The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NY Mag: "The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From New York magazine:

The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right

By Park MacDougald and Jason Willick

After Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss to Barack Obama, the Republican establishment undertook a rigorous postmortem and, looking at demographic trends in the United States, determined that appealing to Hispanics was now a nuclear-level priority. And yet their successful candidate in the next election won by doing precisely the opposite. The Trump strategy looked an awful lot like the Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration, first proposed by the conservative writer Steve Sailer in 2000, and summarily rejected by establishment Republicans at the time. Now, 17 years and four presidential cycles later, Sailer, once made a pariah by mainstream conservatives, has quietly become one of the most influential thinkers on the American right.

Read the whole thing there.

This New York article doesn’t link to anything by me it cites (although it links to others), so in case anybody finds their way here from it, I’ll put in links to my stuff below:

– My 2000 VDARE article advising the GOP to pursue white union families in the Great Lakes states rather than Hispanics.

– Citizenism: My 2006 article on my views in The American Conservative.

– “preference to the interests of its current citizens over foreigners, in the same way as a corporation prioritizes the interests of its current shareholders over everyone else:” Here’s me debating against Jared Taylor in VDARE in 2005.

– Human Biodiversity studies: 72 out of the last 72 finalists in the men’s 100 meter Olympic dash have been at least half black by ancestry.

– My 2005 article on how badly and why the Establishment, from GWB to Mayor Nagin, failed the citizens of New Orleans.

– Trump as punk rock and as uninterested in Davos Man shibboleths.

Michael Barone on my election strategy

– My 2006 article perhaps debuting the phrase “Invade the World / Invite the World” as the Grand Strategy of the Bush Administration.

– “Coalition of the Fringes:” here’s a 2012 VDARE article.

– “Elect a new people:” I got that from Peter Brimelow who was quoting a 1953 poem by Brecht.

– The term “ethnic nepotism” was invented in 1981 by Pierre L. van den Berghe. I probably picked it up via William D. Hamilton and Frank Salter.

– “Black privilege” in Taki’s Magazine in 2017.

Get Out, a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie

– Here are my 2007 Frequently Asked Questions about race and about IQ.

As for the title, “The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right,” I’m really not much of an inventor. I’m more of an analyst. My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.

 
Hide 407 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Effectuating this philosophy — putting ‘Americans First,’ as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels.”

    Draconian is a word chained to punishment, not to immigration policy. How reducing immigration amounts to punishment of foreigners – punishment of citizens of other countries, Messrs. MacDougal and Willick do not deign to tell us. Might those two men be fervent advocates of The Zeroth Amendment?

    • Agree: jimbojones, Hail
    • Replies: @guest
    "Draconian cut" is a common buzzphrase in U.S. politics, so you can't tell anything by that modifier. All I need know to be sure the writers are fervent advocates of the Zeroth Amendment is the fact that they write for a mainstream publication.
    , @Stan Adams
    Effectuating is a pretty odd word choice, as well.

    On the plus side, the article is about as balanced a piece as a mainstream rag would dare to print these days. It presents Steve's ideas without misrepresenting them too egregiously.

    You're becoming a serious player, Steve. (Not that you haven't been one all along, but now it's out in the open.)
    , @Barnard
    It isn't called draconian because it is punishing the would be immigrants, it is because it is punishing the people who profit off their cheap labor.
    , @Bill Jones
    Bingo!
    , @Bill Jones
    Bingo
    !The simple message that needs to be hammered home is this:
    Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

    Since I left Sodom on Hudson, both places I've lived are within 5 miles of a Money in the Jar vegetable stand.
    This was not accidental.
    Outside of those founded by Northwestern Europeans (Primarily British) there are no other societies with that level of inate trust.
  2. Wait, I thought Republicans were “dog whistling” to white voters all along.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    In the current year Republicans are literally Hitler, dog whistling to whites goes with the territory.

    The good news is that Republicans from previous current years are rehabilitated, turning out not to be literally Hitler after all.
  3. Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion. Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    The writer doesn’t tell me why this should be avoided.

    I don’t think this biography was that bad. If anything it will draw new readers.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    As per the quoted section, rather than why this should be avoided, the author should tell us how, if SJWs and liberals try to maintain their current trajectory. Unless the idea is to relinquish identitarian leftism. Well, good luck with that.

    Without mass immivasion, we would still have a very morally bankrupt, degenerate world where the non-immigration tenets of liberalism would still be popular. It would be an enjoyable world as a young adult, not so much as a child. There would be no white nationalism of any consequence.

    With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response.

    , @Thea
    Our betters want blacks to resent us then they wonder why we would resent them.
    , @Percy Gryce

    If anything it will draw new readers.
     
    Steve, can Ron design some new badges to appear next to our screen names to denote that some of us were here before the New York magazine profile?
    , @I, Mudd
    "Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion."

    I always thought Steve will inevitably be best-known for his observations on golf course design.

  4. Well done Steve!

    • Agree: theo the kraut
    • Replies: @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "Well done Steve!"

    And that inset photo of Steve above is brilliant: a James Bond villain mastermind fondling his attack rabbit.
    , @AnotherDad

    Well done Steve!
     
    They spelled his name right!

    Actually, agree with others. The authors threw in the requisite tut-tutting, but given it's an establishment media piece it's much fairer than i would have expected. I think the citizenism paragraph is quite accessible to the (rare) random fair-minded individual who comes in without fixed PC mindset. Also there's an undertone from the authors that suggests at least some healthy skepticism about conventional "wisdom", or at least that cosmopolitan liberal globalism might be a little overreaching/overbaked at present.

    Steve, post-taxes i'll get my act together here and send you the spring contribution--sufficient for the purchase of a Mossberg 500, so you can air cool any random antifa loon, now motivated to try and burst through your front window.
  5. About as fair as.could be hoped. Could have snuck Affordable Family Formation in there. That will be Steve’s real legacy, I thinl

    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Re "affordable family formation" from the article in NEW YORK:

    As Michael Brendan Dougherty of The Week has observed, Sailer has exerted “a kind of subliminal influence across much of the right … even in the places where his controversial writing on race was decidedly unwelcome.” Sometimes that influence has not even been subliminal — David Brooks has cited Sailer in The New York Times on the correlation between white fertility rates and voting patterns, Times columnist Ross Douthat has referenced Sailer’s analogy between Breitbart-style conservatism and punk rock, and the economist Tyler Cowen has described him as “the most significant neo-reaction thinker today.”
     
    So, without naming it, the authors had it in mind.
    Humbly (who am I to claim that) I consider
    introduction of the notion of "affordable family formation"
    as an extremely important contribution by Mr. Sailer to sociology,
    deserving Nobel(ish) prize in Economics.
    , @bomag

    About as fair as could be hoped.
     
    I'll give it a "sort of fair" rating. Plenty of references to occasionally sinister racial undertones... resentful end of white opinion... dances around blatantly bigoted remarks to let the readers know that Steve is the wrong kind of person. Also, interesting that the authors claim expertise in: racial undertones; "white" opinion; and what is proper bigotry. But they admit, in a grudging way, that Steve has been correct in analyzing all this.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    Related - young UK house owners (an increasingly endangered class) are having more babies than young renters (greatly increasing class).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/12/soaring-house-prices-reduce-number-babies-born-england/


    "The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development found that for every 10 per cent increases in house prices, the birth rate falls by 1.3 per cent.

    The trend is reversed for people who own their own home, with a 10 per cent house price rise sparking a rise in the number of births by 2.8 per cent. However among renters, the same increase causes a birth rate decline of 4.9 per cent."
     

    Ignore the crap about increases "sparking a rise", there's no posited mechanism for that. Mind, most "social housing" tenants (renters) seem to breed pretty well.
  6. @Auntie Analogue

    "Effectuating this philosophy — putting 'Americans First,' as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels."

     

    Draconian is a word chained to punishment, not to immigration policy. How reducing immigration amounts to punishment of foreigners - punishment of citizens of other countries, Messrs. MacDougal and Willick do not deign to tell us. Might those two men be fervent advocates of The Zeroth Amendment?

    “Draconian cut” is a common buzzphrase in U.S. politics, so you can’t tell anything by that modifier. All I need know to be sure the writers are fervent advocates of the Zeroth Amendment is the fact that they write for a mainstream publication.

  7. There was less pointing and spluttering in the article than I would have expected.

    • Agree: PV van der Byl
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    If NYT ever attempts an article it will have much more pointing and spluttering.

    NYT doesn't really seem to be analyzing the current trends. They take them as self-evidently wrong and attack only.

    They might see an article on Steve as giving him more publicity.

    I'm not familiar with NY Mag but it's much calmer than hyper partisan NYT.

    Congratulations, Steve, on being vindicated by events and having it acknowledged.
  8. Hu – article about Steve Sailer pubished in NYC on Labor Day 2017 – historical in oh so many ways! –

    Future ways, too!

    Congrats to Steve Sailer!

    “His record contains ample reasons to question the rather innocent description of his politics.”

    – Ok that’s the most important remark on the negative side. And it is negative only for people who think, that being innocent (= pure…) would be an option in the world of grown-ups. – It’s not, though. It – for lots of reasons – simply can’t be. So this critique kinda points back at at least one of the authors Park MacDougald and Jason Willick – if not to both of them (who – by and large, made a good job).

  9. Kudos. Don’t forget us when you’re jetsetting to Davos and Bilderberg with the other fat cats!

    • Replies: @Olorin
    I like to imagine our host in attendance there at the far end of the conference table or dias, sitting in a Saarinen ball chair petting the bunny.

    And I thought the chiaroscuro portrait made the hair look spikier, i.e., punker.
  10. With all due respect.

  11. NYT article about Steve,now will they publish one by Steve? that would be Trumpian magic.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    New York magazine, not the New York Times newspaper.
    , @Father O'Hara
    That has long been my dream.
  12. @Auntie Analogue

    "Effectuating this philosophy — putting 'Americans First,' as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels."

     

    Draconian is a word chained to punishment, not to immigration policy. How reducing immigration amounts to punishment of foreigners - punishment of citizens of other countries, Messrs. MacDougal and Willick do not deign to tell us. Might those two men be fervent advocates of The Zeroth Amendment?

    Effectuating is a pretty odd word choice, as well.

    On the plus side, the article is about as balanced a piece as a mainstream rag would dare to print these days. It presents Steve’s ideas without misrepresenting them too egregiously.

    You’re becoming a serious player, Steve. (Not that you haven’t been one all along, but now it’s out in the open.)

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Kylie
    "You’re becoming a serious player, Steve. (Not that you haven’t been one all along, but now it’s out in the open.)"

    Yes, Steve has always been a serious player*. This article indicates that hee is now a serious target. Don't expect future MSM articles to be so innocuous. Steve has a slippery quality that doesn't give his opponents much traction. That doesn't mean they won't try their best to launch a smear campaign against him, just that they'll have to work harder and lie better than these yo-yos.

    So this article made me very uneasy though insofar as it helps his career (i.e.by allowing him to provide his long-suffering wife with garage doors, dishwashers, etc.), I'm of course very pleased for him.

    *Serious player and, paradoxically, the funniest writer I've ever read except for Henry James and Iris Murdoch. His captions are brilliant. I'm still laughing over "the not late Angie Dickinson".
  13. I’m glad to see you get the coverage, Steve. You deserve it, and more, and better. You deserve to be more widely read and acknowledged.

    I won’t say congratulations, as that term is inappropriate in this context.

    I am surprised that you dated Invade/Invite to the GW Bush admin. It arguably goes back to Vietnam if not earlier and could be said to have animated the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

    Couldn’t Unz have supplied a better photo of you?

    • Replies: @fish

    Couldn’t Unz have supplied a better photo of you?
     
    Santa Steve?
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    I like the picture.

    What a troll that would be to make him the new face of 'The World's Most Interesting Man' beer commercial. Maybe Natty Light could do a knock off.
  14. Well deserved and long overdue.
    Congrats, Mr. Sailer!

  15. The authors see you as a life raft in the coming Troubles, Steve. No one wants to jump into a life raft, but that isn’t the significance of their closing paragraph.

    I raise my can of Natty Lite to you.

  16. @Horseball
    About as fair as.could be hoped. Could have snuck Affordable Family Formation in there. That will be Steve's real legacy, I thinl

    Re “affordable family formation” from the article in NEW YORK:

    As Michael Brendan Dougherty of The Week has observed, Sailer has exerted “a kind of subliminal influence across much of the right … even in the places where his controversial writing on race was decidedly unwelcome.” Sometimes that influence has not even been subliminal — David Brooks has cited Sailer in The New York Times on the correlation between white fertility rates and voting patterns, Times columnist Ross Douthat has referenced Sailer’s analogy between Breitbart-style conservatism and punk rock, and the economist Tyler Cowen has described him as “the most significant neo-reaction thinker today.”

    So, without naming it, the authors had it in mind.
    Humbly (who am I to claim that) I consider
    introduction of the notion of “affordable family formation”
    as an extremely important contribution by Mr. Sailer to sociology,
    deserving Nobel(ish) prize in Economics.

    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    When I wrote "Nobel(ish) prize in Economics", I followed Sailer's terminology.
    I did that not to denigrate Mr. Sailer's achievement,
    but to kind of downplay that particular prize.
    I doubt that Steve Sailer would be comfortable to be in the same list
    with Paul Krugman.
  17. Congratulations to Steve Sailer on recognition long overdue! When the history of the Alt-Right and the Republic is written astute historians will track the progress/decline of the USA in the perceptive commentary of Steve Sailer.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.
  18. Does New York Magazine typically provide hyperlinks to things it cites? I am wondering whether they deliberately left hurdles in the article.

  19. Hopefully a breakthrough mainstream review and a sign of things to come! It’s funny though to see you described as inflammatory, divisive, etc. These guys have no clue how hard you’ve worked to try to bridge intellectual divides.

    • Agree: Venator
  20. @Fredrik

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion. Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.
     
    The writer doesn't tell me why this should be avoided.

    I don't think this biography was that bad. If anything it will draw new readers.

    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    As per the quoted section, rather than why this should be avoided, the author should tell us how, if SJWs and liberals try to maintain their current trajectory. Unless the idea is to relinquish identitarian leftism. Well, good luck with that.

    Without mass immivasion, we would still have a very morally bankrupt, degenerate world where the non-immigration tenets of liberalism would still be popular. It would be an enjoyable world as a young adult, not so much as a child. There would be no white nationalism of any consequence.

    With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response.

    • Agree: Negrolphin Pool
    • Replies: @Olorin

    raw white nationalism
     
    I wondered whether the author would find it less objectionable cooked.
  21. Not all publicity is good publicity, Steven. The ominous B&W photo makes you look like a Huntsville, Alabama Nazi.

    • Replies: @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    , @Georgina
    I could not disagree more. He looks very handsome in the picture. Let's just hope he does not forget us now that he is famous.
  22. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Re "affordable family formation" from the article in NEW YORK:

    As Michael Brendan Dougherty of The Week has observed, Sailer has exerted “a kind of subliminal influence across much of the right … even in the places where his controversial writing on race was decidedly unwelcome.” Sometimes that influence has not even been subliminal — David Brooks has cited Sailer in The New York Times on the correlation between white fertility rates and voting patterns, Times columnist Ross Douthat has referenced Sailer’s analogy between Breitbart-style conservatism and punk rock, and the economist Tyler Cowen has described him as “the most significant neo-reaction thinker today.”
     
    So, without naming it, the authors had it in mind.
    Humbly (who am I to claim that) I consider
    introduction of the notion of "affordable family formation"
    as an extremely important contribution by Mr. Sailer to sociology,
    deserving Nobel(ish) prize in Economics.

    When I wrote “Nobel(ish) prize in Economics”, I followed Sailer’s terminology.
    I did that not to denigrate Mr. Sailer’s achievement,
    but to kind of downplay that particular prize.
    I doubt that Steve Sailer would be comfortable to be in the same list
    with Paul Krugman.

  23. Get Out, a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie

    I thought it was a pretty fun movie, if oddly predictable. It was so over the top that calling it “racist” seems whiny. I also think almost all of us are naturally racist one way or another and it is probably healthier to express that racism in public than to pretend.

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    The problem with this logic is indicated by the reality that expressing such views has strong negative feedback for whites and Asians when speaking about URMs/NAMs but not for the reverse.

    Mentioning that the black population will not produce many outstanding NFL QBs because of differences in racial IQ distribution will get you fired from the NFL and result in unemployment for life.

