A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Show by
iSteve Blog

An anonymous commenter recently suggested:

I read the comparison here before, but the highbrow antiwhite zeitgeist percolating through elite cultures now has a similar tone as the anti-Semitism in 1890s Germany.

The comparison is not perfect of course, but the white privilege conferences, books of poetry, and of course the lowbrow click bait have a similar feel and tone as Cosima Wagner’s salon. The talk then was of a “Jewish spirit”; now it’s whites supposed unconscious microaggressions which make them loathsome; it is the building of a case against a people.

On the other hand, today’s ever-growing ideology of anti-Straight White Maleism tends toward pompous absurdity. For example, from Buzzfeed:

23 Writers With Messages For Straight White Male Publishing

posted on April 16, 2015, at 11:33 a.m.

Isaac Fitzgerald

(Isaac Fitzgerald is a straight white male in publishing, by the way.)

We asked attendees at the annual Association of Writers & Writing Programs conference if they had any messages for the predominantly white publishing industry. Here are their answers.

Susan Orlean (played by Meryl Streep in Charlie Kaufman’s “Adaptation”)

Cheryl Strayed (played by Reese Witherspoon in Nick Hornby’s “Wild”)

Franny Choi (not played by anybody in anything; would probably kill to have, say, David O. Russell or Alexander Payne write a screenplay of her life story)

Publishing is definitely a white business, but male and straight? From Publishers Weekly:

Where the Boys Are Not

Does the lack of men in publishing hurt the industry?

By Rachel Deahl | Sep 20, 2010

It’s no secret that lots of women work in publishing. But just how many more women work in publishing than men? In PW’s recent Salary Survey (Aug. 2) one statistic stuck out: 85% of publishing employees with less than three years of experience are women.

Survey Responses by Gender

Total Responses: 1,584
70% Female 30% Male

Under 3 Years Experience: 164
85% Female 15% Male

3 to 6 Years Experience: 388
82% Female 18% Male

So, while everyone knows there are more women than men working in this field, that statistic raises the question: is an almost all-female publishing industry bad for business? Does it matter?

Jason Pinter, a former editor at St. Martin’s Press (as well as Random House and Warner Books) and now an agent at the Waxman Agency, is one of the few people who’s publicly aired his opinion that it probably does matter. In a piece for the Huffington Post that ran in April, Pinter railed against the notion that men don’t read and wondered out loud if part of the problem has to do with so few men working in the business.

Pinter said that after he wrote the HuffPo item he was inundated with e-mails from librarians and teachers about societal issues with getting boys to read, and many thought curriculums were weighted toward girls. So do women and girls, who buy the most books, read more because people like them are acquiring and marketing their books?

Although Pinter reiterated to PW that he’s worked with “a lot of brilliant women in editorial” and readily acknowledged that they can and do publish books that interest men, he couldn’t help wondering if an industry so weighted toward the female side wouldn’t produce a different set of books than one a bit more diverse. “I hope it doesn’t get worse—if 85% [of the industry is female]—it’s hard to think that acquisitions aren’t in some way affected by that.”

Part of what David Coleman and Bill Gates are trying to do with their Common Core and new SAT is make reading less girly by decreasing the amount of fiction about feelings and replacing it with nonfiction about facts. For example, the sample new PSAT released this week has 9 reading samples, 8 of which are nonfiction (and the one excerpt from a novel is by Jane Austen, the most masterful of female stylists).

… Gatta said people tend to think a field like nursing, which employs far more women than men, requires someone who’s caring, and a caring nature is stereotypically associated with women. The assumption then becomes, wrongly, Gatta said, that “women are naturally more caring, so women make better nurses.” Could a similar thing be happening in publishing? “Often when a field is considered a ‘female job’ it doesn’t get on the radar screens [of men],” Gatta added. So the stereotype—that women are better at and more interested in reading—could certainly be, in Gatta’s terminology, a “huge barrier” in getting men to even consider a career in books.

Or it’s probable that women really are a little more caring and are better at reading, but stereotypes and culture push things a little further than they would go on natural talent and inclinations alone, just as blacks are better than whites at basketball on average, but it seems likely from examining which whites make it to the NBA (foreign players and Northwesterners, disproportionately) that a certain number of whites get bullied out of basketball at an early age by black dominance. It’s not a huge deal, but it would be pretty silly for black NBA stars to hold up signs denouncing straight white male dominance of NBA rosters.

Further, publishing, which is overwhelmingly concentrated in Manhattan, is a disproportionately gay male business. So, the straight white male proportion of the publishing business is probably, in the 20%-25% range, maybe less.

So, a lot of anti-Straight White Maleism is just mindless bullying for the sake of mindless bullying.

By the way, did I mention it’s time for my Spring Panhandling Drive?

I have seven ways for you to give me money, including Paypal, fee-free bank transfers, and multiple tax deductible methods via VDARE.com. I’ve even finally figured out how to get bitcoin working again.

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution to VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) If you send VDARE a check make sure to put “I like Steve Sailer” on the Memo line. Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Fourth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like there is with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions. (On the other hand, large contributions are good in general, so feel more than free to send large contributions however you feel like.)

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like there is with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: You can use Bitcoin.

I’m using Coinbase as a sort of PayPal for Bitcoins.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Seventh: Google Wallet: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. I’ll put some more notes about how to use Google Wallet under the page break.


The voters of Marin County, the exquisite exurban region north of the Golden Gate Bridge with a population density of only about 500 per square mile, voted for Obama over Romney 74%-23%. But they really aren’t into Hope and Change, since they like things just the way they are in Marin County.

Proposed but blocked studio (artist’s rendition)

So, for 20 years neighbors stymied George Lucas’s plans to build a movie studio on his huge estate in Marin. Now you might think that this would represent Good Jobs, but people who live in Marin have good jobs already (or trust funds). So, eventually, even the extremely stubborn Star Wars creator had to drop his plans.

But he went away threatening to build low-income housing on his property. That seemed like amusing threat, but the billionaire has announced he’s serious. From the Daily Mail:

Lucas strikes back – against his neighbors! Film director to build hundreds of affordable homes in millionaire neighborhood after they blocked him from building a studio

Neighbors blocked Lucas’ plans to build a film studio in 2012

Now he plans to erect a housing complex on land off Lucas Valley Road

The community would provide housing to 224 low-income families

With huge support from low-income community, his neighbors will be hard-pressed to block the proposal

PUBLISHED: 14:04 EST, 16 April 2015 | UPDATED: 16:53 EST, 16 April 2015

His neighbors wouldn’t let him build a film studio.

So George Lucas is retaliating in a way that only the cream of Hollywood could – by building the largest affordable housing development in the area.

The complex of affordable housing, funded and designed by the Star Wars director, would provide homes to 224 low-income families.

And there’s very little his fellow Bay Area residents can do about it.

We’ll see, but I wouldn’t count on that.

My general contrarianism has a lot to do with being a Californian of a certain age. From 1969 onward in California, “progressivism” has chiefly been about preserving privilege, especially the privilege of living in an uncrowded bucolic manner in the finest landscapes (typically, the coast in Southern California, the first valley in from the coast in Northern California) by blocking on environmentalist grounds developments that would make these regions more affordable to more people.

The other main push of Marin and Malibu progressives has been to demonize as racist attempts by their less privileged fellow citizens to exercise their rights to protect their country and state from overpopulation by foreigners much as progressives protect their own little paradises from infiltration by inland Americans.


At The Edge.org, Daniel Kahneman interviews an Israeli historian named Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. I’ve skimmed the book and would have found it more persuasive about 15 years ago.

Death Is Optional
A Conversation: Yuval Noah Harari, Daniel Kahneman [3.4.15]

Once you really solve a problem like direct brain-computer interface … when brains and computers can interact directly, that’s it, that’s the end of history, that’s the end of biology as we know it. Nobody has a clue what will happen once you solve this. If life can break out of the organic realm into the vastness of the inorganic realm, you cannot even begin to imagine what the consequences will be, because your imagination at present is organic. So if there is a point of Singularity, by definition, we have no way of even starting to imagine what’s happening beyond that.

But then Steven Pinker is called in to pour cold water over much of this:

… I’m skeptical, though, about science-fiction scenarios played out in the virtual reality of our imaginations. The imagined futures of the past have all been confounded by boring details: exponential costs, unforeseen technical complications, and insuperable moral and political roadblocks.

