Barnumesque scamp. Last fall, he launched Big Government, the flagship of his wickedly right-of-center sites, which also include Big Hollywood, Big Journalism — which described the House’s March 21 passage of the health care reform bill as a ’socialist putsch’ — and the news aggregators Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv.”

Then at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February

Breitbart introduced the star speaker, Sarah Palin, and delivered a rousing jeremiad of his own. Assailing national reporters for portraying the movement as “racist and homophobic,” he used the dais at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel to speak his version of truth to mainstream media power: “It’s not your business model that sucks. It’s you that sucks.”

So our “new-media David” intends to slay “old-media Goliaths”? Since we all know that media is heavily controlled by Jewish interests, Breitbart is going to compromise their interests, right?

I don’t think so. This is all part of Breitbart’s “Barnumesque scamp” routine, but it won’t fool media Jews. It has, apparently, fooled the goyim, just as the hyping of Sarah Palin is fooling them. James Edwards of The Political Cesspool has consistently exposed Palin for the controlled opposition dupe that she is. And to the extent we buy this hoax, we are “neoconned again.”

Still, as a White advocate, I’m a firm believer in the power and reality of race; it is not merely a social construct. If Breitbart was born White, then he’s White. There must be some remnants of that in him, no matter what his upbringing.

Indeed there are. For starters, instead of going to a top-tier university like his Jewish classmates, he went to Tulane University in New Orleans. And he drank heavily. “The social life at Tulane was splendid. ‘I was a drunk,’ says Breitbart, who estimates he spent five nights a week at New Orleans bars with fellow Delta Tau Delta fraternity members.”

And unlike many Jews, he actually liked Southerners, finding them “warm and smart and less neurotic than Californians.” And what to make of his statement “You’ve gone to Hebrew school, you’ve gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again”?

While we can count on other Jewish faux-conservatives to faithfully cloak the identity and behavior of their fellow Tribe members, Breitbart may turn out to be a wild card — if he isn’t corrupted by the financial rewards of being a media star. And maybe this time the wild card will play in our favor.

The Occidental Observer, April 18, 2010