    Saying whites are too slow and ruined your team's shot at the NCAA title will be mildly controversial.
    , @MBlanc46
    Absolutely. But as long as only non-whites are allowed to express their racism in public, we whites are entitled to whine.
  24. “But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture” is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Sorry that was supposed to be LOL!
    , @Danindc
    That's hilarious. I have used this line in real life but substituted "his movie reviews" for golf course articles...
    , @Hunsdon
    In fairness, I also enjoy the golf architecture posts . . . which is something I never thought I'd find myself typing.
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Too funny!
    , @Altai
    Speaking of the articles in Playboy.

    https://twitter.com/Playboy/status/840654060860653573


    Ed Sheeran has a toxic masculinity problem. https://t.co/UfFTYO6UWX pic.twitter.com/sAm1NZZGZS— Playboy (@Playboy) March 11, 2017
     
    It's not a parody account.
    http://www.playboy.com/articles/ed-sheeran-has-a-toxic-masculinity-problem
    , @Frau Katze
    I'm out of button uses at the moment, but that's hilarious!
  25. I also think almost all of us are naturally racist one way or another and it is probably healthier to express that racism in public than to pretend.

    Is that your opinion of depictions of jews in Germany during the Third Reich?

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    The problem in the Third Reich was not so much the Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda but more that no alternative viewpoints were allowed and that the government passed anti-semitic laws. You can find plenty of articles from French, US and British newspapers and magazines in the 1930s that were every bit as nasty as Nazi propaganda. Keep the state out of the media might be a better lesson.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    Well, why not? At least some people realized that its time to leave since the Nazi government broadcast their level of anti-Semitism openly. Would you rather have had them unleash a secret plan with no warning?

    Of course I get it that you're trying to imply the usual "they printed this propaganda about Jews and it led to the Holocaust" but that's hardly what happened: they only started printing anti-Semitic government propaganda once the anti-Semites and their plans were already in power. Obviously it's not the propaganda of the Nazi government that led to the Nazis taking over the government.

    Germany before the Nazis, of course, tried to stop the rise of the nationalist movements (and specifically Hitler) with what we would now call "hate speech" bans and they failed.
  26. Reading this review is strikes me how obsessed educated liberals are with “dangerous ideas” and unpc language. In the modern liberal view, all nasty and extreme things that happen (like black on black violence in the US, or historical events like the Holocaust) are due to “dangerous ideas” and politically incorrect discourse (even though most of history’s despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren’t very ideological). It’s a kind of magical thinking, where nice words and thoughts lead to nice outcomes, and not so nice words and thoughts lead to bad outcomes. Hence, politically incorrect thinkers like Steve are considered a dangerous threat.

    This contrasts with the common sense view that most nasty or extreme things occur because of extreme or tragic circumstances, or human stupidity, or nasty individuals getting too much power.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    There is something to your observation.

    And we have a broader hair-trigger slippery slope mentality in the United States (and, I estimate, certain Euro countries like Germany and Britain) where enforcing our borders and immigration laws is seen as very well leading to a Holocaust.

    , @Dieter Kief
    As long as good humored and good-hearted comon sense is at work, everything is just fine.

    Same with communism. German writer Hermann Peter Piwitt once had it this way: Communism is just great, as long as there are no people involved. They are the biggest mistake.

    Except for that - be careful with words. Watch out. Don't get bewitched by them (Wittgenstein), and don't you think to make a proper use of them would be easy - or, as the New York magazine-article about Steve Sailer has it, could be - or should be, even - innocent.

    This idea, that innocence should be looked upon as one of the main guidelines of public discourse, leads directly to Snowflake Ave. and Purity-Lane junction: That leaves out the basic insight, that any worthwhile discourse has to deal with arguments - a n d counter-arguments. And therefor has as his basis the golden rule of old: We agree to disagree.

    If this democratic interior homeland gets lost, if the grown-up person's willingness to live with the tensions caused by argumentation and counter-argumentation gets lost, if a kind of wellness-public takes over, that is way less complex than reality, than a society is in danger to - let me put it a little bit short & sharp: To lose it's mind.
    With Freud, you could call this state of the affairs: Regressive.
    A less vitiolic way to describe it would be: A public sphere, that is not up to it's tasks.

    The tasks being, as is widely accepted not least because Steve Sailer worded (most) of those tasks so appropriately: Don't invite/ invade the world; citizenship (family affordance); HBD, sustainability (respect for nature).
    - Now, for this short moment in time, I all of a sudden rest assured, that things aren't that complicated.

    But I know, this feeling, sweet as it is, will sooner or later be transformed in something quite different.

    ...since:... "the times, they-are a-changing"... (such is the very nature of our earthly ways)...

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    most of history’s despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren’t very ideological

    Maybe, but Communist ideologists played a huge role in whitewashing and justifying Stalin's crimes in the West.
    , @Stan Adams
    A liberal is someone who believes that you can make blacks into Asians by closing your eyes, clicking the heels of your magic shoes together three times, and chanting, "The gap is a myth ... the gap is a myth ... the gap is a myth" until the sun goes supernova.

    This progressive nuttiness over the power of positive thinking brings to mind Jared Lee Loughner - the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had some crackpot theory that if a) everything is made of thoughts, and b) thoughts are made of words, then c) everything is a bunch of words floating around in our heads. Words are like atoms - the building blocks of reality. Words make worlds. Wordsmiths are worldlords.

    Or something like that - his rantings are hard to follow. He is a madman, after all. (He's also half-tribe, if anyone cares.)

    He once went to a Giffords rally and asked her, "What is government if words have no meaning?" She didn't know what the hell he was talking about and politely blew him off. He took it badly. Thus, she ended up with bullets in her head.

    Loughner also had a bug up his butt about how money is useless paper whose worth is controlled by the government.
  27. bomag says:
    @Horseball
    About as fair as.could be hoped. Could have snuck Affordable Family Formation in there. That will be Steve's real legacy, I thinl

    About as fair as could be hoped.

    I’ll give it a “sort of fair” rating. Plenty of references to occasionally sinister racial undertones… resentful end of white opinion… dances around blatantly bigoted remarks to let the readers know that Steve is the wrong kind of person. Also, interesting that the authors claim expertise in: racial undertones; “white” opinion; and what is proper bigotry. But they admit, in a grudging way, that Steve has been correct in analyzing all this.

  28. Congratulations Steve. Too bad the authors couldn’t remove the layers of fireproof gear and explore your ideas in more depth.

    That last paragraph is really something. As the percentage of whites as a part of the electorate shrinks, they will necessarily adopt the identity politics of their ethno-cultural rivals. ‘Citizenism’ will indeed be the moderate position. Even the journalists are figuring it out. This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric."
     
    Haha. Don't count on it. With these people, "irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric" is a feature not a bug. Irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric is the whole reason they got into journalism, not some unfortunate side-effect. If they didn't love irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric, they would have done something productive with their lives.
    , @Corvinus
    "That last paragraph is really something. As the percentage of whites as a part of the electorate shrinks, they will necessarily adopt the identity politics of their ethno-cultural rivals. ‘Citizenism’ will indeed be the moderate position. Even the journalists are figuring it out. This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric."

    No, no, no. The Fake News story is that somehow and someway that whites in the future will magically unify to keep their race from being over-coffeed and deracinated, with the heads of vibrants and Jewish elites strung up like beads. Identity politics stems from ideology--it is the bug, not the feature. When you have prominent members of the Alt Right stating that only certain white people are "true Americans" and that religious freedom is a farce, and philosophical infighting between the Alt-Right, Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite, why on earth would the majority of white Americans completely reverse their personal views regarding race and culture based on the proclaimed shaman of fringe groups?

    Certainly, the ideas of the Alt Right are entering the mainstream and becoming part of our political consciousness, and I'm certain a number of white Americans find their rhetoric comforting. However, our nation historically leans center-right. In other words, moderates hold the key to the American future.
  29. Ed says:

    His record contains ample reasons to question the rather innocent description of his politics. In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”

    So when one watched the civilizational collapse during Katrina, the post-Ferguson effects in cities like Baltimore or Chicago or even the last few decades of cultural deterioration among poor blacks, what do they think caused it if not what Steve says? The quoted comment seems like a reasonable foundation to the issue of African-American inequality & saving black lives.

    Oh and congrats Steve!

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”
     
    Simply quoting Steve's "infamous and widely condemned" post, instead of just stating his racial outreness is actually a subversive act suggesting perhaps the authors themselves are a bit skeptical\dissenting. It lets people judge the quote themselves and see whether they think it's a) a big deal and/or b) actually false.

    Back in my scoutmastering years, i had conversations with SWPLy Obama voting dads who were nonetheless quite well aware that there were large numbers of blacks (as well as some whites) who were simply too stupid to have very good employment prospects in the "new economy" and that we didn't--neither our nation nor his party--have any real solution for them. He--i'm thinking of one man in particular, who was my Committee Chair at the time--wouldn't be taken back at all by Steve's statement despite being a reliable SWPL Democrat voter. It's one of those "you aren't supposed to say that!" but nonetheless pretty obviously true statements whether we like it or not. Of course, this guy is an engineer--a profession where things have to work in the real world--not a social scientist, educator, lawyer, bureaucrat.

    I think a lot of folks would read Steve's statement and think "ok, that's blunt non-PC talk", but not actually find it very "out there" or meriting over-the-top condemnation. Some will no doubt be somewhat intrigued--"what else does this guy say?".

    , @HA

    Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”
     
    As a reminder, here's an example of how a liberal gets away with saying the exact same thing that Steve did:

    LARRY WILMORE: Who's taking out loans that skyrocket the minute you sign them? [sheepishly points 2 thumbs to himself]

    ...Where my sub-primers at? Can a sub-primer get a table dance?

    ...Subprimes...the menthol cigarettes of loans (but unlike menthol cigarettes, these loans have a downside)...

    [...cut to refinancing ads featuring blingy toys and a hip-hop jingle...]
     

    In other words, Steve simply forgot to slap on a sentence or two explaining how the white banking establishment (and don't anyone get any ideas -- I specifically said WHITE banking establishment) deviously exploits any such lack of native judgment and impulse control, and he also forgot to suggest that this is all just a grand psych-out by which wily black folk are once again able to stick it to the man. (To be fair, Steve repeatedly did all that in his numerous posts slamming Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide but really, you've got to follow through right away when it comes to blaming everything on the man, not save it for another post.)

    Oh yeah, and Steve also forgot about not being black. He'll have to fix that, too, if he wants to get away with saying stuff like that.

  30. It was full of errors, but still better than the typical MSM smear job. They even managed to avoid quoting the SPLC, the lazy journalism source used in 95% of MSM articles about people who do not pretend to believe in behavioral and IQ egalitarianism.

    • Replies: @benjaminl
    Agreed, except take a gander at the Murderer's Row of "expert scholars" that NY Mag arranged to give "scholarly" analysis of the "alt-right."

    It consists entirely of tenured-radical SJW types, starting with controversial extremist Heidi Beirich at #1. (Except for George Hawley, I think)

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/what-are-the-roots-of-the-new-reactionary-rage.html
  31. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Detective Club
    Not all publicity is good publicity, Steven. The ominous B&W photo makes you look like a Huntsville, Alabama Nazi.
    https://youtu.be/gSlGxlAusSE

    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I’m proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I like it!

    , @European-American
    I first found Sailer via Jorn Barger's Robot Wisdom, in the late 90s or early oughts, I forget.
    , @Anonymous
    The high contrast makes him look even more white. It's the inverse of what that Time cover did to OJ Simpson.
    , @jimbo
    Whippersnapper! I've been reading him since about 2002, on his old, comment-free site. Back then you actually had to email him to discuss anything - and walk uphill, both ways, through 5 feet of snow, to hit the "send" button...
    , @ogunsiron
    I'm also very proud to be a member of the Old Reader Guard :)
    i don't remember exactly when I learned about Sailer, but it must have been a link from the mid 2000s GNXP.
    , @Pericles
    Someone plz photoshop Gandalf Steve -
  32. Begrudging respect, and the pointing/sputtering is relatively mild, but the bar is pretty low. Still objectively shitty treatment. There’s something in there about “critics” (not experts in the relevant fields) finding your work “pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst”, which doesn’t make sense a couple of ways.’
    And like somebody said above, they should have mentioned Affordable Family Formation.

    But still, this is exciting. Let’s get Sailer a speaking gig at Berkeley. It’ll be lit.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    But still, this is exciting. Let’s get Sailer a speaking gig at Berkeley. It’ll be lit.
     
    No.

    I already fear for his life. The Democrats murdered the DNC leaker Seth Rich. You amplify the problem by sending Steve to stick his head in the lion's mouth, after having repeatedly, and with great force, kicked that lion in the swinging jewels for about a quarter century now.

    Do not tempt the Fates Steve. And keep that life insurance policy paid up!
  33. That was fairly respectful, all things considered.

  34. @unpc downunder
    Reading this review is strikes me how obsessed educated liberals are with "dangerous ideas" and unpc language. In the modern liberal view, all nasty and extreme things that happen (like black on black violence in the US, or historical events like the Holocaust) are due to "dangerous ideas" and politically incorrect discourse (even though most of history's despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren't very ideological). It's a kind of magical thinking, where nice words and thoughts lead to nice outcomes, and not so nice words and thoughts lead to bad outcomes. Hence, politically incorrect thinkers like Steve are considered a dangerous threat.

    This contrasts with the common sense view that most nasty or extreme things occur because of extreme or tragic circumstances, or human stupidity, or nasty individuals getting too much power.

    There is something to your observation.

    And we have a broader hair-trigger slippery slope mentality in the United States (and, I estimate, certain Euro countries like Germany and Britain) where enforcing our borders and immigration laws is seen as very well leading to a Holocaust.

  35. @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I like it!

  36. “Sailer … has quietly become one of the most influential thinkers on the American right.”

    I don’t know about that, but the best journalist writing in English today, I’d think.

    If anyone knows a better, please point me in his direction.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    "If anyone knows a better [journalist writing in English today], please point me in his direction."

    Hear! Hear!!
  37. ‘Here lies Steve Sailer, controversial golf course aficionado, quadrille revivalist and ideological inspiration for the eventual and, in hindsight, kinda okay, reign of European Identitarian Techno-Presbo-Lutherean-Catholic-Kekism’

    • Replies: @Pericles
    'He plunged the distance.'
  38. Citizenism seems less attractive and less viable as the years go by and more and more people who hate and are destructive of Western Civ become American citizens.

    The USA isn’t Brazil plus nukes and obesity quite yet, but demographic movementum means we eventually will be.

    • Replies: @Detective Club
    Spot on, Lot! Obama had us headed on the fast track towards Brazil-dom. Crooked Hillary would have sealed the deal. That Trump won Michigan by 13,000 votes, whereas Romney had lost the state by 8% in 2012, now seems like a major miracle that might make one believe in Divine Providence!

    The multi-cult cancer seems to be in remission for the time being but the fact that Paul Ryan is still Speaker of the House makes one despair of the future. Since 1965, Open Borders has always been the religion of both political parties. The future for Whitey looks extremely bleak.
  39. Occam’s Butterknife?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That's a good one.
    , @res
    Agreed about Occam’s Butterknife.

    Both that and Who, Whom? are too enlightening to highlight though.

    Also Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism as mentioned in another comment.

    P.S. In case anyone new to Steve's work makes it this far down the comments, http://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer is a good overview (adding some of the memes mentioned in this thread might be good).
  40. I think your greatest feat is keeping prefixes like “white supremacist” off your name. You are, by any current year standard, but I get the impression that journalists find your sarcasm hard to parse, so they just use what Wikipedia says. I guess it’s pretty confusing when you’re used to the regular autisticy directness of this side of the political spectrum.

    Really, talking about jews and race and still being called a “journalist” is amazing. And you only got the required minimum of hate! That’s, like, an endorsement.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    Like Joe Sobran's observation about the shifting nature of Antisemintism before it, “White supremacist” now means anyone who is white and who doesn't gleefully look forward to the demographic erasure of whites in America and worldwide. With that in mind it is rather odd that the New Yorker lads didn't immediately go there - but had they done so they probably couldn't have justified the piece since everybody knows you don't give legitimacy to white supremacists.
  41. @Hodag
    "But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture" is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    Sorry that was supposed to be LOL!

  42. @Chrisnonymous
    Occam's Butterknife?

    That’s a good one.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I thought you were posting a best of list, but I see it's more directly related to the article.

    I wonder if this article--not particularly critical--is a sign there is change in the air. Today at work, an American was talking to a Brit about how difficult it is to immigrate to the UK, Aus, Japan, etc. Maybe or maybe not, but the conversation was completely without judgemental social signaling! Amazing!
  43. johnd [AKA "johnlee 00"] says:

    15 minutes !… and counting….

  44. this is a rhetorical Q, but why is the left always looking for a jabberwok to slew for the failures of their oh so frabjous ideology?

  45. How about point-and-splutter?

    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Point and Sputter, not splutter. Since they were engaging in it, it would be hard for them them to reference it, they would have explain something they were actually doing.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    How about point-and-splutter?