Some apparently unstoppable technological progressions can in fact be frozen in place indefinitely. An expert in the 1950s would be shocked to learn that sixty years later air travel would be no faster and in many ways less pleasant and convenient. The reasons are banal but decisive: people on the ground don’t like sonic booms; jet fuel became expensive; airliners are easy to hijack. Likewise, seventeen years after Dolly the sheep, no human has been cloned, because of the potential harm to the first experimental fetus and the dubious benefit to anyone of bringing the experiment to completion. Nor are we genetically engineering our babies, because we have learned that single genes with large beneficial effects probably do not exist. Segways did not revamp urban transportation, because city councilors banned them from sidewalks. And remember the Google Glass Revolution? …

I suspect that death will never be conquered (though our lifespans will continue to increase, at least for a while).Any cost-free longevity gene or easily tunable molecular pathway would have been low-hanging fruit for natural selection long ago. Senescence is baked into most of our genome because of the logic of evolution: since there’s a nonzero probability at any moment that an organism will die in an unpreventable accident, making genes for longevity moot, selection tends to sacrifice longevity for performance at every level of organization. This means we’d have to know how to tinker with thousands of genes or molecular pathways, each a tiny (and noisy) effect on longevity, to make the leap to immortality. The low-hanging fruit is in fact at the other end of the lifespan and income scale. We’ve made massive global progress in reducing maternal and infant mortality and premature death, but we’re not seeing a cohort of billionaire centagenarians.

Nor will we embed chips in our brains any time soon, if ever. Brains are oatmeal-soft, float around in skulls, react poorly to being invaded, and suffer from inflammation around foreign objects. Neurobiologists haven’t the slightest idea how to decode the billions of synapses that underlie a coherent thought, to say nothing of manipulating them. And any such innovation would have to compete against a free, safe, and intricately fine-tuned brain interface with a million-year head-start, namely eyes, ears, voice, and fingers.

It remains to be seen how far artificial intelligence and robotics will penetrate into the workforce. (Driving a car is technologically far easier than unloading a dishwasher, running an errand, or changing a baby.) Given the tradeoffs and impediments in every other area of technological development, the best guess is: much farther than it has so far, but not nearly so far as to render humans obsolete.

In terms of thinking about jobs of the future, it’s hard not to figure servants will make a huge comeback.

It would be interesting to know how many personal servants modern rich people like Bill Gates or George Clooney employ.

For Baby Boomers like me, the idea of having somebody waiting around for me to give them orders is highly uncomfortable. But, my guess is that the rich will increasingly re-develop the kind of personalities comfortable with personal servants that tended to be lost during the high-wage 20th Century.

Right now, rich people tend to have fairly flat, one-to-one relations with their servants, which imposes costs on the rich employer in terms of stresses — each one brings you his or her personal problems, squabbles with other servants, and other time-sinks. The increasingly unequal future might see the reintroduction of formal hierarchies among servants to shield the employer. The employer manages the butler, who manages the other servants for him.

Another key step will be the increasing whitening of the servant ranks as even B.A. whites decline in prosperity. As Tom Wolfe pointed out in Radical Chic, it became very awkward on Park Avenue around 1969 to have black servants. (Leonard Bernstein was able to host the famous fundraising cocktail party for the Black Panthers because, in part, he had white Chilean servants.)

Celebrities today mostly employ educated white people as their most personal servants, they just call them “personal assistants.” Here’s an interesting article in “Dissent Magazine” on how the main route into the creative/intellectual fields is becoming being a personal assistant, although it sounds like you have to weigh your ambitions very carefully against how much you would hate, say, the late Susan Sontag for the rest of your life after about a week in her employ.

I suspect in the future, master-servant relationships will evolve so that the employer gets to do the fun parts of the servant’s job. For example, affluent women who like to cook will employ cooks who will do the 80% of the work of cooking elaborate meals, but will have to step aside in the kitchen whenever the mistress thinks it’s time in the process for her creative culinary genius to take over.

The affluent will also have social media assistants. It will become declasse to take selfies for your social media presence when the better sort employ a photography major to shoot well-lit and nicely framed pictures of themselves going about their awesome daily affairs.


From the Washington Post:

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

By Lyndsey Layton April 15 at 7:27 PM

New research that shows poor children have smaller brains than affluent children has deepened the national debate about ways to narrow the achievement gap.

Neuroscientists who studied the brain scans of nearly 1,100 children and young adults nationwide from ages 3 to 20 found that the surface area of the cerebral cortex was linked to family income. They discovered that the brains of children in families that earned less than $25,000 a year had surface areas 6 percent smaller than those whose families earned $150,000 or more. The poor children also scored lower on average on a battery of cognitive tests.

Over the years, I’ve observed that your hat size correlates pretty closely with whether you believe brain size correlates with intelligence. I wear a 7 and 5/8ths hat, which is Extra Large, so the notion that brain size and intelligence are correlated always seemed pretty plausible to me.

My guess would be that head size is a tradeoff with running speed, via the mechanism of your mother’s pelvis width. The fastest runners tend to have very narrow hip bones, but that makes birthing babies with big heads dicier. I’ve always been an extremely slow runner, while the Kenyan Olympic champion runners looks to me like they have remarkably narrow heads.

I wonder, though, what Stephen Jay Gould’s hat size was? Gould got himself highly agitated in his 1981 bestseller The Mismeasure of Man over a 19th Century scientist who measured a sample of skulls of different races and found racial differences in skull volume. Gould accused the scientist of unconscious bias, but when the 19th Century experiment was redone recently, it turned out that old guy was right and Gould was in the wrong due to his flagrant bias. (See the 2011 New York Times Editorial “Bias and the Beholder” for details.)

The region of the brain in question handles language, memory, spatial skills and reasoning, all important to success in school and beyond.

The study, published last month in Nature Neuroscience, is the largest of its kind to date. It was led by Kimberly Noble, who teaches at both Columbia University’s Teachers College and the university’s medical school. Elizabeth Sowell, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, was the senior author.

“We’ve known for so long that poverty and lack of access to resources to enrich the developmental environment are related to poor school performance, poor test scores and fewer educational opportunities,” Sowell said. “But now we can really tie it to a physical thing in the brain. We realized that this is a big deal.” …

The research comes at a time when a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families and the academic achievement gap between poor and more-affluent children is growing. Policymakers are increasingly concerned about ways to reduce the gap, which is apparent as early as kindergarten.

In the last few years, there appears to have been a decision to blame racial differences in intelligence on differences in income level, although, of course, that’s not very plausible. That’s what people said way back in 1965, but then the federal Coleman Report of 1966 showed that affluent black students weren’t setting the world on fire academically on average, and vast amounts of data have accumulated validating the Coleman Report ever since.

But a half century later we’re back to asserting the same untested theories as in 1965.

In another study that has been accepted for publication in Psychological Science, a team led by neuroscientist John Gabrieli of MIT found differences in the brain’s cortical thickness between low-income and higher-income teenagers. The study linked that difference for the first time to standardized test scores: Fifty-seven percent of the poor children scored proficient in math and reading tests given annually in Massachusetts, compared with 91 percent of the higher-income students.

“The thing that really stands out is how powerful the economic influences are on something as fundamental as brain structure,” Gabrieli said. “It’s just very striking.”

Or perhaps brain structure has influences on economic performance? Or some of both?

The new research does not explain possible reasons for the brain differences. And that has created concern that the findings will harden stereotypes and give an impression that children who are born into poverty lack the physical capacity to succeed academically.

“Some people feel if you show these brain differences, you’re politically condemning the poor,” Gabrieli said. “Which is the opposite, I think, of what we need to do. I think we want to understand adversity and minimize adversity.”

Noble and Sowell have two theories about why poor children have smaller brains. One is that poor families lack access to material goods that aid healthy development, such as good nutrition and higher-quality health care.

That’s why there aren’t any poor blacks in the NBA. Their height and athletic abilities are stunted by poverty.

The other is that poor families tend to live more chaotic lives, and that stress could inhibit healthy brain development.

Could be. A more refined theory would be the one that Harpending and Draper put forward in 1982: father-absence causes kids, especially girls, to reach physical/sexual maturity faster, which stunts the final development of higher cognitive functions in favor of the development of low cunning. I don’t know if the evidence is there for this idea, but it’s not utterly implausible. I had a stable, organized childhood and grew up to be an unworldly intellectual.

Noble has embarked on a new study to try to answer that question.

She’s doing MRIs on the parents of her subject to see if it’s hereditary?


She has begun a pilot study to investigate whether giving low-income mothers a small or large monthly sum of cash impacts the cognitive development of their children in the first three years of life. She plans to recruit 1,000 low-income mothers from around the country, half of whom would receive $333 a month, while the other half would receive $20 a month for three years. That research is expected to take five years.