    • Replies: Unladen Swallow
     
    Hey now, this is a family blog. Keep it clean.
  46. @unpc downunder
    Reading this review is strikes me how obsessed educated liberals are with "dangerous ideas" and unpc language. In the modern liberal view, all nasty and extreme things that happen (like black on black violence in the US, or historical events like the Holocaust) are due to "dangerous ideas" and politically incorrect discourse (even though most of history's despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren't very ideological). It's a kind of magical thinking, where nice words and thoughts lead to nice outcomes, and not so nice words and thoughts lead to bad outcomes. Hence, politically incorrect thinkers like Steve are considered a dangerous threat.

    This contrasts with the common sense view that most nasty or extreme things occur because of extreme or tragic circumstances, or human stupidity, or nasty individuals getting too much power.

    As long as good humored and good-hearted comon sense is at work, everything is just fine.

    Same with communism. German writer Hermann Peter Piwitt once had it this way: Communism is just great, as long as there are no people involved. They are the biggest mistake.

    Except for that – be careful with words. Watch out. Don’t get bewitched by them (Wittgenstein), and don’t you think to make a proper use of them would be easy – or, as the New York magazine-article about Steve Sailer has it, could be – or should be, even – innocent.

    This idea, that innocence should be looked upon as one of the main guidelines of public discourse, leads directly to Snowflake Ave. and Purity-Lane junction: That leaves out the basic insight, that any worthwhile discourse has to deal with arguments – a n d counter-arguments. And therefor has as his basis the golden rule of old: We agree to disagree.

    If this democratic interior homeland gets lost, if the grown-up person’s willingness to live with the tensions caused by argumentation and counter-argumentation gets lost, if a kind of wellness-public takes over, that is way less complex than reality, than a society is in danger to – let me put it a little bit short & sharp: To lose it’s mind.
    With Freud, you could call this state of the affairs: Regressive.
    A less vitiolic way to describe it would be: A public sphere, that is not up to it’s tasks.

    The tasks being, as is widely accepted not least because Steve Sailer worded (most) of those tasks so appropriately: Don’t invite/ invade the world; citizenship (family affordance); HBD, sustainability (respect for nature).
    – Now, for this short moment in time, I all of a sudden rest assured, that things aren’t that complicated.

    But I know, this feeling, sweet as it is, will sooner or later be transformed in something quite different.

    …since:… “the times, they-are a-changing”… (such is the very nature of our earthly ways)…

    • Replies: @Olorin

    Same with communism. German writer Hermann Peter Piwitt once had it this way: Communism is just great, as long as there are no people involved. They are the biggest mistake.
     
    I seem to recall a story about someone going to myrmecologist extraordinaire E.O. Wilson and asking him to discuss his views on Marxism.

    With hardly a beat he replied, "Good idea. Wrong species."
  47. @Steve Sailer
    That's a good one.

    I thought you were posting a best of list, but I see it’s more directly related to the article.

    I wonder if this article–not particularly critical–is a sign there is change in the air. Today at work, an American was talking to a Brit about how difficult it is to immigrate to the UK, Aus, Japan, etc. Maybe or maybe not, but the conversation was completely without judgemental social signaling! Amazing!

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Meh. I'll wait until the NYT mentions SBPDL and Paul Kersey or White Girl Bleed A Lot and Colin Flaherty with the same level of rhetoric as they do $PLC and the con artist who runs it.
  48. Wonder why they chose to write it (and to not cite anything)

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Wonder why they chose to write it (and to not cite anything)

    Anyone remotely influential is just going to google "Steve Sailer" anyway.
  49. @Opinionator
    I also think almost all of us are naturally racist one way or another and it is probably healthier to express that racism in public than to pretend.


    Is that your opinion of depictions of jews in Germany during the Third Reich?

    The problem in the Third Reich was not so much the Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda but more that no alternative viewpoints were allowed and that the government passed anti-semitic laws. You can find plenty of articles from French, US and British newspapers and magazines in the 1930s that were every bit as nasty as Nazi propaganda. Keep the state out of the media might be a better lesson.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Thank you for the interesting response and perspective. Are counter arguments to anti-Whitism and to anti-Gentilism allowed in the United States?
  50. Steve is still a Nazi for believing a milder version of what Churchill believed. I mean, Churchill also fought in WW2, just like the Nazis, which makes him practically Nazi, too. So Steve is a Nazi, too. Q.E.D.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    ... if he gave up meat, he would literally be Hitler.
    , @Opinionator
    Churchill believed that Robert E. Lee was a great man.
  51. • Replies: @Opinionator
    I read somewhere that not only does it omit specific funding but that it stipulates that the Wall cannot be funded from any of the money appropriated.
  52. @unpc downunder
    Reading this review is strikes me how obsessed educated liberals are with "dangerous ideas" and unpc language. In the modern liberal view, all nasty and extreme things that happen (like black on black violence in the US, or historical events like the Holocaust) are due to "dangerous ideas" and politically incorrect discourse (even though most of history's despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren't very ideological). It's a kind of magical thinking, where nice words and thoughts lead to nice outcomes, and not so nice words and thoughts lead to bad outcomes. Hence, politically incorrect thinkers like Steve are considered a dangerous threat.

    This contrasts with the common sense view that most nasty or extreme things occur because of extreme or tragic circumstances, or human stupidity, or nasty individuals getting too much power.

    most of history’s despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren’t very ideological

    Maybe, but Communist ideologists played a huge role in whitewashing and justifying Stalin’s crimes in the West.

  53. Kudos and props, Steve. The writing of dissident opinion that challenges the premises of the Zeitgeist is a sumbitch. You risk ending up in a very dark and lonely place, that’s for sure.

    Your big contribution as I see it? Putting the spotlight on how mainstreamed anti-White, anti-Euro, anti-male, anti-hetero, anti-citizen attitudes and behaviors have become, how those attitudes and behaviors are bankrolled, and how they benefit moneyed and political elites. Plus, those very occasional pieces on the L. A. of yesteryear are gems.

  54. Congrats Steve! But I don’t see that anyone invented common sense, such as most blokes always had and spoke, before the public world was invaded by irrational femmes.

    I think you deserve praise for persistence and consistency, plus good research skills.

    • Replies: @European-American
    > I think you deserve praise for persistence and consistency,
    > plus good research skills.

    Yes, but also insight, "noticing", a way with words, humor!

    ...and, last but not least, courage.

  55. tldr- was I mentioned?

    • Replies: @Kylie
    Only as a footnote.
  56. @Peter Akuleyev
    Get Out, a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie

    I thought it was a pretty fun movie, if oddly predictable. It was so over the top that calling it "racist" seems whiny. I also think almost all of us are naturally racist one way or another and it is probably healthier to express that racism in public than to pretend.

    The problem with this logic is indicated by the reality that expressing such views has strong negative feedback for whites and Asians when speaking about URMs/NAMs but not for the reverse.

    Mentioning that the black population will not produce many outstanding NFL QBs because of differences in racial IQ distribution will get you fired from the NFL and result in unemployment for life.

    Saying whites are too slow and ruined your team’s shot at the NCAA title will be mildly controversial.

  57. @AndrewR
    Wonder why they chose to write it (and to not cite anything)

    Wonder why they chose to write it (and to not cite anything)

    Anyone remotely influential is just going to google “Steve Sailer” anyway.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Anyone remotely influential is just going to google “Steve Sailer” anyway."

    You'd be surprised at how many people there are who still don't know how to find things on the internet. Even with Google.
  58. Buckle down the hatches, Steve. This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    Here come the wikipedia edits.
    , @BB753
    Steve Hanson, I think you ought to acknowledge that you were wrong in the recent past, mocking everybody who said Steve Sailer was very influential.

    Congratulations, Steve! I hope donations start flying your way!
    , @Desiderius

    This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.
     
    I should hope so.

    How else will Frodo get to Mt. Doom undetected?
  59. Let’s hope the MacArthur Foundation decides to do the right thing.

  60. @Hodag
    "But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture" is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    That’s hilarious. I have used this line in real life but substituted “his movie reviews” for golf course articles…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I have used this line in real life but substituted “his movie reviews” for golf course articles…
     
    "Golf course articles" suits the Playboy a tad better, though. Plus - think of Steve Sailer's , hehe, self-promo-fotos with - ehe, the rabbit! - See!? - Where do you find rabbits - in movie theaters? - Not that often, I'd assume. - Whereas on golf courses - they're aplenty there, rabbits, seen whole bunches of 'em, yuge!
  61. @Hodag
    "But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture" is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    In fairness, I also enjoy the golf architecture posts . . . which is something I never thought I’d find myself typing.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    With any golfer one meets, don't miss the opportunity of, "Oh, have you read Steve Sailer on golf course architecture?"
  62. I guess touching Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism was right out of bounds.

    Tremendous achievement. You have been doing spectacular work, consistently, for a long, long time. This is the first place I come in the morning, as I sit down with my first quart of coffee.

    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool
    I tried that for a while but had to stop after I realized I wasn't going to make rent that month.
  63. @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    I first found Sailer via Jorn Barger’s Robot Wisdom, in the late 90s or early oughts, I forget.

  64. @tyrone
    NYT article about Steve,now will they publish one by Steve? that would be Trumpian magic.

    New York magazine, not the New York Times newspaper.

  65. @Cary Gooper
    Congrats Steve! But I don't see that anyone invented common sense, such as most blokes always had and spoke, before the public world was invaded by irrational femmes.

    I think you deserve praise for persistence and consistency, plus good research skills.

    > I think you deserve praise for persistence and consistency,
    > plus good research skills.

    Yes, but also insight, “noticing”, a way with words, humor!

    …and, last but not least, courage.

  66. It was as good an article as you could expect for the guy singlehandedly carrying the Overton Window on his back. I expect an influx of delicate flowers on this site, just in time for spring!

  67. Anonymous [AKA "Chiaroscuro"] says:
    @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    The high contrast makes him look even more white. It’s the inverse of what that Time cover did to OJ Simpson.

  68. Yikes Steve! That relic Malcolm Gladwell is so so envious! Of your extravagant NY Magazine mention. John Derbyshire of Long Island, NY feels neglected too! What is The Derb? Chopped liver? (that’s how they tawk in Nu Yawk)

    • Replies: @Whoever

    What is The Derb? Chopped liver?
     
    Bubble and squeak!
  69. Now, *that’s* got to be the ultimate accolade.

  70. AltRabbi Retweeted Charles Murray
    I’m always surprised at how many in the alt/new right are mostly unfamiliar with @Steve_Sailer who invented most of the language they employ

    Personally, no surprise there. Sailer’s IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter’s.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn’t get the level of recognition he deserves.

    • Agree: AP, PV van der Byl
    • Replies: @Nope
    Sounds like someone's a little butt hurt that no one reads their articles on unz.com.
    , @Emblematic
    The average IQ of alt right people would be higher than mainstream conservatives. Writers like Gregory Hood from Radix, Greg Johnson from Counter Currents and some of the writers at The Right Stuff offer more insight and intellect than almost anything you'll find at dopey Conservatism Inc sites. And without the preciously nursed pretend-ignorance to the most consequential matters facing us.

    The alt right has it's trolls but also a lot former libertarians and mainstream conservatives who, being smarter than average, have seen through those scams and have seen what's coming, which is why they're alt right.
    , @Desiderius

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn’t get the level of recognition he deserves.
     
    Par for the course for +3 SDs. What did you expect?

    +3 SDs are always more Merlin than Arthur, Mithrandir than Elessar. It's the nature of the species.
    , @Lurker

    Sailer’s IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter’s.
     
    So about 160 then? Could be.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Given that the average Alt-Righter was able to see past the curtain of pervasive propaganda and break free while in the midst of a theocracy's dominance, Mr. Karlin, what would be your mean IQ estimate for them?

    I never used to understand why Pol Pot's merry henchmen tried to murder every "educated" Cambodian. When I encounter the derision that drips from certain kinds of "educated" people, I begin to understand.

    Those who happily heap insults on others might wish to remember that the Wheel has a funny habit of turning, and that those who you think are safe targets today may turn out tomorrow to have the position to remind you of your manners. Holding a different view of things from yours, and doing so emotionally, is not a sign of low intelligence. Those who fail to grasp this are apt to be on the Wrong Side of History...which in the past has come complete with a very small plot of land, sometimes shared with many others.
  71. @guest
    Wait, I thought Republicans were "dog whistling" to white voters all along.

    In the current year Republicans are literally Hitler, dog whistling to whites goes with the territory.

    The good news is that Republicans from previous current years are rehabilitated, turning out not to be literally Hitler after all.

  72. @Mantle of Hate
    Well done Steve!

    “Well done Steve!”

    And that inset photo of Steve above is brilliant: a James Bond villain mastermind fondling his attack rabbit.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Aha! Steve brought down the Carter Presidency! A veritable one-man Deep State.

    http://www.wnyc.org/story/hare-brained-history-curious-case-jimmy-carter-v-rabbit/
  73. The authors are clearly more sympathetic than they’re allowed to be.

    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    I had the same thought. Even if the NYMag story isn't actually sympathetic to Steve, it isn't strongly hostile, either.

    There are other articles on the so-called alt-right in the same issue and those really are hostile.
  74. Steve Sailer appears in his photograph for his New York magazine article in a glamour shot that could have been done by Richard Avedon or Helmut Newton. Has Sailer gone completely Hollywood on us? Why would Sailer forsake us in such a manner?

    Sailer has a nice picture where he has a bloated mutton head with a goatee. Why didn’t Sailer insist on New York magazine using that one? That picture makes him look more like his fellow Americans, instead of some damn fancy blogger aristocrat. Bring back the picture of Sailer that makes him look like every other walrus waddling around Wal-Mart, dammit!

    Avedon? Newton? How about Ansel Adams? Sailer likes to go on and on about mountains in the Western portion of the United States, especially in California. Didn’t Adams make a million pictures of California mountains too?

    In New England, in the winter, everybody including the horses grows a beard and gains at least 20 pounds. Sailer appears without any facial hair at all and he looks lean. Are we next to see Sailer in the New York Times as a model used to get men to buy expensive suits?

    Will Steve Sailer get a MacArthur genius grant out of this damn picture?

    • LOL: Buffalo Joe
  75. @kihowi
    How about point-and-splutter?

    Point and Sputter, not splutter. Since they were engaging in it, it would be hard for them them to reference it, they would have explain something they were actually doing.

  76. Folks, let’s get over there and invade the comment board, which is already getting posts by Progressive nitwits.

    However, fair warning: having been banned at NY Mag twice, they have a very quick trigger finger on anything seen as “racist” and all the other -ists. So be firm in your comments, but avoid as much as possible any statements that might trigger the Prog mind. I’m sure comments are vetted by some 24 year old intern and not the article authors.

    And way to go Steve!

  77. @Jack Hanson
    Buckle down the hatches, Steve. This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.

    Here come the wikipedia edits.

  78. Kylie says:
    @Stan Adams
    Effectuating is a pretty odd word choice, as well.

    On the plus side, the article is about as balanced a piece as a mainstream rag would dare to print these days. It presents Steve's ideas without misrepresenting them too egregiously.

    You're becoming a serious player, Steve. (Not that you haven't been one all along, but now it's out in the open.)

    “You’re becoming a serious player, Steve. (Not that you haven’t been one all along, but now it’s out in the open.)”

    Yes, Steve has always been a serious player*. This article indicates that hee is now a serious target. Don’t expect future MSM articles to be so innocuous. Steve has a slippery quality that doesn’t give his opponents much traction. That doesn’t mean they won’t try their best to launch a smear campaign against him, just that they’ll have to work harder and lie better than these yo-yos.

    So this article made me very uneasy though insofar as it helps his career (i.e.by allowing him to provide his long-suffering wife with garage doors, dishwashers, etc.), I’m of course very pleased for him.

    *Serious player and, paradoxically, the funniest writer I’ve ever read except for Henry James and Iris Murdoch. His captions are brilliant. I’m still laughing over “the not late Angie Dickinson”.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    I'm sure the good folks at the Washington Post are forging a hatchet job on Steve as we speak.
  79. @reiner Tor
    Steve is still a Nazi for believing a milder version of what Churchill believed. I mean, Churchill also fought in WW2, just like the Nazis, which makes him practically Nazi, too. So Steve is a Nazi, too. Q.E.D.

    … if he gave up meat, he would literally be Hitler.

  80. @Danindc
    tldr- was I mentioned?

    Only as a footnote.

  81. @Auntie Analogue

    "Effectuating this philosophy — putting 'Americans First,' as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels."

     

    Draconian is a word chained to punishment, not to immigration policy. How reducing immigration amounts to punishment of foreigners - punishment of citizens of other countries, Messrs. MacDougal and Willick do not deign to tell us. Might those two men be fervent advocates of The Zeroth Amendment?

    It isn’t called draconian because it is punishing the would be immigrants, it is because it is punishing the people who profit off their cheap labor.

  82. Have you heard Sam harris’ interview with Charles Murray? He’s a pretty mainstream guy and admits to having gone from despising Murray based on reputation alone to agreeing with everything he says. He also cites sailer’s definition of race, which he attributes to “some;” that is, “some define race…”

  83. @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    Whippersnapper! I’ve been reading him since about 2002, on his old, comment-free site. Back then you actually had to email him to discuss anything – and walk uphill, both ways, through 5 feet of snow, to hit the “send” button…

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Hell, I've been reading him so long I use to have to manually open his garage door, hold it up with one arm and slide my check under the door with my other arm. All why being shot at by Lowry and Goldberg (of course, being girly boys, they were shootin' Nerf bullets while hidin' behind Goldberg's momma).
    , @Old Palo Altan
    Yes, I remember that. I even had the occasional reply.
  84. Amusing how they made Steve’s photo whiter. Reverse OJ.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Yes, the top 3/4 of his face is not just a shade of grey as you would expect to find in a b&w photo but bleached completely white. I'm sure this was not accidental.

    Here is the original photo from which this was photoshopped:

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Steve-Sailer-2015a.jpg

    He appears much less svengali-like.

    A not accidental subliminal smear job.
  85. Over the past couple years, Sailer has had the highest reference/link ratio of anyone I know. They seem to have a policy of not linking to his site directly.

  86. conservative writer Steve Sailer

    I automatically read that as controversial writer Steve Sailer. I’ve been conditioned well!

  87. That was charitable of the author not to cast Steve into the bowels of the KKK/alt-right.

    Steve was shamed by:
    “Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.””

    But Steve was only doing what the rest of the diversity scientists are charged — finding the inherent substantive differences between demographic groups that diversity theory claims exists.

  88. Was/were the interview(s) done solely by email or phone. If by phone did you record the interview?

  89. Steve, I imagine its hard, but try not to be flattered. You don’t need their attention and you don’t want their attention.

  90. Steve,

    It might be because I’m only half-awake right now, but that article did not seem to be as slanted as I would have expected. I don’t know these writers, but I wonder if it was their idea to do the piece or were they assigned you as a topic. I also always wonder if the writers were fair in interviewing the subject, and what they asked about but never included in the article.

    In any event, you and your work deserve to be recognized. If it continues, you can probably expect to receive the Ann Coulter treatment at some point.

  91. In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”

    How could ANYONE possibly believe such a thing? When it comes to “native judgment” African Americans are the very image of prudence and restraint – who could reasonably dispute this?

    Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    The last line seems like a last minute add in – they must have read the article and realized that on the whole it did not make Steve seem sufficiently Hitlerian and so for their more slow witted readers and fellow journalists they had to make clear that they don’t personally agree with him. Someone might get the wrong message which would be very bad for their careers.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

     


    The last line seems like a last minute add in – they must have read the article and realized that on the whole it did not make Steve seem sufficiently Hitlerian and so for their more slow witted readers and fellow journalists they had to make clear that they don’t personally agree with him. Someone might get the wrong message which would be very bad for their careers.
     
    I may sound a bit optimistic, but I can't help it: The picture they draw of the situation can be interpreted as: If you have two insufficient positions on the left and on the rigth, - how could the center be light and easy, while being under such pressure.

    And, if I might add one more thought: "Identitarian leftism" sounds pretty critical, if a bit less critical than "raw white nationalism". - Compared to the alternatives, the uneasyness of the center in their picture is hardly negative at all - rather an unwanted consequence.

    I could go on, caliming, that they seem to care for Steve Sailer's positions. - And therefor add the warning: Dear reader - if you care too, let's make sure, that those two on the loony left and the rough right won't win. Let's all watch out - all supportive people, and help Mr. Sailer! Since he's the good guy! - Let's all try to avoid a future, in which he gets caught between the extremes. That would not be good for America!

    Too optimistic reading? Maybe. Inadequate? Maybe. Unintentional as far as the two NC magazine's authors are concerned? Maybe as well. But wrong in the sense of: What you say about the article is not what's printed on the page? - No.

  92. NY Mag: Sailer has been right for 25 years. We can’t have that. Has anybody tried calling him a racist lately?

  93. No one is better than Steve Sailer at coming up with great names to describe what’s really going on with the left. For instance, “coalition of the fringes” best describes today’s Democratic party.

  94. @Lot
    It was full of errors, but still better than the typical MSM smear job. They even managed to avoid quoting the SPLC, the lazy journalism source used in 95% of MSM articles about people who do not pretend to believe in behavioral and IQ egalitarianism.

    Agreed, except take a gander at the Murderer’s Row of “expert scholars” that NY Mag arranged to give “scholarly” analysis of the “alt-right.”

    It consists entirely of tenured-radical SJW types, starting with controversial extremist Heidi Beirich at #1. (Except for George Hawley, I think)

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/what-are-the-roots-of-the-new-reactionary-rage.html

  95. Now is the time to be extra cautious, Steve, with media inquiries. Media attention is often a precursor to a nasty takedown campaign, a la Milo.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Good advice. Also, Steve, please be doubly cautious about publishing comments from unknowns that might "trigger" anyone who is just putting a toe into your uncharted waters. "They" will be watching this blog very carefully from now on. . .
  96. We used to call this a “left-handed” compliment, acknowledging Steve but in a less than flattering way. But that’s good, we don’t want our boy to get a swelled head. The NYT still needs to throw some muck in the game, as in “raw nationalism”, because the left is so open to criticism and never gets resentful or vindictive. This is a call by the NYT for Steve to lead his followers into their promised land. We await our marching orders.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Just to be clear, this is not the New York Times (Magazine - distributed with the Sunday paper) or the New Yorker, but "New York Magazine" which is the local magazine for the NYC area - most big cities have a similar magazine. Though I suppose NY being NY, NY Magazine has more national subscribers than other city magazines.
  97. Who is that a picture of at the top of the post? Is that Emmanuel Goldstein?

  98. Wow! Congratulations Steve. They even coined an adjective coined for you – “Sailerist idea”

  99. Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future (((we))) should try to avoid…

    … Because Sailerism would be the overwhelmingly popular favorite out of those three options.

  100. The NY Mag commentariat responds:

  101. Steve, care to share your email exchange with them?

  102. @Anonym
    Wonder why they chose to write it (and to not cite anything)

    Anyone remotely influential is just going to google "Steve Sailer" anyway.

    “Anyone remotely influential is just going to google “Steve Sailer” anyway.”

    You’d be surprised at how many people there are who still don’t know how to find things on the internet. Even with Google.

  103. @Buffalo Joe
    We used to call this a "left-handed" compliment, acknowledging Steve but in a less than flattering way. But that's good, we don't want our boy to get a swelled head. The NYT still needs to throw some muck in the game, as in "raw nationalism", because the left is so open to criticism and never gets resentful or vindictive. This is a call by the NYT for Steve to lead his followers into their promised land. We await our marching orders.

    Just to be clear, this is not the New York Times (Magazine – distributed with the Sunday paper) or the New Yorker, but “New York Magazine” which is the local magazine for the NYC area – most big cities have a similar magazine. Though I suppose NY being NY, NY Magazine has more national subscribers than other city magazines.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    New York is distributed nationally, and has been for decades. IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one). Its content is not purely local and hasn't been for some time. The parent corporation at one time published The Village Voice as well.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Jack, So the not so pretty girl asked Steve to the prom. Sorry, I thought it said NYT, but we still get New York magazine delivered to our house with the mailing label for our long closed business. The cover is usually enough for me to chuck it immediately. Thanks for the reply.
  104. Trump needs to hire Steve immediately

  105. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’m rather surprised — and pleased — to read an article about you that isn’t wet with smugginess. The author tried to get beyond her mental cage; lets give credit, here.

    Steve, good for you for sending some links. I hope you get a few new readers who are intellectually open to points of view other than their own, but, hell, it’s a New York mag, which caters to one of the most provincial of urban mindsets, those of urban New Yorkers.

    New Yorkers, who pride themselves on their cosmopolitanism, are intellectually inbred and stagnant thinkers, unaware and naive about the country outside of their mental island. A typical “yokel” from Ohio, for example, knows more about the varieties of Americanisms than provincials from New York.

    Perhaps this article is an early attempt to look across the Hudson in order to see what the rest of America is doing and thinking? One hopes.

  106. @Fredrik

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion. Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.
     
    The writer doesn't tell me why this should be avoided.

    I don't think this biography was that bad. If anything it will draw new readers.

    Our betters want blacks to resent us then they wonder why we would resent them.

  107. @snorlax
    Amusing how they made Steve's photo whiter. Reverse OJ.

    Yes, the top 3/4 of his face is not just a shade of grey as you would expect to find in a b&w photo but bleached completely white. I’m sure this was not accidental.

    Here is the original photo from which this was photoshopped:

    He appears much less svengali-like.

    A not accidental subliminal smear job.

    • Replies: @res
    Nice catch. Thanks.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A not accidental subliminal smear job.
     
    I prefer the ‘shopped version for the article, the original is nice but looks kind of melancholic. A bit of mystery and menace can be a good thing.

    Steve, congrats on some long-deserved ‘MSM’ recognition.

  108. What does it mean when TPTB finally decide to name He Who Shall Not Be Named?

  109. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    I guess it’s just too bad that the identitarian leftists didn’t cut it out a long time ago, isn’t it?

  110. I’m more of an analyst. My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.

    It’s really hard to summarize your contributions. There are so many. To me, you were responsible for providing an essential intellectual toolkit for understanding the world. A central factor is your skill at noticing, and commenting about what you notice, considering causes, implications and who benefits.

    I know I’ve linked to this before, but pracically everything in the “IQ tests” video has been discussed on here and I think you can trace back practically all of those concepts to iSteve. Steve’s influence is pretty amazing when you think about it. The $500 dollar bill of the Sailer Strategy just sat there for, what, a decade and a half until Donald Trump came and picked it up. And we know that Coulter reads Steve so only a couple degrees of separation.

  111. @Jack D
    Just to be clear, this is not the New York Times (Magazine - distributed with the Sunday paper) or the New Yorker, but "New York Magazine" which is the local magazine for the NYC area - most big cities have a similar magazine. Though I suppose NY being NY, NY Magazine has more national subscribers than other city magazines.

    New York is distributed nationally, and has been for decades. IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one). Its content is not purely local and hasn’t been for some time. The parent corporation at one time published The Village Voice as well.

    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one).
     
    My hazy recollection is that New York grew out of Cue, which was a sort of up-market TV Guide cum performing arts supplement for the New York metro area.
    , @kaganovitch
    I think it was "Cue" or something like that. I vaguely recall it being called NY/ Cue in the distant past.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Art Deco:

    The sobriquet for New York Magazine is the magazine that promises everything and delivers nothing!

    But in this one instance it delivered something of value: a quasi-perceptive article on Steve.

    , @Jack D
    Originally it was the Sunday magazine of the NY Herald Tribune newspaper but when the Herald-Tribune (the last broadsheet competitor to the NY Times) went under Clay Felker bought the rights to the name. Felker was also connected to the Village Voice at one point but both publications have changed hands a number of times. I think the current owner of NY Mag is the financier Bruce Wasserstein.
  112. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Congratulations Steve. Too bad the authors couldn't remove the layers of fireproof gear and explore your ideas in more depth.

    That last paragraph is really something. As the percentage of whites as a part of the electorate shrinks, they will necessarily adopt the identity politics of their ethno-cultural rivals. 'Citizenism' will indeed be the moderate position. Even the journalists are figuring it out. This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric.

    “This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric.”

    Haha. Don’t count on it. With these people, “irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric” is a feature not a bug. Irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric is the whole reason they got into journalism, not some unfortunate side-effect. If they didn’t love irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric, they would have done something productive with their lives.

  113. @Jack Hanson
    Buckle down the hatches, Steve. This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.

    Steve Hanson, I think you ought to acknowledge that you were wrong in the recent past, mocking everybody who said Steve Sailer was very influential.

    Congratulations, Steve! I hope donations start flying your way!

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Hahhaha you wish. Everything I said about the back patting tendency of commenters here and the Secret Masters of Politics nonsense still stands.

    I've been written up in TakiMag. It doesn't make me a fucking personage.
  114. @kihowi
    I think your greatest feat is keeping prefixes like "white supremacist" off your name. You are, by any current year standard, but I get the impression that journalists find your sarcasm hard to parse, so they just use what Wikipedia says. I guess it's pretty confusing when you're used to the regular autisticy directness of this side of the political spectrum.

    Really, talking about jews and race and still being called a "journalist" is amazing. And you only got the required minimum of hate! That's, like, an endorsement.

    Like Joe Sobran’s observation about the shifting nature of Antisemintism before it, “White supremacist” now means anyone who is white and who doesn’t gleefully look forward to the demographic erasure of whites in America and worldwide. With that in mind it is rather odd that the New Yorker lads didn’t immediately go there – but had they done so they probably couldn’t have justified the piece since everybody knows you don’t give legitimacy to white supremacists.

  115. Steve, it is great to see you getting “mainstream” exposure! I hope this leads to a significant increase in your website traffic prior to your next panhandling drive.

    I find it kind of ironic that the authors now realize that you were ahead of your time, but then they print this:

    …Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    They don’t realize we are already there.

  116. It would have been even better if the NYT published this instead of New York magazine, since the NYT has been such a goldmine of SailerBait over the years.
    Just think; Steve could then write a post about the SailerBait of the NYT publishing an article on the way Steve writes posts about the SailerBait they publish.
    I’m deliciously dizzy just thinking about it.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Alfa, if the NYT doesn't acknowledge Steve, then he must not actually exist.
  117. @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    I’m also very proud to be a member of the Old Reader Guard 🙂
    i don’t remember exactly when I learned about Sailer, but it must have been a link from the mid 2000s GNXP.

  118. Well deserved congratulations to Mr. Sailer.

  119. @Peter Akuleyev
    Get Out, a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie

    I thought it was a pretty fun movie, if oddly predictable. It was so over the top that calling it "racist" seems whiny. I also think almost all of us are naturally racist one way or another and it is probably healthier to express that racism in public than to pretend.

    Absolutely. But as long as only non-whites are allowed to express their racism in public, we whites are entitled to whine.

  120. That’s not what ‘subliminal’ means.

  121. @Chrisnonymous
    I thought you were posting a best of list, but I see it's more directly related to the article.

    I wonder if this article--not particularly critical--is a sign there is change in the air. Today at work, an American was talking to a Brit about how difficult it is to immigrate to the UK, Aus, Japan, etc. Maybe or maybe not, but the conversation was completely without judgemental social signaling! Amazing!

    Meh. I’ll wait until the NYT mentions SBPDL and Paul Kersey or White Girl Bleed A Lot and Colin Flaherty with the same level of rhetoric as they do $PLC and the con artist who runs it.

  122. Now, 17 years and four presidential cycles later, Sailer, once made a pariah by mainstream conservatives, has quietly become one of the most influential thinkers on the American right.

    Finally!

    Last time I felt like this was on November 9. 2016.

    Congratulations Steve.

    It will take another 17 years for them to figure out that Fake Specter of Sailerism is based on simple and overall quite inclusive concept of citizenism.

    Right?

  123. @Art Deco
    New York is distributed nationally, and has been for decades. IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one). Its content is not purely local and hasn't been for some time. The parent corporation at one time published The Village Voice as well.

    IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one).

    My hazy recollection is that New York grew out of Cue, which was a sort of up-market TV Guide cum performing arts supplement for the New York metro area.

  124. Congratulations, Steve!

    Mr. Bannon, it’s time for you to hire Mr. Sailer as an immigration adviser.

  125. Congrats, Steve – you’ve made the big time! Just don’t forget where you came from. BTW, to make the NYT’s designated villain list, do you have to be named Steve (Bannon, Miller, Sailer) or do you just get extra points for that?

  126. Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion.

    Yes, that the Megaphone’s plan, but perhaps the Narrative will change, and Steve will be known for other big ideas.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Like gold course design?
    , @Opinionator
    I thought the use of tense there (and inevitably) was interesting. I guess the construction they intend is a not-often-used form of present tense.
  127. @Lot
    Citizenism seems less attractive and less viable as the years go by and more and more people who hate and are destructive of Western Civ become American citizens.

    The USA isn't Brazil plus nukes and obesity quite yet, but demographic movementum means we eventually will be.

    Spot on, Lot! Obama had us headed on the fast track towards Brazil-dom. Crooked Hillary would have sealed the deal. That Trump won Michigan by 13,000 votes, whereas Romney had lost the state by 8% in 2012, now seems like a major miracle that might make one believe in Divine Providence!

    The multi-cult cancer seems to be in remission for the time being but the fact that Paul Ryan is still Speaker of the House makes one despair of the future. Since 1965, Open Borders has always been the religion of both political parties. The future for Whitey looks extremely bleak.

  128. @Art Deco
    New York is distributed nationally, and has been for decades. IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one). Its content is not purely local and hasn't been for some time. The parent corporation at one time published The Village Voice as well.

    I think it was “Cue” or something like that. I vaguely recall it being called NY/ Cue in the distant past.