Strikingly, the Steveosphere is given a chance to sound off on this study:

But James Thompson, a psychologist at University College London, has a third theory.

“People who have less ability and marry people with less ability have children who, on balance, on average, have less ability,” he said. Thompson noted that there is a genetic component to intelligence that Noble and Sowell failed to consider.

“It makes my jaw drop that we’ve known for years intelligence is inheritable and scientists are beginning to track down exactly how it happens,” Thompson said. “The well-known genetic hypothesis has not even had a chance to enter the door in this discussion.”

Charles Murray, a conservative political scientist who argues there is a relationship between intelligence and economic class in his book “The Bell Curve,” said genetics cannot be ignored.

“It is confidently known that brain size is correlated with IQ, IQ measured in childhood is correlated with income as an adult, and parental IQ is correlated with children’s IQ,” Murray wrote in an e-mail. “I would be astonished if children’s brain size were NOT correlated with parental income. How could it be otherwise?” …

Good question.

Allow me to point out that a national newspaper has asked a couple of guys who know what they are talking about to punch holes in the latest bit of goodthink and, as of press time, the American public hasn’t dug up Hitler’s DNA and elected it President. So maybe we’re actually mature enough to discuss reality rather than lie all the time?

… The Obama administration has increasingly promoted the idea that the country should provide early childhood education for low-income 3- and 4-year-olds to give them a boost before they get to kindergarten. Last week, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said if he had one more federal dollar to spend on education, he would funnel it to early childhood.

Six decades from now, the Education Secretary of the hereditary Bush-Clinton Administration will be declaring the key periods for federal intervention are the eight months and 29 days before birth … but not a day sooner!


David Coleman is the former Rhodes Scholar and former McKinsey consultant who sold the Common Core idea to Bill Gates, who controls the direction of education reform in this country by having his Gates Foundation buy off most potential respectable critics.

Like I’ve said, it’s kind of absurd that two guys get to decide on school policy for about 250 million people without any testing to see if what sounds like a good idea to them in theory actually works.

On the other hand, if two guys are going to be allowed to wing it like these two are doing, Coleman and Gates at least aren’t idiots, which can’t be said of everybody in the ed racket.

Coleman won’t say so in public, but a lot of evidence suggests that he’s more or less implementing the old ideas of E.D. Hirsch, who argued in the 1980s for teaching Core Knowledge.

Hirsch came out of the liberal Jewish mainstream of, say, 1960, so by the late 1980s poor Hirsch was denounced as a flaming rightwing advocate of Dead White European Males. (Here’s a 1990 Christopher Hitchens article on Hirsch.)

Coleman was then hired by the College Board to shake up up the SAT college admissions test, which has been losing market share to the rival ACT.

The first Coleman Era practice test for the PSAT (Preliminary SAT), the junior varsity SAT that most high school students take, has now been released.

Education Realist has an assessment here from the perspective of a test tutor: just like New Coke in 1984 was, as Dave Barry said, new Pepsi-flavored Coke, this is new ACT-flavored PSAT-SAT.

I haven’t looked at the questions, but I have looked at the reading passages. The SAT used to have a bunch of passages mostly from works of fiction, typically with a heavy Diversity slant of the eye-glazing “Yesenia and N!Xiao Celebrate Diwali” variety.

Coleman’s PSAT is, as promised, much more non-fiction oriented. More strikingly, it throws Diversity right out the window. Here are the first paragraphs of the nine reading sections on the sample PSAT (the total number of words is a formidable 3,200):

2015 Practice Test #1
Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test

1. This passage is adapted from Jane Austen, Emma, originally published in 1815.

Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.

Okay, we start off with a novel by a female authoress, but she’s only the most canonical (not to mention Tory) Dead White European Female of them all.

2. This passage is adapted from Marina Gorbis, The Nature of
the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. ©2013 by Marina Gorbis.

Visitors to the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s always marveled at the gap between what they saw in state stores—shelves empty or filled with things no one wanted—and what they saw in people’s homes: nice furnishings and tables filled
with food. What filled the gap? A vast informal economy driven by human relationships, dense networks of social connections through which people
traded resources and created value. The Soviet people didn’t plot how they would build these networks. No one was teaching them how to maximize their connections the way social marketers eagerly teach us today. Their networks evolved naturally, out of necessity; that was the only way to survive.

I don’t actually recall any visitors marveling at the standard of living of Russians’ private lives. I can recall a lot of reporters (e.g., Hedrick Smith) recounting how friendly and caring the Russians were to visitors in their apartments, the sacrifices they’d make to scrape together a nice meal for their guests, but that’s not quite the same thing.

3. This passage is adapted from Tina Hesman Saey, “Lessons from the Torpid.” ©2012 by Society for Science & the Public.

Understanding how hibernators, including ground squirrels, marmots and bears, survive their long winter’s naps may one day offer solutions for problems such as heart disease, osteoporosis and muscular dystrophy.

4. This passage is from Andrew Carnegie, “Wealth,” originally published in 1889. Arriving penniless in Pennsylvania from Scotland in 1848, Carnegie became one of the richest people in the United States through the manufacture of steel.

The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized,
within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those
of his retainers. . . . The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change which has come with
civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential, for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor.

Did you know that Bill Gates has a $44 million house?

5. Passage 1 is adapted from Stewart Brand, “The Case for Reviving Extinct Species.” ©2013 by the National Geographic Society. Passage 2 is adapted from the editors at Scientific American, “Why Efforts to Bring Extinct Species Back from the Dead Miss the Point.” ©2013 by Nature America, Inc.

Passage 1
Many extinct species—from the passenger pigeon to the woolly mammoth—might now be reclassified as “bodily, but not genetically, extinct.” They’re dead, but their DNA is recoverable from museum specimens and fossils, even those up to 200,000 years old.

Stewart Brand, editor of the once famous Whole Earth Catalog, is an elderly WASP hippie.

So, not exactly a lot of racial Diversity in the authors chosen for this first trial run of the U.S.S. Coleman. Did they get Christian Lander of Stuff White People Like to consult on the reading samples?

No author is given for the next three passages:

6. A Nod to Nodding Off

With 30 percent of United States workers not getting enough sleep at night, according to the Wall Street Journal, US companies 1 lose a yearly sum of $63.2 billion annually due to the drop in employee productivity resulting from sleep deprivation. Sleep-deprived workers generally have lower morale and are less able to retain information than their better-rested colleagues.

7. Vanishing Honeybees: A Threat to Global Agriculture

Honeybees play an important role in the agriculture industry by pollinating crops. An October 2006 study found that as much as one-third of global agriculture depends on animal pollination, including honeybee pollination—to increase crop output. The importance of bees highlights the potentially disastrous affects of an emerging, unexplained crisis: entire colonies of honeybees are dying off without warning.

8. Lunar Farming

Late last autumn, Giuseppe Ferrua stood, on the hillside he farms overlooking Italy’s Serchio River valley, a landscape of low mountains dotted with vineyards. Ferrua grows grapes and olives, and he does so according to the phases of the Moon. He didn’t always farm this way. When he began, he exercised modern, one-size-fits-all farming methods but says he soon became convinced that “plants are completely prone to elements in the cosmos, the rhythms of day and night.”

9. Recipes for History: The Szathmary Cookbook Collection

In 1990, chef Louis Szathmary, a voracious collector of cookbooks, donated approximately 20,000 culinary artifacts to the University of Iowa library. The gift included more than 100 manuscript recipe books —collections of recipes handwritten by the people who used them. The manuscripts, some of which date back to the seventeenth century, are an invaluable resource for food historians as well as the general public.

These reading passages from the sample PSAT read like a late 1990s issue of Slate. To my taste, that’s an improvement over the sludge you used to see on the PSAT/SAT, but then I’m biased.

Now that I think about it, that’s not too surprising because, first, Bill Gates, who gave Coleman his big break, was the founder of Slate in the 1990s. And, a friend of mine told me a couple of years ago that he went 0-8 in high school debate against Coleman and his partner, Hanna Rosin, the wife of long-time Slate editor David Plotz.

But has anybody bothered testing this new test for disparate impact?

My impression from reading about Coleman is that he’s naive about the world of hurt he’ll likely eventually run into over charges of racism. He figures that since he’s a nice Jewish liberal boy from New York, so he couldn’t possibly be racist or insensitive. No “regatta” questions on his test! Heck, maybe he called up his old debate partner Hanna and had her try this new PSAT out on Troy Patterson, and he aced it. (I wonder, though why she didn’t have Jamelle Bouie take it … )

By the way, did I mention it’s time for my Spring Panhandling Drive? I’m done working on my taxes (until about October 14, 2015), so I made seven posts today.