  129. Sure, he Seems like a nice guy. But Steve Sailer can’t prove he isn’t secretly a white supremacist.

    What Else can’t Steve Sailer prove??

  130. res says:

    Commenter sigaba there is interesting as a purveyor of the conventional wisdom. For example:

    These “perfectly insane beliefs” are all that stand between us and the authoritarian’s boot. It is not the role of government or any elite, acting in the supposed interests of “the people” or otherwise, to use immigration laws to conduct social engineering, or to protect some favored ethnic favorites.

    The hypocrisy is strong in that one. How exactly is the left using immigration again?

    P.S. Congratulations, Steve. Despite the usual slams they do a decent job of presenting your ideas.

    • Replies: @Nope
    I was going to make a post about commenter sigaba as well. I guess people at National Review are really feeing the heat these days.

    Citizenism seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp. It's basically 1950's America where minorities have equal rights and immigration is restricted to allow people to assimilate. That anyone finds this objectionable is pretty amazing.

    Nice to see you get some decent press Steve.

  131. Never mind that last comment. Wiki has chapter and verse. It was supplement of NY Herald-Tribune.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(magazine)

    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    I wonder why you and I both thought it grew out of Cue? Did it absorb Cue?
  132. @Jack D
    Yes, the top 3/4 of his face is not just a shade of grey as you would expect to find in a b&w photo but bleached completely white. I'm sure this was not accidental.

    Here is the original photo from which this was photoshopped:

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Steve-Sailer-2015a.jpg

    He appears much less svengali-like.

    A not accidental subliminal smear job.

    Nice catch. Thanks.

  133. Couldn’t happen to a better, more hardworking, alt-thinking guy. Been following you for 20 years, shared your ‘Color of Love’ article with shipmates while aboard the USS George Washington, then found you at Vdare a few years later (thanks to David Horowitz if you believe that…his ‘frontpagemag’ was whining about being attacked by the ‘racialist right’. So, congrats again!

  134. @Percy Gryce

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion.
     
    Yes, that the Megaphone's plan, but perhaps the Narrative will change, and Steve will be known for other big ideas.

    Like gold course design?

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    Non-PC movie reviewing.
  135. res says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Occam's Butterknife?

    Agreed about Occam’s Butterknife.

    Both that and Who, Whom? are too enlightening to highlight though.

    Also Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism as mentioned in another comment.

    P.S. In case anyone new to Steve’s work makes it this far down the comments, http://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer is a good overview (adding some of the memes mentioned in this thread might be good).

  136. @Diversity Heretic
    Congratulations to Steve Sailer on recognition long overdue! When the history of the Alt-Right and the Republic is written astute historians will track the progress/decline of the USA in the perceptive commentary of Steve Sailer.

    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations–which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Corvinus,

    The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions, now the handmaiden of the bureaucratic or government class. Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership. This is why the middle and working class are helped -- on balance -- if unions are busted: government unions represent those who are taking from their paychecks and future livelihood (there is no upside, to those in the private sector who struggle to subsidize the public sector, when government unions increase in power and influence).

    As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren't government dependents ... and unnecessary.

    Obviously, rescinding NAFTA is a boonfor the American working and middle class, though not so much for illegal immigrants who will have to go home to face the problems that their own governments created. Their job futures will be limited because of their own inept governments. Running away to America, avoiding their own problems, and thus hurting ordinary Americans was only their palliative, not a cure. Their cure is in straightening out their own cultures and countries. Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans.

    krbu

    , @Daniel Chieh
    You're missing that in the end, he's still the best choice. The Democrats will inevitably run a full scale liberal alternative which means that even if Trump mostly goes against his promises, he will still be a less complete disaster.

    At this point, I would vote for a "full fash" candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0. That's just how intolerable the social liberals have gotten.
    , @Sean
    Nixon did absolutely nothing against busing, affirmative action or any other policy impacting on white communities the South or elsewhere. In fact Nixon often expanded those programs.

    Whites went to the Republicans simply because the Democrats were so antagonistic to white Southerners (and not just Southerners) that there was nowhere else to go but the Republicans, because the Democrats acted as if whites were venal (greedy as you put it).
    , @Jack D
    This is the old "false consciousness" argument - that the workers don't know what's good for them but we the elite do. Maybe Trump voters really aren't stupid and know what side the bread is really buttered on and that socialism leads to Venezuela. The failure to "bust" the UAW, for example, led to the bankruptcy (and were it not for government intervention, would have led to the liquidation) of 2 of the 3 US auto manufacturers. Unions have lost the sympathy of the American public for a reason. A smart parasite knows not to kill its host.
    , @Art Deco
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations–which typically harm this group.

    Corvinus, there was no Southern Strategy as the term is commonly used. The term is a shorthand for a self-aggrandizing political/historical myth which partisan Democrats have peddled for decades, among the Paul Krugman, who was alive at the time and does not have any excuse for not knowing it's tripe. Another peddler is Thomas Sieger Derr, who was a voting adult at the time but could not and cannot tell the difference between Richard Nixon and his own inane caricatures of Richard Nixon.

    Garry Wills and Joe McGinnis covering the 1968 election campaign (and composing books on it which appeared in 1969/70) interviewed Kevin Phillips, then a Republican and a number cruncher for the Nixon campaign. Phillips discussed in descriptive terms the shifts which were taking place in electoral preferences in the South (which were manifest as early as 1952) and the implications for Republican advertising campaigns. Specifically, there wasn't much point in pursuing core city electorates when Southern votes were up for grabs. The advertising campaigns actually used in the South consisted of Roy Acuff and others singing boilerplate country and western ditties ("Yes! We can bring our country back but it's up to everyone. This time this time with leadership from Richard M. Nixon"). and some issue ads featuring Strom Thurmond. You can look here for examples of Mr. Nixon's national advertising. It's pretty unremarkable:

    http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

    The film treatments are reproduced in McGinnis' The Selling of the President, 1968.


    If segregationists were expecting something out of Richard Nixon, they got nothing. There was no reason to expect anything. Nixon wasn't personally invested in segregation and had never been antagonistic to the interests of blacks qua blacks during his political career. Spiro Agnew had once given an assemblage of black politicians a dressing down for temporizing about law and order during a series of riots, but otherwise he was a Rockefeller Republican to the extent he wasn't governed by careerism. And, of course, they got nothing out of any of Mr. Nixon's successors.

    The Democrats lost the South because of generational change (each succeeding cohort had fewer and fewer people who would vote Democratic just because) and because once the segregationist program had been defeated, there was no particular reason to vote for people whose appeal was predicated (to a great extent) on seniority which could be used to occupy gatekeeper positions and protect Southern interests. White Southern votes were then redistributed between the parties according to the various and sundry concerns and impulses people had apart from segregation.
    , @Art Deco
    his political party tends to bust unions

    The only unions the Republican Party ever 'busted' were PATCO and the collection of public sector unions representing Wisconsin state workers. PATCO was so far out on a limb the other public sector unions were fairly circumspect and decidedly unmilitant about the whole mess. As for the Wisconsin state employees, the unions were 'busted' by the simple expedient of ending the payment of union dues through withholdings.
  137. Congrats Steve!

    I had no idea Steve Sailer was a staff writer at National Review, and got pushed out by Lowry. wow! I’d love to hear more details on that one.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He was on the contributors list from 1994 to 1999. Most people who write for National Review are not on salary. Other than Lowry, Steorts, and Ponnuru, I'm not sure they have anyone on staff producing editorial matter. Starboard opinion journalism's been in a fallow period (presumably due to the economics of it) and the few interesting practitioners who've emerged in the last 15 years were personal bloggers to begin with, not affiliated with the extant starboard press. Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.
  138. Congratulations on the recognition! And thanks for making me realize (among many other things) that if we whites are going to be a minority, then we better start acting like a minority.

  139. Lots of good comments above, and I’d say this is cause for a party across the Steve-o-Sphere. I celebrated by contributing $25!

  140. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    Corvinus,

    The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions, now the handmaiden of the bureaucratic or government class. Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership. This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted: government unions represent those who are taking from their paychecks and future livelihood (there is no upside, to those in the private sector who struggle to subsidize the public sector, when government unions increase in power and influence).

    As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents … and unnecessary.

    Obviously, rescinding NAFTA is a boonfor the American working and middle class, though not so much for illegal immigrants who will have to go home to face the problems that their own governments created. Their job futures will be limited because of their own inept governments. Running away to America, avoiding their own problems, and thus hurting ordinary Americans was only their palliative, not a cure. Their cure is in straightening out their own cultures and countries. Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans.

    krbu

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions..."

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    "Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership."

    Which only serves the interests of the globalists and corporate classes.

    "This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted:"

    No, as evident by corporations moving overseas and profiting at the expense of all workers.

    "As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents
    … and unnecessary."

    Small businesses generally pocket that money in the form of earnings. Moreover, less regulations has proven over the long-term to harm the everyday Joe and Jill.

    "Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans."

    Which, again, stem when the government lowers their taxes and has fewer business rules. It's called corporate welfare.
    , @cynthia curran
    Up defense spending to Reagan levels. The auto industry never paid as well as the aerospace defense did in its peak. The good thing about high levels of defense spending is almost every state has the military-industrial complex. Upping defense spending to 100 billion would make San Diego richer than the bay area which does little of that.
  141. @Anatoly Karlin

    AltRabbi Retweeted Charles Murray
    I'm always surprised at how many in the alt/new right are mostly unfamiliar with @Steve_Sailer who invented most of the language they employ
     
    Personally, no surprise there. Sailer's IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter's.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn't get the level of recognition he deserves.

    Sounds like someone’s a little butt hurt that no one reads their articles on unz.com.

  142. @Opinionator
    I'm glad to see you get the coverage, Steve. You deserve it, and more, and better. You deserve to be more widely read and acknowledged.

    I won't say congratulations, as that term is inappropriate in this context.

    I am surprised that you dated Invade/Invite to the GW Bush admin. It arguably goes back to Vietnam if not earlier and could be said to have animated the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

    Couldn't Unz have supplied a better photo of you?

    Couldn’t Unz have supplied a better photo of you?

    Santa Steve?

  143. @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    You’re missing that in the end, he’s still the best choice. The Democrats will inevitably run a full scale liberal alternative which means that even if Trump mostly goes against his promises, he will still be a less complete disaster.

    At this point, I would vote for a “full fash” candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0. That’s just how intolerable the social liberals have gotten.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "At this point, I would vote for a “full fash” candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0."

    Allow yourself to be murdered, including your wife and offspring, just to ensure an "intolerable social liberal" would not get elected? That is absolutely insane.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    One group Trump is not particularly interested in taking on is "social liberals". He just doesn't care very much, he is not a devout Christian, and grew up in New York, where social deviancy is a badge of honor.

    Trump does seem to be a real improvement on immigration, but the normalization of transgenderism, gay marriage, "empowerment of women", all seems to be unchanged. I had kind of hoped Hillary's overreach might provoke a backlash.

    The truth is that "social liberalism" seems to be based on much larger societal trends that probably can't be changed by a conservative President. How is it that the societal acceptance of the gay rights movement made more progress under Reagan than under any previous Democratic President? Even Obama did not come into office promising gay marriage, he was following the wave, not leading.
  144. @Jack D

    In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”
     
    How could ANYONE possibly believe such a thing? When it comes to "native judgment" African Americans are the very image of prudence and restraint - who could reasonably dispute this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ukE60gaRIk


    Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

     

    The last line seems like a last minute add in - they must have read the article and realized that on the whole it did not make Steve seem sufficiently Hitlerian and so for their more slow witted readers and fellow journalists they had to make clear that they don't personally agree with him. Someone might get the wrong message which would be very bad for their careers.

    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    The last line seems like a last minute add in – they must have read the article and realized that on the whole it did not make Steve seem sufficiently Hitlerian and so for their more slow witted readers and fellow journalists they had to make clear that they don’t personally agree with him. Someone might get the wrong message which would be very bad for their careers.

    I may sound a bit optimistic, but I can’t help it: The picture they draw of the situation can be interpreted as: If you have two insufficient positions on the left and on the rigth, – how could the center be light and easy, while being under such pressure.

    And, if I might add one more thought: “Identitarian leftism” sounds pretty critical, if a bit less critical than “raw white nationalism”. – Compared to the alternatives, the uneasyness of the center in their picture is hardly negative at all – rather an unwanted consequence.

    I could go on, caliming, that they seem to care for Steve Sailer’s positions. – And therefor add the warning: Dear reader – if you care too, let’s make sure, that those two on the loony left and the rough right won’t win. Let’s all watch out – all supportive people, and help Mr. Sailer! Since he’s the good guy! – Let’s all try to avoid a future, in which he gets caught between the extremes. That would not be good for America!

    Too optimistic reading? Maybe. Inadequate? Maybe. Unintentional as far as the two NC magazine’s authors are concerned? Maybe as well. But wrong in the sense of: What you say about the article is not what’s printed on the page? – No.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Assuming that the economic pie keeps getting smaller, I actually suspect the winning move will indeed be identitarian politics whether right or left. The writer might support a center left position, but that's only possible while there is enough fat in the commons for everyone to have. If there isn't, well, that's not so appealing.
    , @Jack D
    Yes, too optimistic. In the view of the left (and you can be assured that NY Magazine journalists belong to the left) there are only goodwhites and badwhites and they put Sailer in the badwhite category - if you are not with us, then you are against us. Given that, it was less of a hatchet job than I expected but I think the left is fearful now - they saw how well "let's insult white people until we shame them into agreeing with us" worked for Hillary.
  145. @Dieter Kief

    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

     


    The last line seems like a last minute add in – they must have read the article and realized that on the whole it did not make Steve seem sufficiently Hitlerian and so for their more slow witted readers and fellow journalists they had to make clear that they don’t personally agree with him. Someone might get the wrong message which would be very bad for their careers.
     
    I may sound a bit optimistic, but I can't help it: The picture they draw of the situation can be interpreted as: If you have two insufficient positions on the left and on the rigth, - how could the center be light and easy, while being under such pressure.

    And, if I might add one more thought: "Identitarian leftism" sounds pretty critical, if a bit less critical than "raw white nationalism". - Compared to the alternatives, the uneasyness of the center in their picture is hardly negative at all - rather an unwanted consequence.

    I could go on, caliming, that they seem to care for Steve Sailer's positions. - And therefor add the warning: Dear reader - if you care too, let's make sure, that those two on the loony left and the rough right won't win. Let's all watch out - all supportive people, and help Mr. Sailer! Since he's the good guy! - Let's all try to avoid a future, in which he gets caught between the extremes. That would not be good for America!

    Too optimistic reading? Maybe. Inadequate? Maybe. Unintentional as far as the two NC magazine's authors are concerned? Maybe as well. But wrong in the sense of: What you say about the article is not what's printed on the page? - No.

    Assuming that the economic pie keeps getting smaller, I actually suspect the winning move will indeed be identitarian politics whether right or left. The writer might support a center left position, but that’s only possible while there is enough fat in the commons for everyone to have. If there isn’t, well, that’s not so appealing.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Thatcher
  146. Nope says:
    @res
    Commenter sigaba there is interesting as a purveyor of the conventional wisdom. For example:

    These "perfectly insane beliefs" are all that stand between us and the authoritarian's boot. It is not the role of government or any elite, acting in the supposed interests of "the people" or otherwise, to use immigration laws to conduct social engineering, or to protect some favored ethnic favorites.
     
    The hypocrisy is strong in that one. How exactly is the left using immigration again?

    P.S. Congratulations, Steve. Despite the usual slams they do a decent job of presenting your ideas.

    I was going to make a post about commenter sigaba as well. I guess people at National Review are really feeing the heat these days.

    Citizenism seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp. It’s basically 1950’s America where minorities have equal rights and immigration is restricted to allow people to assimilate. That anyone finds this objectionable is pretty amazing.

    Nice to see you get some decent press Steve.

    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Too true. How it has come to pass that people nowadays put the 1950s down as some sort of evil age will never cease to amaze me.

    I was born in 1938 and graduated from college in 1959. The fifties were golden years full of confidence. We had defeated Germany and Japan in an ungodly war and were king of the hill.
  147. Is it just me or have comments been shoahed at the NY Mag story? I left a couple of helpful observations myself.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Yup. Did anyone get a look at them to see what was in there that caused them to be deleted? Maybe too many people disagreeing with the "we should avoid this future" command by our journalistic betters?
  148. @Jack D
    Just to be clear, this is not the New York Times (Magazine - distributed with the Sunday paper) or the New Yorker, but "New York Magazine" which is the local magazine for the NYC area - most big cities have a similar magazine. Though I suppose NY being NY, NY Magazine has more national subscribers than other city magazines.

    Jack, So the not so pretty girl asked Steve to the prom. Sorry, I thought it said NYT, but we still get New York magazine delivered to our house with the mailing label for our long closed business. The cover is usually enough for me to chuck it immediately. Thanks for the reply.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    NYT has mentioned Sailer more or less overtly more than a few times too, so our kind host's fame is pretty well distributed. Incidentally, referring to "New York" as the not so pretty girl made me laugh out loud.
  149. Could have been way worse given the source. Congrats Steve Sailer – keep fighting the good fight.

  150. As for the title, “The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right,”…My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.

    Can we just call you “TMWIIPFTNR” instead? It kind of rolls off the tongue.

    • Replies: @Lurker

    My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.
     
    God forbid we foresee and avoid this situation to start with. Because obviously that's just crazy talk!
  151. @Alfa158
    It would have been even better if the NYT published this instead of New York magazine, since the NYT has been such a goldmine of SailerBait over the years.
    Just think; Steve could then write a post about the SailerBait of the NYT publishing an article on the way Steve writes posts about the SailerBait they publish.
    I'm deliciously dizzy just thinking about it.

    Alfa, if the NYT doesn’t acknowledge Steve, then he must not actually exist.

  152. @Buffalo Joe
    Jack, So the not so pretty girl asked Steve to the prom. Sorry, I thought it said NYT, but we still get New York magazine delivered to our house with the mailing label for our long closed business. The cover is usually enough for me to chuck it immediately. Thanks for the reply.

    NYT has mentioned Sailer more or less overtly more than a few times too, so our kind host’s fame is pretty well distributed. Incidentally, referring to “New York” as the not so pretty girl made me laugh out loud.

  153. @Altai
    'Here lies Steve Sailer, controversial golf course aficionado, quadrille revivalist and ideological inspiration for the eventual and, in hindsight, kinda okay, reign of European Identitarian Techno-Presbo-Lutherean-Catholic-Kekism'

    ‘He plunged the distance.’

  154. @Lurker
    Is it just me or have comments been shoahed at the NY Mag story? I left a couple of helpful observations myself.

    Yup. Did anyone get a look at them to see what was in there that caused them to be deleted? Maybe too many people disagreeing with the “we should avoid this future” command by our journalistic betters?

  155. @Anatoly Karlin

    AltRabbi Retweeted Charles Murray
    I'm always surprised at how many in the alt/new right are mostly unfamiliar with @Steve_Sailer who invented most of the language they employ
     
    Personally, no surprise there. Sailer's IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter's.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn't get the level of recognition he deserves.

    The average IQ of alt right people would be higher than mainstream conservatives. Writers like Gregory Hood from Radix, Greg Johnson from Counter Currents and some of the writers at The Right Stuff offer more insight and intellect than almost anything you’ll find at dopey Conservatism Inc sites. And without the preciously nursed pretend-ignorance to the most consequential matters facing us.

    The alt right has it’s trolls but also a lot former libertarians and mainstream conservatives who, being smarter than average, have seen through those scams and have seen what’s coming, which is why they’re alt right.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Emblematic, An old shoulder injury and a touch of arthritis keeps me from patting my self on the back, otherwise your comment is good.
  156. @Daniel Chieh
    Assuming that the economic pie keeps getting smaller, I actually suspect the winning move will indeed be identitarian politics whether right or left. The writer might support a center left position, but that's only possible while there is enough fat in the commons for everyone to have. If there isn't, well, that's not so appealing.

    “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Thatcher

  157. Amazing the success of the Sailer Strategy has not resulted in an article in the NY Times…

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Have they mischaracterized the "Sailer Strategy" by describing it as an appeal to Whites rather than as an appeal to Americans?
  158. @anon
    Actually I think the image makes him look like a mysterious sage. The article portrays him like that too, a wise Gandalf like figure whose been quietly ruminating on politics, history and science in the woods for the past decades.

    I'm proud to be a sailer-since-2009 reader. I was reading sailer in highschool.

    Someone plz photoshop Gandalf Steve –

  159. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps the Sailerist idea most closely echoed by the Trump movement is “citizenism,” which he describes as the philosophy that a nation should give overwhelming preference to the interests of its current citizens over foreigners…

    Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right.

    This seems like a pretty startling admission. It’s sad that he never explainw why I’m supposed to pay taxes to a government who doesn’t put my interests first. Maybe he just thinks I won’t think about that.

  160. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Congratulations Steve. Too bad the authors couldn't remove the layers of fireproof gear and explore your ideas in more depth.

    That last paragraph is really something. As the percentage of whites as a part of the electorate shrinks, they will necessarily adopt the identity politics of their ethno-cultural rivals. 'Citizenism' will indeed be the moderate position. Even the journalists are figuring it out. This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric.

    “That last paragraph is really something. As the percentage of whites as a part of the electorate shrinks, they will necessarily adopt the identity politics of their ethno-cultural rivals. ‘Citizenism’ will indeed be the moderate position. Even the journalists are figuring it out. This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric.”

    No, no, no. The Fake News story is that somehow and someway that whites in the future will magically unify to keep their race from being over-coffeed and deracinated, with the heads of vibrants and Jewish elites strung up like beads. Identity politics stems from ideology–it is the bug, not the feature. When you have prominent members of the Alt Right stating that only certain white people are “true Americans” and that religious freedom is a farce, and philosophical infighting between the Alt-Right, Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite, why on earth would the majority of white Americans completely reverse their personal views regarding race and culture based on the proclaimed shaman of fringe groups?

    Certainly, the ideas of the Alt Right are entering the mainstream and becoming part of our political consciousness, and I’m certain a number of white Americans find their rhetoric comforting. However, our nation historically leans center-right. In other words, moderates hold the key to the American future.

    • Replies: @Sean

    When you have prominent members of the Alt Right stating that only certain white people are “true Americans” and that religious freedom is a farce, and philosophical infighting between the Alt-Right, Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite, why on earth would the majority of white Americans completely reverse their personal views regarding race and culture based on the proclaimed shaman of fringe groups?
     
    You keep taking outre comments to task and bringing up nobodies like that haircut Spencer to ostensibly deny could have growing influence. They never could and never did and don't currently. I see an ulterior motive in your comments, namely, you're trying to associate anti immigration sentiment with racial and even sub-racial exclusionism

    Isn't it more realistic to think white Americans have slowly but surely turned against immigration for the same rational reason that Cesar Chavez was against it: it hurts American workers.

  161. @Peter Akuleyev
    The problem in the Third Reich was not so much the Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda but more that no alternative viewpoints were allowed and that the government passed anti-semitic laws. You can find plenty of articles from French, US and British newspapers and magazines in the 1930s that were every bit as nasty as Nazi propaganda. Keep the state out of the media might be a better lesson.

    Thank you for the interesting response and perspective. Are counter arguments to anti-Whitism and to anti-Gentilism allowed in the United States?

    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Simple answer to your question:

    NO
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Counterarguments are fine as long as you stay in the business world, or investment banking. As a white Christian in the US, I have never experienced anti-Whitism, anti-Gentilism or anti-Maleism. My colleagues have been 95% white men, the C-suite executives I have worked with were 95% white men, and corporate lawyers seem to be 98% white, if only 60% male and not so Christian.

    Academia is the most obvious arena where white males are being pushed out, but I suspect over the long term the result is going to be, unfortunately, to discredit liberal arts and liberal arts institutions as places of serious thought and inquiry.
  162. @reiner Tor
    Steve is still a Nazi for believing a milder version of what Churchill believed. I mean, Churchill also fought in WW2, just like the Nazis, which makes him practically Nazi, too. So Steve is a Nazi, too. Q.E.D.

    Churchill believed that Robert E. Lee was a great man.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    And so he was. Far greater, indeed, than the war-monger Churchill.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Opi, I have the four volume biography of Robert E. Lee by
    Douglas Southall Freeman. Lee comes across as a man of high character with a soul.
  163. @anonymous
    Corvinus,

    The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions, now the handmaiden of the bureaucratic or government class. Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership. This is why the middle and working class are helped -- on balance -- if unions are busted: government unions represent those who are taking from their paychecks and future livelihood (there is no upside, to those in the private sector who struggle to subsidize the public sector, when government unions increase in power and influence).

    As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren't government dependents ... and unnecessary.

    Obviously, rescinding NAFTA is a boonfor the American working and middle class, though not so much for illegal immigrants who will have to go home to face the problems that their own governments created. Their job futures will be limited because of their own inept governments. Running away to America, avoiding their own problems, and thus hurting ordinary Americans was only their palliative, not a cure. Their cure is in straightening out their own cultures and countries. Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans.

    krbu

    “The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions…”

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    “Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership.”

    Which only serves the interests of the globalists and corporate classes.

    “This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted:”

    No, as evident by corporations moving overseas and profiting at the expense of all workers.

    “As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents
    … and unnecessary.”

    Small businesses generally pocket that money in the form of earnings. Moreover, less regulations has proven over the long-term to harm the everyday Joe and Jill.

    “Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans.”

    Which, again, stem when the government lowers their taxes and has fewer business rules. It’s called corporate welfare.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.
     
    Or maybe the unions undervalue them - too many two tier wage settlements. Too focused on protecting the wages and benefits of the existing workforce rather than increasing employment.
    , @anonymous
    Corvinus, I have to run to work, but quickly ...

    1) Agreed that private sector unions had their purpose in American society, but that ship has mostly sailed, alas, and the spectre of unionizing against big business is replaced, by many, by a hostility toward the government that propped up big business. The only regs that get through the government are those that benefit large corps, not small businesses. It's about time that a president gave a rip about the people who actually pay taxes, that is, those who don't off shore their profits.

    2) I'm a prof, and yes, young or college-age people either romanticize or ignore unions. Not in their field of vision.

    3) What most helps the private sector is for the public sector to shrink. Period. The biggest problem in the private sector are regulations, weird rules, difficult and changing tax policies, etc. Thus, if public sector unions shrunk in size, small family farms and businesses would do better ... net net.

    4) Perhaps some corps have moved overseas to avoid unions, but that seems so yesterday. Today they move overseas to avoid taxes and regulations ... in other words, they move overseas because the American government has made it the most viable choice. This has very little to do with workers although foreign cheap labor is attractive, obviously. How much does avoiding unions have to do with setting up abroad? I dont' know, but my hunch is its about 20th on their list of reasons.

    5) Are you kidding? Less regulations are a panacea for jack and jill, not a curse. I've never met one small business owner who begged for more regulations as if that would make his/her life better. Regulations are killing small towns, small businsses and ordinary families. The days of Rachel Carson screaming about environmental degradation are over. Mostly.

    6) Agreed about corp welfare. Get rid of it. But isn't that what Trump's tax plan does? Every corp pays 15%, even Obama's cronies and the Chamber of Commerce sorts. For them, a fair system is a disaster. Their paid shills/lobbyists can't get around a solid straightup tax with few loopholes. They want to exploit their access to pay less than is due. So it's good that this president is making them pay up. It's about time. NO CORP WELFARE. Just a flat, fair and low tax.

    Best to you, kind Sir or Ma'am
    krbu

    6)

    , @anon
    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    Probably because they, unlike you, know that the only thing that would happen if they formed a union would be that their boss would just send out a bus to Mexico to pick up some illegals, or import some Indians to replace them.

    And if anyone tried to stop the business owners, they know that Dems would just scream racism and take the side of the business owners.
    , @Sean
    Immigration counters wage inflation and thus damages the working class. Show me a capitalist who is against immigration? Trump is unique in that and he is representing working class interest in halting mass immigration. Trump was opposed by the entire business class especially global big business as you well know. Unions should have done something against capitalist mandated immigration if they wanted to represent the interests of working people and be supported by them.
  164. @Art Deco
    New York is distributed nationally, and has been for decades. IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one). Its content is not purely local and hasn't been for some time. The parent corporation at one time published The Village Voice as well.

    Art Deco:

    The sobriquet for New York Magazine is the magazine that promises everything and delivers nothing!

    But in this one instance it delivered something of value: a quasi-perceptive article on Steve.

  165. @Anonymous
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/01/spending-bill-language-omits-border-wall-funding-sanctuary-cities-crackdown.html
    Spending bill language omits border wall funding, sanctuary cities crackdown

    I read somewhere that not only does it omit specific funding but that it stipulates that the Wall cannot be funded from any of the money appropriated.

  166. Sean says:
    @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    Nixon did absolutely nothing against busing, affirmative action or any other policy impacting on white communities the South or elsewhere. In fact Nixon often expanded those programs.

    Whites went to the Republicans simply because the Democrats were so antagonistic to white Southerners (and not just Southerners) that there was nowhere else to go but the Republicans, because the Democrats acted as if whites were venal (greedy as you put it).

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Nixon did absolutely nothing against busing, affirmative action or any other policy impacting on white communities the South or elsewhere. In fact Nixon often expanded those programs."

    Those programs were already required by past legislation, with Nixon enforcing the law of the land and executive orders of past presidents. However, how that legislation would be implemented and at what "deliberate speed" was left up to the states.

    "Whites went to the Republicans simply because the Democrats were so antagonistic to white Southerners (and not just Southerners) that there was nowhere else to go but the Republicans, because the Democrats acted as if whites were venal (greedy as you put it)."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.
  167. @Hunsdon
    In fairness, I also enjoy the golf architecture posts . . . which is something I never thought I'd find myself typing.

    With any golfer one meets, don’t miss the opportunity of, “Oh, have you read Steve Sailer on golf course architecture?”

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Opi, If iSteve was a magazine the centerfold would be of famous holes at notable golf courses and your wife would come running over to see what you are ogling after you muttered ..." Oh, would I love to play around there."
  168. @Dieter Kief

    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

     


    The last line seems like a last minute add in – they must have read the article and realized that on the whole it did not make Steve seem sufficiently Hitlerian and so for their more slow witted readers and fellow journalists they had to make clear that they don’t personally agree with him. Someone might get the wrong message which would be very bad for their careers.
     
    I may sound a bit optimistic, but I can't help it: The picture they draw of the situation can be interpreted as: If you have two insufficient positions on the left and on the rigth, - how could the center be light and easy, while being under such pressure.

    And, if I might add one more thought: "Identitarian leftism" sounds pretty critical, if a bit less critical than "raw white nationalism". - Compared to the alternatives, the uneasyness of the center in their picture is hardly negative at all - rather an unwanted consequence.

    I could go on, caliming, that they seem to care for Steve Sailer's positions. - And therefor add the warning: Dear reader - if you care too, let's make sure, that those two on the loony left and the rough right won't win. Let's all watch out - all supportive people, and help Mr. Sailer! Since he's the good guy! - Let's all try to avoid a future, in which he gets caught between the extremes. That would not be good for America!

    Too optimistic reading? Maybe. Inadequate? Maybe. Unintentional as far as the two NC magazine's authors are concerned? Maybe as well. But wrong in the sense of: What you say about the article is not what's printed on the page? - No.

    Yes, too optimistic. In the view of the left (and you can be assured that NY Magazine journalists belong to the left) there are only goodwhites and badwhites and they put Sailer in the badwhite category – if you are not with us, then you are against us. Given that, it was less of a hatchet job than I expected but I think the left is fearful now – they saw how well “let’s insult white people until we shame them into agreeing with us” worked for Hillary.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Given that, it was less of a hatchet job than I expected but I think the left is fearful now – they saw how well “let’s insult white people until we shame them into agreeing with us” worked for Hillary.

    Maybe they are starting to realize that the ol' boot stamping on a human face forever might soon be on the other foot, which has implications for whose face gets stepped on.
  169. @kaganovitch
    Never mind that last comment. Wiki has chapter and verse. It was supplement of NY Herald-Tribune.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(magazine)

    I wonder why you and I both thought it grew out of Cue? Did it absorb Cue?

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Yes it seems it did. (from the ny mag wiki)

    "In 1980, Murdoch hired Edward Kosner, who had worked at Newsweek. Murdoch also bought Cue, a listings magazine created by Mort Glankoff, that had covered the city since 1932, and folded it into New York, simultaneously creating a useful going-out guide and eliminating a competitor.[12] Kosner's magazine tended toward a mix of newsmagazine-style stories, trend pieces, and pure "service" features—long articles on shopping and other consumer subjects—as well as close coverage of the glitzy 1980s New York City scene epitomized by financiers Donald Trump and Saul Steinberg. The magazine was profitable for most of the 1980s.[citation needed] The term "the Brat Pack" was coined for a 1985 story in the magazine.[13]"
  170. @dearieme
    "Sailer ... has quietly become one of the most influential thinkers on the American right."

    I don't know about that, but the best journalist writing in English today, I'd think.

    If anyone knows a better, please point me in his direction.

    “If anyone knows a better [journalist writing in English today], please point me in his direction.”

    Hear! Hear!!

  171. @Corvinus
    "The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions..."

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    "Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership."

    Which only serves the interests of the globalists and corporate classes.

    "This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted:"

    No, as evident by corporations moving overseas and profiting at the expense of all workers.

    "As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents
    … and unnecessary."