I now have six seven ways for you to give me money, including Paypal, fee-free bank transfers, and multiple tax deductible methods via VDARE.com. I’ve even finally figured out how to get bitcoin working again.

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution to VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) If you send VDARE a check make sure to put “I like Steve Sailer” on the Memo line. Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Fourth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like there is with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions. (On the other hand, large contributions are good in general, so feel more than free to send large contributions however you feel like.)

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like there is with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: You can use Bitcoin.

I’m using Coinbase as a sort of PayPal for Bitcoins.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Seventh: Google Wallet: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. I’ll put some more notes about how to use Google Wallet under the page break.


From the New York Times:

‘Michelle Obama: A Life,’ by Peter Slevin

… In “Michelle Obama: A Life,” Peter Slevin quotes friends and colleagues who describe Mrs. Obama as “confident” and “poised” and “extremely articulate.” But she also comes across in this thoughtful biography as constantly searching and frequently torn between different worlds — not just black and white but also ­working-class and elite. In the early chapters of this portrait, race influences everything in Mrs. Obama’s life — from her family’s roots in slavery and segregation; to the Black Belt of Chicago with a street named after Emmett Till; to the South Shore Country Club that had not allowed ­African-Americans to join, but where, in 1992, the Obamas held their wedding reception.

Country clubs and high schools — who knew how much psychic trauma they were unleashing?


When last heard from, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio was collapsing in the face of the NYPD de facto mutiny that followed the murder of two cops in Brooklyn last December. Apparently, NYC just isn’t ready for reform. So, the mayor of New York City is taking his act on the road to Iowa. From the New York Times:

Mayor de Blasio, on Midwest Trip, Hopes to Lead a National Shift to the Left

OMAHA — Mayor Bill de Blasio, dismayed by a Democratic Party that he believes has moved too slowly to embrace a populist platform, arrived in the Midwest on Wednesday with an audacious mission: leading the nation leftward.

On a two-day tour of Nebraska and Iowa — more than 1,200 miles from the New York City Hall where he has presided for 15 months — Mr. de Blasio is seeking to transcend his relative obscurity and jump-start a countrywide movement to promote liberal policies like raising taxes on the rich. …

Mr. de Blasio’s aides did not anticipate the fierceness of the backlash to his comments about Mrs. Clinton, according to several people familiar with their thinking, but the episode underscored the notion that he could be positioned as the standard-bearer for the American left.

That is an image the mayor is keen to cultivate. A profile in Rolling Stone magazine is in the works.

Read that sentence again.


From The New Yorker:

Reading Racist Literature


APRIL 13, 2015

Of the many passages that gave me pause when I first read “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” in high school,

High school …

the one I remember the most clearly is this conversation between Connie, Clifford, and the Irish writer Michaelis:

“I find I can’t marry an Englishwoman, not even an Irishwoman…”

Try an American,” said Clifford.

“Oh, American!” He laughed a hollow laugh. “No, I’ve asked my man if he will find me a Turk or something…something nearer to the Oriental.”

Connie really wondered at this queer, melancholy specimen.

For many readers, this exchange might have slipped by unnoticed. But, as a Turkish American, I couldn’t prevent myself from registering all the slights against Turkish people that I encountered in European books.

In “Heidi,” the meanest goat is called “the Great Turk.”

“Rather dreadful for an English girl to marry a Turk, I think, don’t you?” a character in Agatha Christie’s “Dumb Witness” says. “It shows a certain lack of fastidiousness.”

These encounters were always mildly jarring. There I’d be, reading along, imaginatively projecting myself into the character most suitable for imaginative projection, forgetting through suspension of disbelief the differences that separated me from that character—and then I’d come across a line like “These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children” (“The Brothers Karamazov”).

But I always moved on, quickly. To feel personally insulted when reading old books struck me as provincial, against the spirit of literature. For the purposes of reading an English novel from 1830, I thought, you had to be an upper-class white guy from 1830. You had to be a privileged person, because books always were written by and for privileged people. Today, I was a privileged person, as I was frequently told at the private school my parents scrimped to send me to; someday, I would write a book. In the meantime, Rabelais was dead, so why hold a grudge?

… That night, I found myself seriously questioning this assumption I’d held since childhood: “You have to try to forget that while you’re reading.” You do? Why? And, more to the point, how? Obviously, I hadn’t forgotten that line from “Lady Chatterley”: “I’ve asked my man if he will find me a Turk.” Maybe it was because of some inkling that this might still be what life had in store—that Lawrence hadn’t lived all that long ago, and it might still take a “queer, melancholy specimen” to want to marry a Turkish woman.

Ms. Batuman is smart enough and self-aware enough to do better, but this is what the market demands these days: self-pity in the guise of identity politics. Those damn Straight White Males! (Why won’t one marry me?)

Coming next week in Salon: An Armenian lady blames Straight White Males for the pro-Turkish bias in The New Yorker and for why she’s unmarried.


I couldn’t think of anything to say for the 150th anniversary of the death of Lincoln, but that doesn’t stop Larry Kramer. From the Daily Mail:

… John Wilkes Booth was one of Abraham Lincoln’s spurned lovers, says new book

Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were gay, says a new book by Larry Kramer, 79, who is a gay activist and award winning writer

In ‘The American People,’ Kramer says that Abraham Lincoln was gay and his killer John Wilkes Booth was actually Lincoln’s spurned gay lover …

Larry Kramer claims that many historians don’t have ‘gaydar’ and couldn’t recognize gay attributes

PUBLISHED: 13:21 EST, 15 April 2015

Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were gay, says a new book by a gay activist and award winning writer.

Larry Kramer, 79, says he believes what’s written in his history book is true though he is selling it as fiction to avoid legal troubles.

In Volume One of his two part book ‘The American People,’ Kramer says that Abraham Lincoln was gay and his killer John Wilkes Booth was actually Lincoln’s spurned gay lover.

‘We know that Abraham Lincoln was gay,’ Kramer told CBS in an interview about the book which came out this month.

According to Larry Kramer, Abraham Lincoln slept with several men including actor John Wilkes Booth who later fatally shot him in a theater on April 14, 1965. Kramer claims that the motive for murder was not Booth’s anger over the Civil War but was his unrequited love for the former president.

Another indicator that Lincoln was gay is that he would share beds with other men, especially when his wife Mary left town. One such man was Captain David Derickson who would visit Lincoln at a retreat from the White House called the Soldier’s Home. Lincoln has been quoted as saying of Derickson, ‘The captain and I are getting quite thick.’

… ‘Why is that not in the history books? Because all history books are written by straight people, and they don’t wanna either admit that, or they wouldn’t know how to recognize what we call ‘gaydar.’ …

Kramer says it took him 40 years to write his 800 page history book that spans from pre-historic america all the way to the 1950s.

‘It’s called a ‘novel,’ but that’s just to keep the lawyers away from me,’ Kramer said.
‘I believe everything in the book is true. Everything in there happened,’ said Kramer who has long wanted to write a book on gay history.

‘It may look like fiction, but to me, it’s not,’ Kramer told the New York Times.

Kramer’s book doesn’t only touch on the gay history of politicians but it also talks about the about the HIV crisis in the nation which will be the book’s second volume.
Kramer, who is HIV positive, said that 35 years is too long for a plague like HIV to still be in existence.

‘You’ll hear all about the plague of AIDS in the second volume, and a lot about Ronald Reagan,’ Kramer said.

‘It’s not a nice story, but it’s one that needs to be told. If I’ve been kept alive for any reason, it was to tell this story.’

See my earlier post “None Dare Mention Dementia.”


From Slate:

Silicon Valley Keeps Missing Golden Opportunities for Tech World Satire

By Lily Hay Newman

If nothing else, the HBO series Silicon Valley is aptly named. The show, which began its second season on Sunday night, is indeed a canny portrait of Silicon Valley; it depicts the antics of dweeby startup guys and haughty venture capitalists—Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg even show up to host panels—with an impressive eye for detail. But in the first few episodes of Season 2, Silicon Valley doesn’t often capitalize on the chance to offer much of a critique.

“Rarely has a show had to do so little to find so much to mock,” wrote Slate’s Willa Paskin about Season 1. And this season, that is definitely still the case. …

But it’s unclear whether there is a meta component to these underdog stories—some sort of bigger commentary on the ways in which the Pied Piper employees (mostly white males) are not actually societally disadvantaged in the broader sense. The show certainly pokes fun at them, but it mostly just glorifies them: They may be weirdos, but their lives are pretty awesome.