    Small businesses generally pocket that money in the form of earnings. Moreover, less regulations has proven over the long-term to harm the everyday Joe and Jill.

    "Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans."

    Which, again, stem when the government lowers their taxes and has fewer business rules. It's called corporate welfare.

    Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    Or maybe the unions undervalue them – too many two tier wage settlements. Too focused on protecting the wages and benefits of the existing workforce rather than increasing employment.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    One of the two Boston hospitals with union nurses just offered a buyout to 1,600 of its longest-serving nurses.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/04/27/nurses-union-agrees-to-brigham-buyouts-but-vows-to.html

    Left unstated in the article was that new hires will be making 60% of what the retiring nurses earn.

    My girlfriend's hospital is the other union shop in town, and they've been able to handle this same policy through attrition. The current highly-paid staff approved the two-tier approach in the last contract. Because they've been hiring a good percentage of "island girls" (Haitian, Jamaican, Filipino), they've felt free to start them at about HALF the salary as the veteran staff. According to the girl, that's pretty much all they're worth.
  172. @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    This is the old “false consciousness” argument – that the workers don’t know what’s good for them but we the elite do. Maybe Trump voters really aren’t stupid and know what side the bread is really buttered on and that socialism leads to Venezuela. The failure to “bust” the UAW, for example, led to the bankruptcy (and were it not for government intervention, would have led to the liquidation) of 2 of the 3 US auto manufacturers. Unions have lost the sympathy of the American public for a reason. A smart parasite knows not to kill its host.

  173. @Percy Gryce

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion.
     
    Yes, that the Megaphone's plan, but perhaps the Narrative will change, and Steve will be known for other big ideas.

    I thought the use of tense there (and inevitably) was interesting. I guess the construction they intend is a not-often-used form of present tense.

  174. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions..."

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    "Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership."

    Which only serves the interests of the globalists and corporate classes.

    "This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted:"

    No, as evident by corporations moving overseas and profiting at the expense of all workers.

    "As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents
    … and unnecessary."

    Small businesses generally pocket that money in the form of earnings. Moreover, less regulations has proven over the long-term to harm the everyday Joe and Jill.

    "Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans."

    Which, again, stem when the government lowers their taxes and has fewer business rules. It's called corporate welfare.

    Corvinus, I have to run to work, but quickly …

    1) Agreed that private sector unions had their purpose in American society, but that ship has mostly sailed, alas, and the spectre of unionizing against big business is replaced, by many, by a hostility toward the government that propped up big business. The only regs that get through the government are those that benefit large corps, not small businesses. It’s about time that a president gave a rip about the people who actually pay taxes, that is, those who don’t off shore their profits.

    2) I’m a prof, and yes, young or college-age people either romanticize or ignore unions. Not in their field of vision.

    3) What most helps the private sector is for the public sector to shrink. Period. The biggest problem in the private sector are regulations, weird rules, difficult and changing tax policies, etc. Thus, if public sector unions shrunk in size, small family farms and businesses would do better … net net.

    4) Perhaps some corps have moved overseas to avoid unions, but that seems so yesterday. Today they move overseas to avoid taxes and regulations … in other words, they move overseas because the American government has made it the most viable choice. This has very little to do with workers although foreign cheap labor is attractive, obviously. How much does avoiding unions have to do with setting up abroad? I dont’ know, but my hunch is its about 20th on their list of reasons.

    5) Are you kidding? Less regulations are a panacea for jack and jill, not a curse. I’ve never met one small business owner who begged for more regulations as if that would make his/her life better. Regulations are killing small towns, small businsses and ordinary families. The days of Rachel Carson screaming about environmental degradation are over. Mostly.

    6) Agreed about corp welfare. Get rid of it. But isn’t that what Trump’s tax plan does? Every corp pays 15%, even Obama’s cronies and the Chamber of Commerce sorts. For them, a fair system is a disaster. Their paid shills/lobbyists can’t get around a solid straightup tax with few loopholes. They want to exploit their access to pay less than is due. So it’s good that this president is making them pay up. It’s about time. NO CORP WELFARE. Just a flat, fair and low tax.

    Best to you, kind Sir or Ma’am
    krbu

    6)

  175. @HI
    Now is the time to be extra cautious, Steve, with media inquiries. Media attention is often a precursor to a nasty takedown campaign, a la Milo.

    Good advice. Also, Steve, please be doubly cautious about publishing comments from unknowns that might “trigger” anyone who is just putting a toe into your uncharted waters. “They” will be watching this blog very carefully from now on. . .

  176. Congratulations, Steve, on the recognition, left-handed though it be.

    It is a symptom of our remarkable times that it is only this late in the game that some acknowledgement of Steve should arrive. We are living through the political revolution of our lifetimes. Thousands of articles have been written on the subject. Yet the man who, nearly alone, foresaw its real possibility and potential has gone almost entirely unmentioned.

    This omission is an unerring sign of the stupidity and corruption of our “elite” media.

    If they can’t get such a basic thing right, what will they ever?

  177. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions..."

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    "Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership."

    Which only serves the interests of the globalists and corporate classes.

    "This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted:"

    No, as evident by corporations moving overseas and profiting at the expense of all workers.

    "As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents
    … and unnecessary."

    Small businesses generally pocket that money in the form of earnings. Moreover, less regulations has proven over the long-term to harm the everyday Joe and Jill.

    "Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans."

    Which, again, stem when the government lowers their taxes and has fewer business rules. It's called corporate welfare.

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    Probably because they, unlike you, know that the only thing that would happen if they formed a union would be that their boss would just send out a bus to Mexico to pick up some illegals, or import some Indians to replace them.

    And if anyone tried to stop the business owners, they know that Dems would just scream racism and take the side of the business owners.

  178. Sean says:
    @Corvinus
    "The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions..."

    It need not be. The working classes, whether it be in the factory or in the cannery or in office, ought to be organizing in the same fashion as their brethren 100 years ago. Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.

    "Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership."

    Which only serves the interests of the globalists and corporate classes.

    "This is why the middle and working class are helped — on balance — if unions are busted:"

    No, as evident by corporations moving overseas and profiting at the expense of all workers.

    "As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren’t government dependents
    … and unnecessary."

    Small businesses generally pocket that money in the form of earnings. Moreover, less regulations has proven over the long-term to harm the everyday Joe and Jill.

    "Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans."

    Which, again, stem when the government lowers their taxes and has fewer business rules. It's called corporate welfare.

    Immigration counters wage inflation and thus damages the working class. Show me a capitalist who is against immigration? Trump is unique in that and he is representing working class interest in halting mass immigration. Trump was opposed by the entire business class especially global big business as you well know. Unions should have done something against capitalist mandated immigration if they wanted to represent the interests of working people and be supported by them.

  179. @prole
    Amazing the success of the Sailer Strategy has not resulted in an article in the NY Times...

    Have they mischaracterized the “Sailer Strategy” by describing it as an appeal to Whites rather than as an appeal to Americans?

  180. OK, Steve, now that you’re famous, please don’t “grow” on us … we don’t want you garnering any “strange new respect” 😉

  181. @Nope
    I was going to make a post about commenter sigaba as well. I guess people at National Review are really feeing the heat these days.

    Citizenism seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp. It's basically 1950's America where minorities have equal rights and immigration is restricted to allow people to assimilate. That anyone finds this objectionable is pretty amazing.

    Nice to see you get some decent press Steve.

    Too true. How it has come to pass that people nowadays put the 1950s down as some sort of evil age will never cease to amaze me.

    I was born in 1938 and graduated from college in 1959. The fifties were golden years full of confidence. We had defeated Germany and Japan in an ungodly war and were king of the hill.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    I'm ten years younger, and maybe it is just the glow of childhood memory, but, yes, the fifties were wonderful. It lasted until Kennedy's assassination, which really did mean the end of innocence. I noticed just yesterday that the decline in SAT scores started immediately thereafter. We faltered, shocked and dazed.
    And then the immigration madness of 1965 begin the end-run to encircle and choke-off whatever future we might still have had.
    , @Whoever

    I was born in 1938 and graduated from college in 1959. The fifties were golden years full of confidence. We had defeated Germany and Japan in an ungodly war and were king of the hill.
     
    I can only connect to the 1950s through memories of my grandparents and some leftover artifacts of those times, most notably my grandmother's 1959 Dodge convertible, which my father restored and kept in showroom condition. That car is the maximum utmost! Every chance I get I love to drive around in that car and listen to hit tunes from that era. They are funny, sweet, intensely romantic, silly...but always "up" somehow.
    Everyone seemed to be having so much fun and enjoying life without a care.
    How could you not be happy driving around on a warm summer night with the top down and listening to "Kookie, Lend Me Your Comb," "Pink Shoe Laces," "Tallahassee Lassie," "Sea Cruise," "Along Came Jones," ... not to mention the most beautiful, sincere pop love ballads there may have ever been.
    You were so lucky to have been a young adult in that era.
    https://youtu.be/koDc-zCxFpY
    http://i.imgur.com/0efXnG1.jpg
  182. I do so want to write something thoughtful and careful here now on this busy day…

    That picture of Steve with Fred the Rabbit should convince any new visitors that Steve is a nice guy, not out to hurt anyone, who simply believes in the honest motto, “Because We Live Here.”

    Recognition from the New York media can be both a blessing and a curse. In this case, it’s like being pointed out by the prison guards. “Hey, there’s a real go-getter, a smart guy who influences our prisoners. We respect him and notice him.”

    I hope Steve has moved the Overton Window with this one. There are, of course, a few goodthink swipes at him in the article, but there is also a sense of respect for someone who matters.

    Yes, he matters. From my own experience, arriving here at Steve’s blog by accident about three years ago, I can guess there are many Americans doing the same thing I am: We have had enough of the deception, and we are waking up to the truth, the logical truth that is so brilliantly written about here by Steve.

    Now that the New York spotlight is on him (The Eye of Soros? God we hope not!) if Steve now gets invited to any speaking engagements at the famous universities in my area, I hereby volunteer for his security detail.

    God bless him.

  183. Can we expect Wikipedia to update its entry on Steve Sailer or does Infogalactic have to do the real work?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Well, the Infogalactic article has been updated to reflect some of the new stuff:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer

    In a hit-piece published in the New York Magazine, the mainstream media finally recognized Sailer as a legitimate alt-right intellectual. They actually quote Sailer's views while at the same time labeling it as reactionary:

    Perhaps the Sailerist idea most closely echoed by the Trump movement is “citizenism,” which he describes as the philosophy that a nation should give overwhelming preference to the interests of its current citizens over foreigners, in the same way as a corporation prioritizes the interests of its current shareholders over everyone else.
    — Park MacDougald and Jason Willick, New York Magazine

     


     
  184. Sean says:
    @Corvinus
    "That last paragraph is really something. As the percentage of whites as a part of the electorate shrinks, they will necessarily adopt the identity politics of their ethno-cultural rivals. ‘Citizenism’ will indeed be the moderate position. Even the journalists are figuring it out. This might convince them to put the brakes on their irresponsibly inflammatory rhetoric."

    No, no, no. The Fake News story is that somehow and someway that whites in the future will magically unify to keep their race from being over-coffeed and deracinated, with the heads of vibrants and Jewish elites strung up like beads. Identity politics stems from ideology--it is the bug, not the feature. When you have prominent members of the Alt Right stating that only certain white people are "true Americans" and that religious freedom is a farce, and philosophical infighting between the Alt-Right, Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite, why on earth would the majority of white Americans completely reverse their personal views regarding race and culture based on the proclaimed shaman of fringe groups?

    Certainly, the ideas of the Alt Right are entering the mainstream and becoming part of our political consciousness, and I'm certain a number of white Americans find their rhetoric comforting. However, our nation historically leans center-right. In other words, moderates hold the key to the American future.

    When you have prominent members of the Alt Right stating that only certain white people are “true Americans” and that religious freedom is a farce, and philosophical infighting between the Alt-Right, Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite, why on earth would the majority of white Americans completely reverse their personal views regarding race and culture based on the proclaimed shaman of fringe groups?

    You keep taking outre comments to task and bringing up nobodies like that haircut Spencer to ostensibly deny could have growing influence. They never could and never did and don’t currently. I see an ulterior motive in your comments, namely, you’re trying to associate anti immigration sentiment with racial and even sub-racial exclusionism

    Isn’t it more realistic to think white Americans have slowly but surely turned against immigration for the same rational reason that Cesar Chavez was against it: it hurts American workers.

  185. @Danindc
    That's hilarious. I have used this line in real life but substituted "his movie reviews" for golf course articles...

    I have used this line in real life but substituted “his movie reviews” for golf course articles…

    “Golf course articles” suits the Playboy a tad better, though. Plus – think of Steve Sailer’s , hehe, self-promo-fotos with – ehe, the rabbit! – See!? – Where do you find rabbits – in movie theaters? – Not that often, I’d assume. – Whereas on golf courses – they’re aplenty there, rabbits, seen whole bunches of ’em, yuge!

  186. Alt-right=moderates. Bravo!

  187. Congratulations. Any plans to give a speech at Berkeley?

    NY mag is relatively and courageously ideologically diverse. They printed this article about the idea of microaggressions:

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/how-microaggression-training-could-harm-minority-students.html

  188. @Daniel Chieh
    Like gold course design?

    Non-PC movie reviewing.

  189. ISteve stands accused of transmitting mind control beam of wrongthink.

    Hopefully this doesn’t entice Moldylocks types to harass or worse. Stay safe out there Steve

  190. @Fredrik

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion. Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.
     
    The writer doesn't tell me why this should be avoided.

    I don't think this biography was that bad. If anything it will draw new readers.

    If anything it will draw new readers.

    Steve, can Ron design some new badges to appear next to our screen names to denote that some of us were here before the New York magazine profile?

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Keep out the dilettantes! Steve should have another blog where he posts the same material, but only newcomers get to comment there. Sort of like a different country club. /joke

    I wonder if Tyler Cowen will link to the profile.

    EDIT Seems not. He went with the evolution of Indian brothels and how cassava is genetically decaying.
  191. “Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing, but if his ideal of citizenism is formally egalitarian, his view of people more generally is not.”

    Why should this be controversial? Do liberals think mentally handicapped people are as intelligent as non-handicapped people? If not, does that make them bigoted? Since when did claiming people to be different in ability imply that they are morally less valuable? Indeed, if the left wanted to be really smart, they’d start justifying their redistributionist agenda less on phantasms like “white privilege” and more on the fact that some people by nature just can’t do as well as others. That would at least be a debate grounded in facts.

  192. @Hodag
    "But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture" is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    Too funny!

  193. @Opinionator
    I'm glad to see you get the coverage, Steve. You deserve it, and more, and better. You deserve to be more widely read and acknowledged.

    I won't say congratulations, as that term is inappropriate in this context.

    I am surprised that you dated Invade/Invite to the GW Bush admin. It arguably goes back to Vietnam if not earlier and could be said to have animated the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

    Couldn't Unz have supplied a better photo of you?

    I like the picture.

    What a troll that would be to make him the new face of ‘The World’s Most Interesting Man’ beer commercial. Maybe Natty Light could do a knock off.

    • LOL: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I think there may be two of them?

    I like your idea!

    , @Anonymous
    The photo would have been better with Steve making the OK sign.

    As everyone else is writing about the Trump’s first hundred days, how he didn’t accomplish anything that he’d said that he would, and how he just responded with yet another lie, telling the American people that, despite what we might hear from the “lying press,” he’s kept his promises, I’ve decided to spend my time today looking into a new phenomenon that I just learned about… Apparently, when members of the so-called “alt-right” get invited into the White House Press Corps, they mark the occasion by standing at the podium Sean “That’s What Dictatorships Do” Spicer delivers his lies from, and flash the new hate symbol associated with their movement, which, in recent years, has been popularized across the internet by the lovable little mascot of the new white power movement known as Pepe the Frog… And, yes, this is really a thing. -- Mark Maynard [Michigan 's favorite hysterical progressive blogger]
     
    Mercy me!
  194. @Hodag
    "But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture" is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    Speaking of the articles in Playboy.

    Ed Sheeran has a toxic masculinity problem. https://t.co/UfFTYO6UWX pic.twitter.com/sAm1NZZGZS— Playboy (@Playboy) March 11, 2017

    It’s not a parody account.
    http://www.playboy.com/articles/ed-sheeran-has-a-toxic-masculinity-problem

  195. Ron Unz has a very good eye for talent. He has managed to identify and collect many of the most interesting public intellectuals out there.

  196. @jimbo
    Whippersnapper! I've been reading him since about 2002, on his old, comment-free site. Back then you actually had to email him to discuss anything - and walk uphill, both ways, through 5 feet of snow, to hit the "send" button...

    Hell, I’ve been reading him so long I use to have to manually open his garage door, hold it up with one arm and slide my check under the door with my other arm. All why being shot at by Lowry and Goldberg (of course, being girly boys, they were shootin’ Nerf bullets while hidin’ behind Goldberg’s momma).