The Ellen Pao gender discrimination trial is one of many recent stories currently advancing discussions about the treatment of women in Silicon Valley, so obviously that scrutiny should extend to Silicon Valley as well.

This piece is part of a recurrent pattern: the humorless scolds automatically assume that the comic creative artists are on their side, then nag them for not taking seriously their absurd fiascos like the Ellen Pao-Buddy Fletcher discrimination suit, as if recasting Jezebel op-eds as dialogue would be pure comedy gold.

Over the last two decades, Mike Judge has put together about as an out-of-the-closet anti-SJW body of work ((Beavis & Butt-head, King of the Hill, Office Space, and Idiocracy) as anybody in Hollywood (or in his case, Texas — he comes to California mostly to surf) since John Milius. But nobody notices since one of the pillars of the Left’s self-regard is the assumption that everybody cool and funny is on their side. Even Judge is assumed to be, as a matter of course, another anti-Straight White Maleist who will creatively benefit from Slate’s reminder to read Ellen Pao’s complaint to find out what’s really important about Silicon Valley.


When I started writing about “The Cult of Microaggressions” a couple of years ago, the term caught on so quickly among the sardonic that I was concerned that we were having more fun than was warranted by a term that wasn’t really all that popular.

But since then, “microaggression” has become ever more used by people who don’t get the joke. Last month, for example, the National Book Critics Circle announced the top poetry book of the year was a collection of microaggressions. From the NY Review of Books:

‘A New Way of Writing About Race’

Nick Laird APRIL 23, 2015

Citizen: An American Lyric
by Claudia Rankine

Graywolf, 169 pp., $20.00 (paper)

… Told mostly through a series of “micro-aggressions” (the term coined by Harvard professor Chester Pierce in 1970 to describe unconscious insults nonblack Americans aim at black people), Citizen is a circuitous and intimate descent into the poet’s past in order to examine race in America. Some of the incidents happen to the poet, some are reports from friends. …

… In a historic first, Citizen was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle award in both poetry and criticism and on March 12 won the award for poetry.

At the core of Citizen is an “anger built up through experience and the quotidian struggles against dehumanization every brown or black person lives simply because of skin color.” In “Making Room,” Rankine writes:

On the train the woman standing makes you understand there are no seats available. And, in fact, there is one. Is the woman getting off at the next stop? No, she would rather stand all the way to Union Station. …

Rankine was born in 1963 in Kingston, Jamaica, and studied at Williams College, then took an MFA at Columbia. She’s published five collections of poetry, edited several anthologies, and is the recipient of many fellowships and awards, including the 2014 Jackson Prize. She’s the Henry G. Lee Professor of English at Pomona and a chancellor of the Academy of American Poets.

In Citizen she presents her life as lived in the mostly Caucasian world of the academy, of privilege: she speaks of tennis lessons, housekeepers, conferences. Many pieces are about how her color precludes acceptance in this white space she inhabits. She foregrounds her own position (“Because of your elite status from a year’s worth of travel, you have already settled into your window seat…”) as a means of demonstrating an all-pervasive racism that cuts through economic and social privilege. The micro-aggressions she suffers may seem small compared to the brutality and indignity experienced by those less fortunate, but they are still presented as corrosive, undermining, and overwhelming.

Citizen suggests that racial harmony is superficial—skin-deep—and Americans revert readily and easily to their respective racial camps. A friend’s son is knocked over in the subway—again, the ethnicity of those involved is not made explicit—“but the son of a bitch kept walking.” The friend says she

grabbed the stranger’s arm and…told him to look at the boy and apologize. Yes, and you want it to stop, you want the child pushed to the ground to be seen, to be helped to his feet, to be brushed off by the person that did not see him, has never seen him, has perhaps never seen anyone who is not a reflection of himself.

The beautiful thing is that a group of men began to stand behind me like a fleet of bodyguards, she says, like newly found uncles and brothers.

(A recurring theme is the paradox of being seen but not seen, of being both overly visible and completely invisible.) Concerned citizens of all colors do not stop to help, the story tells us without quite saying so, but only black men, “like newly found uncles and brothers.”

Whether buying a coffee or in line at the drugstore, Rankine encounters this invisibility that racism occasions:

It’s finally your turn, and then it’s not as he walks in front of you and puts his things on the counter. The cashier says, Sir, she was next. When he turns to you he is truly surprised.

Oh my god, I didn’t see you.

You must be in a hurry, you offer.

No, no, no, I really didn’t see you.

Another incident:

When the waitress hands your friend the card she took from you, you laugh and ask [the friend] what else her privilege gets her? Oh, my perfect life, she answers. Then you both are laughing so hard, everyone in the restaurant smiles.

This is how racism works: it blocks the possibility of living an undefended life.


Five weeks ago I wrote in Taki’s about how the the anti-Israel BDS movement, which aims to do to Israel what was done to Rhodesia and South Africa, has been a hit in Europe but not yet in America … except on California college campuses like UCLA. Student politics is a joke, except that this is where the next generation of Democratic politicians cuts its teeth and forms working friendships, and California leads in immigration and diversity. So Jews have reason to worry that all this immigration and diversity sacralization that they’ve championed might wind up in the long run being bad for the Jews.

The strategy hit upon by the Israel Lobby is to denounce pro-BDS student politicians as religiously discriminatory, because being Jewish is a religion (except, of course, when it’s not). Here’s the latest in the New York Times:

Student Coalition at Stanford Confronts Allegations of Anti-Semitism

LOS ANGELES — The debate over what constitutes anti-Semitism has spilled into Stanford University’s student government election, with a Jewish student claiming that she was asked how her Judaism affects her view of divestment from Israel, morphing what was a contest about campus issues into a fierce discussion on identity and loyalties.

Is there any other kind of campus politics than identity politics?

Like other candidates, Molly Horwitz, a junior from Milwaukee, was eager to receive an endorsement from the Students of Color Coalition, an umbrella group that has helped dozens win seats in the student senate.

This NYT article is more honest than Adam Nagourney’s last month, which worked hard to imply that the Jewish candidate at UCLA was being discriminated against by Stutz Bearcat-driving WASPs instead of the usual Coalition of the Fringes. (See my post on Nagourney’s article, “Who Knew Haven Monahan Had Transferred from UVA to UCLA?“)

Ms. Horwitz, who was adopted from Paraguay, wrote extensively in her application about navigating both Jewish and Latino circles. Like many other students, she had paid close attention to the campus debate over divestment earlier this year.

But Ms. Horwitz said that what happened in the interview with the student coalition left her shocked and horrified. After talking about issues such as student mental health services with the eight representatives, Ms. Horwitz said …

Ms. Horwitz’s chosen Identity Politics category is running for office as a Person with Mental Health Issues battling Stigma. From her campaign statement:

Mental health is something that needs to be talked about. I’ve suffered from mental health issues, and the very fact that I hesitated to put that in my statement is why we need change. With concerted effort by senators and students we can eliminate the stigma surrounding mental health at Stanford.

Back to the New York Times:

… the interview changed topic: “Given your Jewish identity, how would you vote on divestment?”

“I was really taken aback by the question, and it took me a minute to process it, so I asked for clarification to make sure I knew what they were really asking,” Ms. Horwitz said in an interview. “They said they saw in my application that I had a strong Jewish identity, and how would that impact my decision?”

Ms. Horwitz said that she responded by explaining that while she was supportive of the process the student senate had used to vote in favor of urging Stanford to divest, she opposed divestment and found the ultimate outcome of the vote disappointing. “There was an awkward silence, and the interview ended a minute later,” Ms. Horwitz said. Although she did not receive the group’s endorsement, she is still a candidate in the election, which begins Thursday.

In other words, Ms. Horwitz is pro-Israel and the Students of Color Coalition is anti-Israel, so she failed to get the endorsement of this identity politics group due to a disagreement over issues.

The Students of Color Coalition’s high crime is, apparently, noticing that strongly Jewish-identified students, like Horwitz, tend to be anti-BDS. Moreover, there’s a lot of resentment on California campuses among non-Jewish student politicians that Jewish student politicians will go off campus to fundraise among Israeli-American millionaires in order to manipulate student elections.

During the debate over divestment earlier this year, Ms. Horwitz wrote several posts on Facebook against it. Miriam Pollock, a friend and campaign manager for Ms. Horwitz, said in an interview Tuesday that before Ms. Horwitz started gathering signatures for her campaign, the two scrubbed her Facebook page to hide all posts indicating support for Israel, including a photograph of a pair of shoes decorated to look like the Israeli flag.

“We did it not because she isn’t proud — she is — but the campus climate has been pretty hostile, and it would not be politically expedient to take a public stance,” Ms. Pollock said. “She didn’t want that to be a main facet of her platform. Of course she was going to be honest if she was asked about her stance on divestment.”

The other hot button getting campus polititics so much national attention all of a sudden is increasing Jewish concern that the ascendant Of Color coalition of the Fringes won’t let Jews join in any reindeer games.

Ms. Horwitz is a little beige in color, so she makes a good test case. Her request for solidarity from the Students of Color Coalition was rejected, in part because she’s so pro-Israel.

The essential question may eventually turn out to be: Are Jews part of the sacralized Fringe or are they part of the demonized Core?

Maybe all this Fringe over Core propaganda will turn out in the long run not to be good for the Jews? Perhaps more centrist Jews will start to worry about this mindset they’ve nurtured?

Unfortunately, the more likely effect of these trends is for Jewish spokespersons to double down on sacralizing the Fringe, just while octupling up on their rightful place as the fringiest of the Fringe.


From Dennis Dale’s Untethered:

… It’s been about fifteen years now since I first discovered dissident literature about race online. It was exhilarating. The thrill of transgressing the sacrosanct and sense it was nonetheless right (if you feel seeking the truth is right) coexisted. Amazing! (It would make the wholesome yin to the shameful yang of discovering Internet porn, if I should ever discover Internet porn.)

Of course, the thrill is gone.

Farther back people were assuming it inevitable the Internet would soon render the Narrative an unsustainable laughingstock. How they flattered the nation! How I flattered myself. You can transgress all you want, if you’re nobody; “transgressing” by reading HBD sites, for instance, proves you’re nobody. Don’t do it if you want to be somebody. The cottage industry that is the outing of “racists” exists to broadcast this dictum. But it isn’t just about vetting celebrities and politicians. The message the average guy–white guy, needless to say–gets loud and clear is this is what losers do.

So far so good: the Narrative hasn’t even had to adapt to facts that have been more “settled” than global warming for a long time. In its aversion to logic and romanticizing of anger (it’s become routine: the media reports the anger of such as the Ferguson mob as if it proves the justice of their cause; one burned-down Quickie Mart a solid argument, two a slam dunk) the Narrative argues that feelings make facts, but its sharper proponents know the reality: feelings make power.


IQ Denialism is an extremely respectable form of anti-science conspiracy theory-mongering.

Of course, if IQ were just a delusion of white male privileged racists, it would be hard to explain how test scores could be forecast from brain scans. Slowly, however, that’s becoming more feasible to accomplish.

Steve Hsu has a post, “IQ prediction from structural MRI,” about a new paper at PLOS called “MRI-Based Intelligence Quotient (IQ) Estimation with Sparse Learning” that claims quite high correlations between data from brain scans and IQ.

Meanwhile, Emil Kirkegaard has posted on his formidable Clear Language, Clear Mind blog a draft of his paper on “The general brain factor, working memory, parental income and education, and racial admixture.”

James Thompson at Psychological Comments has thoughts on Kirkegaard’s analysis here.


From the Washington Post:

How Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s immigrant path explains his guilty verdict

By Asra Q. Nomani April 8

Asra Q. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of “Tantrika: Traveling the Road of Divine Love” and “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”

The Road to an American Tragedy
By Masha Gessen
Riverhead. 273 pp. $27.95

‘The Brothers” is a troubling book about a tragic episode in post-9/11 America: the bombing of the Boston Marathon two years ago by brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The book is tragic not only because of the deaths and maimed lives, but also because of the backstory: the brothers’ difficult experience adjusting to immigrant life in America. And it’s troubling because Gessen contends that the United States was as responsible as the misguided youths for the explosions near the marathon finish line that killed three and injured more than 260. The younger, surviving brother, Dzhokhar, was convicted Wednesday on 30 counts related to the attack.

Gessen, herself once a Russian-speaking teen immigrant in Boston, is well-equipped to navigate the Tsarnaevs’ story. She covered the wars in the Russian region of Chechnya, where the Tsarnaev family has its roots. … If we are to draw a lesson from their calamitous outcome, we need to understand the emotional path the boys took from wide-eyed immigrant children to murderers.

‘The Brothers: The Road to an American Tragedy’ by Masha Gessen (Riverhead)
Gessen describes the Tsarnaevs’ early immigrant days in a section aptly called “Dislocation,” with chapters titled “Love,” “Wandering” and “Dreaming of America.” These titles could easily decribe the early experiences of many immigrant families. The Tsarnaevs hoped for a better life here; they sought to escape the long, troubled history of the Chechen region, which has been riven by separatistism, Russian aggression and periods of war.

In America, the Tsarnaev family — mother, father, two sons, two daughters — struggled after arriving in 2001. Gessen takes us through this dark reality in a section titled “Becoming the Bombers,” in which she chronicles “a decade of broken dreams.” Here we see the financial and psychological pressures that force some immigrants to rely on the kindness of strangers, the charity of the state and the kinship of fellow immigrants….

Despite the assistance, the Tsarnaev family “witness[ed] the slow and catastrophic demise of a whole set of immigrant dreams,” Gessen writes. Things began to crumble as the brothers’ drug use picked up. “Pot was the scourge,” she explains. “Each member of the Tsarnaev family was descending into a separate personal hell,” Gessen writes. Media accounts have chronicled run-ins with police over alleged shoplifting, counterfeit money, marijuana possession and intent to distribute.

The family was experiencing a common trauma of the immigrant arc: grief over losing a former life. Years after leaving their homeland, Gessen writes, “it was as though the Tsarnaevs had never come to America.” Peering into their American home, one would see “the look every Chechen living room had.”

Drawing perhaps on her own experiences, Gessen is eloquent in describing the sense of loss an immigrant feels. “You never talk about the pain of dislocation,” she writes. “You do not describe the way color drains out of everyday life when nothing is familiar, how the texture of living seems to disappear. You breathe not a word of no longer knowing who you are, where you are going, with whom, and why — and the unique existential dread of that condition. Most important, you never question your decision: from the moment you cross the border, there is only ever the future.” The result is immigrants who fail to properly mourn the lives they’ve left behind.

As the daughter of Muslim immigrants from India, I understand that dynamic intimately. In 1992, when I was 26, I decided that I should marry within my culture and religion. So I left a Lutheran boyfriend from Iowa (who was a good match for me) for a Pakistani Muslim living in Washington (who was not). When I mentioned this to my boss, he gently pointed out that ill-advised actions often result from an inability to grapple with the past. In my case, I married the Pakistani Muslim, and my union lasted just a little longer than the first bethrothal of Kim Kardashian. Clearly, like many immigrants, I was struggling with how to shape my newly emerging identity.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother, and his mother, Zubeidat, may have been facing the same struggles in 2009 when they began to study the Koran, getting their lessons from “the Internet and . . . occasional intense conversations with better-informed acquaintances.” The book provides little insight into the brothers’ Muslim teachings as young children, except to say that they were not schooled in extremist thought. At this later time, however, Zubeidat started wearing a hijab, and Tamerlan showed increased devotion to his religious life. He threw away binders he’d put together when he was younger that contained clippings on how to seduce women and hypnotize people.

The book has a splendid opportunity to reflect on the community’s role, particularly that of the Muslim community, in guiding young people toward positive, healthy lives. It is important to hold individuals, families and communities accountable for the development of young newcomers to America. But Gessen misses her chance to explore this crucial piece of the immigrant puzzle. Neuroscientists, psychiatrists and psychologists increasingly analyze the immigrant experience in the context of trauma. Immigrants experience not only a geographical upheaval but a severe blow to their identity. The Tsarnaev story reminds me, as a mother of a 12-year-old next-generation immigrant boy, that it is vital to promote a psychology of integration, adaptation and healing.

In place of a deep analysis about overcoming the challenges of assimilation, Gessen chooses to engage in a narrative of Muslim immigrant victimhood. She lays much of the blame for the Tsarnaevs’ actions on alleged harassment by the FBI. Whether or not the Tsarnaevs were influenced by extremists, she rejects notions that some Muslims become radicalized by jihadists, arguing that the United States and its reactions have “probably done as much” as al-Qaeda to create a “worldwide community of jihadists.”

She even asks, “Is it conceivable that the Tsarnaev brothers were not the marathon bombers?” — and answers: “Yes, it is conceivable.” …

As the Tsarnaev story shows, immigrants suffer the emotional challenges of dislocation, hardship and trauma, and sadly, these vulnerable brothers turned their struggles into terror for which there is no excuse.


So this review by an actual immigrant brings up a point often muffled in the nonstop Huddle Masses schmaltzfest about how immigrants are our moral and psychological superiors. A lot of them are fairly badly messed up psychologically by changing countries, as evidenced, by the Tsarnaevs, Todashev, and Masha Gessen. A kindlier policy would be to let fewer in and send more home.

In fact, what immigration patriots should do is create a new federal immigration bureaucracy staffed with otherwise unemployable graduates of anthropology, cultural studies, comparative religion, ethnic studies, and psychology majors to review all applications for asylum and immigration from the perspective of whether the United States is too racist, culturally insensitive, religiously bigoted, capitalistic, etc. for the poor innocent foreigner to have a reasonable chance to not be offended by having to live in America.

It would be called the Federal Bureau for the Protection of The Other.

It would be given a veto over the immigration of any foreigner likely to suffer insensitivity from Americans, such as children asking to touch his or her hair, or Americans getting confused over which country he or she is from — e.g., the only way to prevent insensitive Americans from wounding the psyche of Iraqi newcomers by confusing them with Iranians and vice-versa is to not let in any more Iraqi and Iranian potential victims of nativist ignorance. The same goes for Eritreans and Ethiopians.

For example, how punching down of me to have once asked the thin-nosed beige skinned ladies in elaborate dresses in Uptown if they were Ethiopians, and they were offended because they were Eritreans and Ethiopians, who live in the same block in Uptown in Chicago so they can shop at the Eritrean/Ethiopian grocery store, are their mortal enemies. How much better these poor Eritreans would have been if instead of being in mindless Uptown they had been home with their cultural peers who understand that all Ethiopians must die and other unquestionable verities of their culture.

Clearly, the current immigration bureaucracy is overly infected with low-brow ideas of American exceptionalism. We need to hire an entire bureau of leftist grad students who understand how America crushes the innocent dreams of The Other, and we will pay them bonuses for protecting The Other by not letting The Other into our country. This bureau of Howard Zinn and Masha Gessen fans should not be allowed to initiate or approve immigration applications, but it should be allowed to veto applications on the grounds that hateful America doesn’t deserve these immigrants.

For example, the Tsarnaevs and Todashev were just carrying out ancient Caucasus traditions of berserker raids upon enemy tribes and ritual assassinations of Jews that go back to the hashish-besotted Assassins of the Caucasus observed by Marco Polo. Back home, this tradition is deep rooted and honored, but in ignorant, insensitive America, few seem to grasp that they were just behaving like good Chechens lads down through the centuries. How much happier they would have been staying home in their native cultural milieu where they would have been afforded the dignity attaining to the perpetrators of acts of carnage.

What America needs is a giant bureaucracy stuffed with leftist liberal arts majors who are getting salary, health care, and pension far beyond what they can earn in the private sector whose only mission is to protect would-be immigrants from being traumatized by exposure to hate-filled Americans by not letting them in to the country.

Finally, immigration restriction would enjoy the support of a vested interest with easy access to the media.


Thanks to you all, this blog continues to set new records for readership and comments. Over the last week, for example, I’ve approved approximately 3,310 comments.

One interesting aspect of the success of iSteve is how old school this operation is. This is unapologetically an old-fashioned blog for readers with long attention spans rather than contemporary social media clickbait.

Almost nothing on this blog ever “goes viral.”

There are several reasons for that. One is that social media tend to encourage conformity and fear of retribution for any hints of heterodoxy.

Another is that, simply, this is always going to be, underneath it all, a highbrow blog with a very limited (although influential) potential readership.

This blog appeals to small but remarkably varied speciality audiences, such as psychometricians (who in a survey conducted at 2013 International Society for Intelligence Research convention in Melbourne voted iSteve the best generalist outlet for coverage of their field) and comedy writers (I seldom come up with professional-grade punchlines, but I air fresh observations and topics that increasingly inspire pros to work on them to come up with the big laughs).

My goal is always to make iSteve the most thought-provoking and fun single-writer highbrow blog in the English language in the general purpose / current controversies category.

The downsides of delivering this level of originality are several-fold:

First, iSteve is never going to be terribly popular. It’s always going to be too neck-snapping of a ride for most people to mentally keep up with.

Second, it’s never going to be even fashionable outside of the most covert, samzidat passing on from one reader to a few very trusted friends. Even if the Eye of Sauron Era ended tomorrow, I’d rapidly find new ways to make myself unfashionable, simply because my deepest urge is to Afflict the Fashionable.

Third, what I do takes an awful lot of work. It’s enjoyable work, but it leaves time for very little else in my life, other than, maybe, worrying about my lawn. For example, I’m writing this post as part of my annual mid-April uh-oh-I’ve-put-off-doing-my-taxes-and-everything-else-I-need-to-do-to-blog panic.

So it’s time for my spring fundraiser. I’ve promised my wife to run four fundraisers per year, and I’ve already fallen behind that schedule. (The last one ran from early December to New Year’s Eve.)

I now have six seven ways for you to send me money, including Paypal, fee-free bank transfers, and multiple tax deductible methods via VDARE.com. I’ve even finally figured out how to get bitcoin working again.

First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.

Second: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142

Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution to VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) If you send VDARE a check make sure to put “I like Steve Sailer” on the Memo line. Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Fourth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like there is with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions. (On the other hand, large contributions are good in general, so feel more than free to send large contributions however you feel like.)

Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like there is with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Sixth: You can use Bitcoin.

I’m using Coinbase as a sort of PayPal for Bitcoins.

The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.

Payments are not tax deductible.

Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Seventh: Google Wallet: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. I’ll put some more notes about how to use Google Wallet under the page break.

• Tags: Panhandling 

From the New York Times, an update on the World’s Most Important Place™. Apparently, ousting the part-time mayor who gets a $350 per month stipend is something the world must do:

Screenshot 2015-04-12 21.51.18


Marginal Revolution points to a laudatory review of sainted AIDS activist Larry Kramer’s giant new book, which the publishers are calling a novel but the 79-year-old playwright contends is the genuine history of America, just with a lot more anal sex than in your biased, censored, homophobic textbooks.

Freud got a lot of things wrong, but he sure got right his concept of “projection:”

“Why do they hate us?”


by Lawrence D. Mass

… In The American People Kramer tells the story of several generations of Washington Jews, the Masturbovs, stand-ins for his own family, but with extraordinary twists.

… Conversely, it’s implied, had the American people been even somewhat less selfish, arrogant, ridiculous, stupid, bigoted, thieving, lying, hypocritical, marauding, pillaging, plundering, dumb and dumber, hating, hateful, murderous, mass-murderous and evil, one of recorded histories worst global catastrophes, the plague [AIDS], might never have happened as it did. …

In other words, the AIDS epidemic in Greenwich Village, Castro Street, and West Hollywood wasn’t the fault of gay men engaging in industrial scale sodomy in Greenwich Village, Castro Street, and West Hollywood, it was the fault of everybody else everywhere else.

Basically, this is a massive blood libel, but you aren’t supposed to notice that.

Kramer goes much much further, alleging that not only Lincoln but Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Presidents Jackson, Pierce, Buchanan and perhaps other presidents, as well as Lewis and Clarke, de Tocqueville, LaFayette, Burr, John Wilkes Booth, Samuel Clemens, George Custer, Oliver Wendell Holmes, visitors to America such as Sigmund Freud and his alleged lover Wilhelm Fliess, virtually every actor in Hollywood past and present, including one who became president, and so many others, were gay or did it with men at some point.

Of course, everybody else is secretly gay, too, including the most evil man since Hitler, Ronald Reagan:

“Kramer wants to make an even stronger case than in the heyday of ACT UP for Reagan (“Peter Reuster”) being every bit as culpable, as evil, as Hitler.”

Right, Freudian projection. Lots of gay men of Kramer’s age or younger killed men they had sex with. It’s a lot of guilt to have to live with, so they make up bizarre fantasies about it being all the fault of Reagan and other normal Americans. That’s understandable, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t be able to call them out for their hallucinatory rage-filled fantasies.


From the Boston Globe:

Clinton taps Harvard professor’s ideas on social mobility

By Annie Linskey GLOBE STAFF APRIL 10, 2015

Harvard professor Raj Chetty flew from Boston to New York City about two months ago to give a private tutorial on his research into social mobility. The student: Hillary Clinton.

In a conference room at her Manhattan personal office, he clicked through a set of slides including a map of the United States that shows how poor children are more likely to get ahead in some parts of the country than in others.

Poor blacks more likely to stay poor, black. In other words, Chetty has put together a map of, basically, blacks and Indian reservations.

The meeting, which included members of Clinton’s staff, lasted two hours.

Clinton absorbed the lesson well.

At a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress in Washington last month, she cited Chetty by name and echoed his work: “Why do some communities, frankly, have more ladders for opportunity than others?” Clinton asked. …

The research Chetty and his team have done shows that children who grow up in parts of the country with less segregation, less income inequality, stronger schools, more social capital, and stable families are more likely to improve their social standing as adults.

In other words, the whiter (better) parts of his map, like Utah, Iowa, and West Virginia, are the whiter (and, apparently, better) parts of America.

He and his colleagues are preparing to release policy prescriptions in coming months.

Clinton was “really interested in issues of social mobility and the American dream” during their meeting Chetty said. “She really engaged with the data,” Chetty recalled.

He also spoke at last year’s Clinton Global Initiative meeting, where he mentioned his signature eye-popping statistic: “Chances of achieving the ‘American Dream’ are almost two times higher in Canada than the United States,” he said, showing slide with data to back up the claim.

Moynhihan’s Law of the Canadian Border strikes again!

Now, you and I get the joke behind Professor Chetty’s map of upward mobility, but does Chetty, much less poor Hillary?

As I headlined in 2013 when the NYT began promoting Chetty’s map:

Breakthrough study: Poor blacks tend to stay poor, black

The problem with Raj Chetty’s 2013 work on social mobility was that it generates absurd results — West Virginia is a great place for social mobility, while Atlanta and Charlotte are terrible — because he refuses to intelligently consider race in his analysis.

Over the generations, the different races in America regress toward different means. So white kids growing up in almost all white West Virginia tend to do better than their parents because they are likely to get the heck out of supposedly high opportunity West Virginia (which you and me know is the worst place in White America), especially for places like Charlotte and Atlanta, which Chetty sees as black holes of low social mobility.

In contrast, Atlanta attracts affluent college graduate black families. Their kids tend to regress part way back toward the black mean, so it makes Atlanta look bad under Chetty’s methodology.

But in the real world, his results are close to 180 degrees backwards to wise advice: if you are white and young in West Virginia, hit the road; if you are black and looking for a community with a lot of black college graduates to be good role models for your kids, consider Atlanta’s suburbs.

As I explained on my blog in 2014:

Notice that according to Chetty West Virginia is an oasis of income mobility in the East, while nearby North Carolina is an abyss of stasis. Yet, lots of people raised in West Virginia who have something on the ball have moved to North Carolina to get ahead in life.

Since West Virginia is only about 5% black and has attracted very few Hispanics and Asians, the bottom 20% of West Virginians in income are majority white, so their children tend to regress toward the white mean, which is higher than the black mean. The bottom 20% in income in the Charlotte or Atlanta area is highly black, so their children tend to regress toward the black mean. Thus, West Virginia comes out looking better for social mobility than Atlanta and Charlotte in Chetty’s methodology.

This doesn’t mean that if you had a peek around the Rawlsian curtain of ignorance, you’d choose to be born in West Virginia because of its strong social mobility. If you knew you were going to be born white, West Virginia would probably be last on your list of states to be born into. Nor does it mean that Blue State policies increase social mobility relative to red state policies. It’s just mostly Moynihan’s Canadian Border effect in action.

And then I beat up Chetty’s methodology some more here.

The general lesson of the success of Chetty’s Malcolm Gladwell-quality work is that race is such a minefield that it inclines everybody, even sharp nonwhite guys like Chetty, into Orwellian crimestop, or protective stupidity.

If we want our presidential candidates to get access to better social policy discourse, we need to stop wrecking the careers of the Jason Richwines, James D. Watsons, and Larry Summers for the crime of telling the truth.

As Luke Lea comments, Hillary has been officially running for president for a few hours now, and we’re already suffering Hillary Fatigue.


If you move to a new town, it’s a good idea to get your kids into little league baseball, so you will have time to hang out with other parents and find out how things work in town. For example, my wife would never have been able to decipher the LAUSD’s intentionally opaque magnet school application system without coaching from other little league moms.

Of course, if you try to undermine their nice community, they may not be happy about it:

From Fox News, the story of a real estate developer trying to get approval to crowd more tenants onto his property by playing the race card in a famously expensive community:

Father claims push for affordable housing led to son’s Little League demotion
Published April 12, 2015 Associated Press

DARIEN, Conn. – In one of the country’s richest towns — where Mercedes, BMWs and Land Rovers cruise tree-lined streets of multimillion-dollar homes — a man who proposed building more accessible housing says angry neighbors took out their frustration on his son: a 9-year-old boy who was demoted to a lower-level Little League team.

Christopher Stefanoni says in a federal lawsuit that residents of Darien are so worried that affordable housing will draw black people to town that they’ll do just about anything to stop it, including using his son to retaliate against him. Town and Little League officials say that’s completely false.

“Darien is a little white enclave, sort of a holdout segregated town,” said Stefanoni, 50, a Harvard-educated father of five who has lived in town since 2000. “The attitudes that people in Darien have are very exclusionary, demeaning. When they go after your kids, they’ve crossed the line.”

The town of nearly 21,000 people on Connecticut’s Gold Coast consistently appears in Top 10 lists of America’s wealthiest towns, with a per-capita income around $95,000. About 94 percent of the population is white, with about 620 Hispanics and 70 blacks, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

The lawsuit and a federal housing investigation reopened old wounds in Darien, a New York City suburb depicted in the 1947 Oscar-winning movie “Gentleman’s Agreement” starring Gregory Peck where residents conspired not to sell their homes to Jews.

Stefanoni and his wife, Margaret, filed the lawsuit in 2013 against the Darien Little League and its leaders over the demotion of their son for the fall 2010 season, just days after Stefanoni filed an affordable housing application for property right next to the home of a former league official. Several months later, Stefanoni was banned indefinitely from coaching in the league. …

Stefanoni said he has had three affordable housing proposals rejected by the town. They include a 16-apartment complex with five affordable units and a 30-apartment development with nine affordable units. A court sent both of those back to the town’s planning and zoning commission for review and approved a third. The commission cited traffic safety and other concerns.

The lawsuit includes allegations about city officials blocking affordable housing applications to keep blacks from moving into town, claims identical to those in another pending federal lawsuit against the town by a different affordable housing developer whose project was rejected.

The U.S. Department of Justice in 2010 began investigating whether the town was violating the Fair Housing Act with a zoning policy approved in 2009 that gave top priority for new affordable housing to Darien residents and other people with ties to the town, including town employees. The planning and zoning commission rescinded the policy later in 2010, and the Justice Department closed the investigation in 2012 without taking any action, the Darien Times reported.

A commenter, whom Alice Roosevelt would have had sit next to her at a White House dinner, adds:

Like Buddy Fletcher [Ellen Pao's litigious bankrupt gay black husband], Chris Stefanoni was in my class at Harvard. And as with Buddy, I pretty much systematically avoided him. “Stef,” as his small group of admirers called him, always struck me as a boorish dude with a huge chip on his shoulder and a thuggish disposition.

He married a college friend of my wife’s and estranged her from her family–to such a degree that when my wife ran across one of the family members a few years back, she was asked what she knew of this woman, who seemed to have disappeared into an oddly cult-like existence with Stefanoni and their five kids or however many they are.

Fast forward to maybe two years ago: friends of mine who live in Brooklyn have a young daughter who’s a very good junior squash player, now rated in the top 10 nationally in her age bracket. In their account, Chris Stefanoni is the all-time nightmare hockey-dad style booster of his two daughters’ squash-playing aspirations: lots of screaming at the kids and everyone else, despite an evident total lack of understanding of the game. Not a big surprise to me.

If you look up the backstory in the NYT archives, you’ll see that he’s a serial litigant whom many in Fairfield County take to be more or less an extortionist. I have no love for Darien, where I used to visit my cousins in the 70s and find myself deeply grossed-out by the general milieu created and inhabited by both the kids and grownups, later immortalized in The Ice Storm, e.g. But Stefanoni himself is far from a walk in the park himself as far as I can tell.

You know, it’s almost as if people who play the Discrimination Card to make money aren’t all self-neglecting saints.

Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
But is it even a friend?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?