  197. @Massimo Heitor
    Congrats Steve!

    I had no idea Steve Sailer was a staff writer at National Review, and got pushed out by Lowry. wow! I'd love to hear more details on that one.

    He was on the contributors list from 1994 to 1999. Most people who write for National Review are not on salary. Other than Lowry, Steorts, and Ponnuru, I’m not sure they have anyone on staff producing editorial matter. Starboard opinion journalism’s been in a fallow period (presumably due to the economics of it) and the few interesting practitioners who’ve emerged in the last 15 years were personal bloggers to begin with, not affiliated with the extant starboard press. Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.
     
    Would you care to list a few of the lesser lights on this list so we can match them up with our own?
    , @Desiderius

    Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.
     
    One wonders whether that was why Lowry was hired in the first place.
  198. @Detective Club
    Not all publicity is good publicity, Steven. The ominous B&W photo makes you look like a Huntsville, Alabama Nazi.
    https://youtu.be/gSlGxlAusSE

    I could not disagree more. He looks very handsome in the picture. Let’s just hope he does not forget us now that he is famous.

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    That's a good question: if Steve were tomorrow given an endowed chair at a well-funded thinktank would he still bother with us commenters. He has freely admitted getting good ideas from commenters--indeed he posts them often--but maybe he would delegate the moderation grunt work to one of his interns.
    , @Detective Club
    The gloomy (or pensive) Germanic look, according to your taste or perception, is much less pronounced in the dead tree edition of the magazine : for Steve's lovely mug is there presented in a size that is less than that of a small postage stamp, positively microscopic in all its Lilliputian aspects and, as we all know, Steve is a big guy.

    New York magazine is hard Left. Its editors will strain, to the point of a hernia, to make someone on the Right look bad.
  199. @jimbo
    Whippersnapper! I've been reading him since about 2002, on his old, comment-free site. Back then you actually had to email him to discuss anything - and walk uphill, both ways, through 5 feet of snow, to hit the "send" button...

    Yes, I remember that. I even had the occasional reply.

  200. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Glob Snob

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/dartmouth-study-finds-democrats-least-tolerant-students-campus/

    Self-righteousness is their main identity.

    Even when not feeling self-righteous, people on the Right have a meaningful sense of who they are. They have identity independent of attitude.

    In contrast, people on the ‘left’ have no meaningful sense of who they are except in their self-righteous (a**)holier-than-thou attitude. Their attitude is their identity.
    Snobbery of attitude defines not only their identity but their status.

  201. @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations–which typically harm this group.

    Corvinus, there was no Southern Strategy as the term is commonly used. The term is a shorthand for a self-aggrandizing political/historical myth which partisan Democrats have peddled for decades, among the Paul Krugman, who was alive at the time and does not have any excuse for not knowing it’s tripe. Another peddler is Thomas Sieger Derr, who was a voting adult at the time but could not and cannot tell the difference between Richard Nixon and his own inane caricatures of Richard Nixon.

    Garry Wills and Joe McGinnis covering the 1968 election campaign (and composing books on it which appeared in 1969/70) interviewed Kevin Phillips, then a Republican and a number cruncher for the Nixon campaign. Phillips discussed in descriptive terms the shifts which were taking place in electoral preferences in the South (which were manifest as early as 1952) and the implications for Republican advertising campaigns. Specifically, there wasn’t much point in pursuing core city electorates when Southern votes were up for grabs. The advertising campaigns actually used in the South consisted of Roy Acuff and others singing boilerplate country and western ditties (“Yes! We can bring our country back but it’s up to everyone. This time this time with leadership from Richard M. Nixon”). and some issue ads featuring Strom Thurmond. You can look here for examples of Mr. Nixon’s national advertising. It’s pretty unremarkable:

    http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

    The film treatments are reproduced in McGinnis’ The Selling of the President, 1968.

    If segregationists were expecting something out of Richard Nixon, they got nothing. There was no reason to expect anything. Nixon wasn’t personally invested in segregation and had never been antagonistic to the interests of blacks qua blacks during his political career. Spiro Agnew had once given an assemblage of black politicians a dressing down for temporizing about law and order during a series of riots, but otherwise he was a Rockefeller Republican to the extent he wasn’t governed by careerism. And, of course, they got nothing out of any of Mr. Nixon’s successors.

    The Democrats lost the South because of generational change (each succeeding cohort had fewer and fewer people who would vote Democratic just because) and because once the segregationist program had been defeated, there was no particular reason to vote for people whose appeal was predicated (to a great extent) on seniority which could be used to occupy gatekeeper positions and protect Southern interests. White Southern votes were then redistributed between the parties according to the various and sundry concerns and impulses people had apart from segregation.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, there was no Southern Strategy as the term is commonly used."

    Patently false. Refer to the 1981 interview, later published in the 1990's, by Republican strategist Lee Atwater, who openly admitted how the GOP implemented it.

    "If segregationists were expecting something out of Richard Nixon, they got nothing."

    No, white southerners were expecting a "friend" in the White House to slow down the process. Now while it is true that Nixon enforced Civil Rights legislation under his "law and order" pledge, he was other than an activist compared to his Democrat predecessors.

    "The Democrats lost the South because of generational change (each succeeding cohort had fewer and fewer people who would vote Democratic just because)..."

    Any documentation here?

    "and because once the segregationist program had been defeated, there was no particular reason to vote for people whose appeal was predicated (to a great extent) on seniority which could be used to occupy gatekeeper positions and protect Southern interests."

    The Republicans intelligently focused on issues like pro-family, pro-gun, and anti-homo, along with slow integration, that conservative Democrats here found attractive.

    "The only unions the Republican Party ever ‘busted’ were PATCO and the collection of public sector unions representing Wisconsin state workers. PATCO was so far out on a limb the other public sector unions were fairly circumspect and decidedly unmilitant about the whole mess. As for the Wisconsin state employees, the unions were ‘busted’ by the simple expedient of ending the payment of union dues through withholdings."

    Under the Reagan Administration, the National Labor Relations Board generally sat on the sidelines. His die-hard team consisted of individuals who were other than interested in investigating union accusations of employer malfeasance. NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson once declared that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once healthy industries". In eight years, it settled half of the complaints unions had made, with longer wait times on hearing and ruling on said complaints, regarding the illegal firing of union members and the hampering of union organizing efforts. During this same time frame, corporation lobbying focused on strictly limiting union activities, in particular in being able to replace employees who exercised their legal right to strike. Busting unions took on a more sophisticated effort.
    , @David In TN
    A good summary. The South disliked the "National Democratic Party" for various reasons apart from race.
  202. Congratulations Steve. You have finally made the big time.

    I always thought of you as a serious thinker, and the more you were thought of as a hateful extremist the more I admired your courage for presenting information that in hindsight was obvious but would take a man of courage to report.

    But you will have not made it completely until you win the genius award currently held by genius Coates. At that time you will cease to be relevant to original and creative thought.

    May you forever dwell in obscurity.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    lav, Maybe if some old white woman had pushed Steve's rabbit on the escalator and Steve had written a book about it he would have some standing with the SJWs.
  203. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    We should thank Political Correctness. We should welcome more of it. Why? The ‘left’ is abandoning its great assets and handing them over to the Alt Right.

    The Left once owned free speech. But the proglob’s War on Speech has fumbled the ball on free speech, and the Alt Right picked it up and ran with it.

    PC’s promotion of Repression Culture made the Alt Right the paragons of liberty and freedom.

    Also, Left once owned the antiwar and anti-imperialist causes. But the proglob’s support of imperialist wars and New Cold War made anti-war and pro-peaces causes fall on the lap of the Alt Right.

    Alt Right, in opposing these wars, believe that Human Lives Matter. In contrast, the proglob has turned a blind eye to the war-mongering of Obama and Hillary. It even says Bush II was better than Trump.

    Alt Right has principles that the Proglob lacks. When Bush II invaded Iraq, the Proglob made a fuss, but once Obama began to topple regimes, the Proglob was silent.

    But Alt Right won’t let Trump off the hook for his betrayal of promises for more peace and less war.

  204. @Opinionator
    Thank you for the interesting response and perspective. Are counter arguments to anti-Whitism and to anti-Gentilism allowed in the United States?

    Simple answer to your question:

    NO

  205. @Opinionator
    Churchill believed that Robert E. Lee was a great man.

    And so he was. Far greater, indeed, than the war-monger Churchill.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    the war-monger Churchill.

    [eye roll]
  206. @Corvinus
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations--which typically harm this group.

    Certainly by focusing on rescinding NAFTA and curbing immigration are noteworthy policies, with Trump the Populist was being successful in convincing this battered group to cast their vote for a New York big wig.

    But he made some YUGE promises that he best deliver on, or this same group will NOT be in the mood to re-elect him. Seemingly the unveiling of his tax proposal and his plans to keep companies from heading overseas are your typical GOP money grabs for capitalists, with the crumbs left on the floor for the white working families to greedily consume.

    his political party tends to bust unions

    The only unions the Republican Party ever ‘busted’ were PATCO and the collection of public sector unions representing Wisconsin state workers. PATCO was so far out on a limb the other public sector unions were fairly circumspect and decidedly unmilitant about the whole mess. As for the Wisconsin state employees, the unions were ‘busted’ by the simple expedient of ending the payment of union dues through withholdings.

  207. @Old Palo Altan
    And so he was. Far greater, indeed, than the war-monger Churchill.

    the war-monger Churchill.

    [eye roll]

    • Agree: Desiderius
  208. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    I like the picture.

    What a troll that would be to make him the new face of 'The World's Most Interesting Man' beer commercial. Maybe Natty Light could do a knock off.

    I think there may be two of them?

    I like your idea!

  209. @Old fogey
    Too true. How it has come to pass that people nowadays put the 1950s down as some sort of evil age will never cease to amaze me.

    I was born in 1938 and graduated from college in 1959. The fifties were golden years full of confidence. We had defeated Germany and Japan in an ungodly war and were king of the hill.

    I’m ten years younger, and maybe it is just the glow of childhood memory, but, yes, the fifties were wonderful. It lasted until Kennedy’s assassination, which really did mean the end of innocence. I noticed just yesterday that the decline in SAT scores started immediately thereafter. We faltered, shocked and dazed.
    And then the immigration madness of 1965 begin the end-run to encircle and choke-off whatever future we might still have had.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This joke may be transposed towards any particular date.
    I will tell it referring to assassination of Kennedy.

    It is 2017 now. A journalist asks a 100-year old person:
    --- When life was better: before Kennedy's assassination, or after that?
    --- Sure, before!
    --- And why do you feel so?
    --- Before Kennedy's assassination I had erection.

    , @David In TN
    I was born in 1950 and recall family vacations during 1958-59, one year to Michigan, the next to Florida. At that time, America was made up of people who proudly bestrode the continent.
  210. The “Southern Strategy” is the electoral combining of Southern Protestant Anglo-Celts with Northern Ethnic Catholics.

    The “German Strategy” is the electoral combining of Southern Protestant Anglo-Celts and Great Lakes Germans. President Trump won the electoral votes of the WOMP states — Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania — and the WOMP states are full of Americans of German ancestry.

    The “Aunt Jemima Strategy” is the strategy Hillary Clinton used to beat Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primary for president. The “Aunt Jemima Strategy” is to win the votes of Black lady voters in the Southern primary states. Hillary Clinton knew she had the “Aunt Jemima Strategy” as a firewall to fend off Sanders.

  211. Anonymous [AKA "Pepe the Spartan"] says: • Website
    @The preferred nomenclature is...
    I like the picture.

    What a troll that would be to make him the new face of 'The World's Most Interesting Man' beer commercial. Maybe Natty Light could do a knock off.

    The photo would have been better with Steve making the OK sign.

    As everyone else is writing about the Trump’s first hundred days, how he didn’t accomplish anything that he’d said that he would, and how he just responded with yet another lie, telling the American people that, despite what we might hear from the “lying press,” he’s kept his promises, I’ve decided to spend my time today looking into a new phenomenon that I just learned about… Apparently, when members of the so-called “alt-right” get invited into the White House Press Corps, they mark the occasion by standing at the podium Sean “That’s What Dictatorships Do” Spicer delivers his lies from, and flash the new hate symbol associated with their movement, which, in recent years, has been popularized across the internet by the lovable little mascot of the new white power movement known as Pepe the Frog… And, yes, this is really a thing. — Mark Maynard [Michigan ‘s favorite hysterical progressive blogger]

    Mercy me!

  212. @Art Deco
    He was on the contributors list from 1994 to 1999. Most people who write for National Review are not on salary. Other than Lowry, Steorts, and Ponnuru, I'm not sure they have anyone on staff producing editorial matter. Starboard opinion journalism's been in a fallow period (presumably due to the economics of it) and the few interesting practitioners who've emerged in the last 15 years were personal bloggers to begin with, not affiliated with the extant starboard press. Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.

    Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.

    Would you care to list a few of the lesser lights on this list so we can match them up with our own?

    • Replies: @Barnard
    That they still regularly run columns from Jay Nordlinger and Mona Charen is baffling. David French absolutely embarrassed himself and National Review by seriously considering Bill Kristol's efforts to get him to run for President. Most of their contributors wanted him to run and ended up endorsing Evan McMullin. Charles CW Cooke has made a mess of their website as it's editor. He also doesn't seem to hold many conservative positions, other than being an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment.

    Somehow, they just hired Michael Brendan Dougherty from The Week. His views don't seem to mesh well with most of their staff. I wonder if they are trying to drum up some faux internal controversies to drive page views.
    , @Percy Gryce
    I'll start: Steorts and Pomera.
  213. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "Well done Steve!"

    And that inset photo of Steve above is brilliant: a James Bond villain mastermind fondling his attack rabbit.

    Aha! Steve brought down the Carter Presidency! A veritable one-man Deep State.

    http://www.wnyc.org/story/hare-brained-history-curious-case-jimmy-carter-v-rabbit/

  214. Sincere Congratulations, Steve!

    What’s next, a portrait in the NYRB, a Tweet from DJT or an office in the West Wing?

  215. @Clark Westwood
    I wonder why you and I both thought it grew out of Cue? Did it absorb Cue?

    Yes it seems it did. (from the ny mag wiki)

    “In 1980, Murdoch hired Edward Kosner, who had worked at Newsweek. Murdoch also bought Cue, a listings magazine created by Mort Glankoff, that had covered the city since 1932, and folded it into New York, simultaneously creating a useful going-out guide and eliminating a competitor.[12] Kosner’s magazine tended toward a mix of newsmagazine-style stories, trend pieces, and pure “service” features—long articles on shopping and other consumer subjects—as well as close coverage of the glitzy 1980s New York City scene epitomized by financiers Donald Trump and Saul Steinberg. The magazine was profitable for most of the 1980s.[citation needed] The term “the Brat Pack” was coined for a 1985 story in the magazine.[13]”

    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    Thanks. (I had no idea that Cue went back to the 30s.)
  216. @Jack Hanson
    Buckle down the hatches, Steve. This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.

    This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.

    I should hope so.

    How else will Frodo get to Mt. Doom undetected?

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Is that how it works? I thought it was just the prelude to an Emmanuel Goldstein style 3 minute hate with real life consequences.

    Who was Frodo when Darren Wilson became unemployable? Just to keep track of one out of many examples.
  217. @Art Deco
    He was on the contributors list from 1994 to 1999. Most people who write for National Review are not on salary. Other than Lowry, Steorts, and Ponnuru, I'm not sure they have anyone on staff producing editorial matter. Starboard opinion journalism's been in a fallow period (presumably due to the economics of it) and the few interesting practitioners who've emerged in the last 15 years were personal bloggers to begin with, not affiliated with the extant starboard press. Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.

    Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.

    One wonders whether that was why Lowry was hired in the first place.

  218. @Mantle of Hate
    Well done Steve!

    Well done Steve!

    They spelled his name right!

    Actually, agree with others. The authors threw in the requisite tut-tutting, but given it’s an establishment media piece it’s much fairer than i would have expected. I think the citizenism paragraph is quite accessible to the (rare) random fair-minded individual who comes in without fixed PC mindset. Also there’s an undertone from the authors that suggests at least some healthy skepticism about conventional “wisdom”, or at least that cosmopolitan liberal globalism might be a little overreaching/overbaked at present.

    Steve, post-taxes i’ll get my act together here and send you the spring contribution–sufficient for the purchase of a Mossberg 500, so you can air cool any random antifa loon, now motivated to try and burst through your front window.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    it’s much fairer than i would have expected.
     
    The simple explanation is that Steve isn't AltRight because he's not Right, so he's safer than a dissident who is for journalists who get published in places like NYMag. It goes without saying that they're not Right either.
  219. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Hey, they finally gave you some attention! Congrats. Although it’s kind of weird that they needed two writers to produce one not-very-thorough article on your ideas. I get the impression they needed the brain cells of two journalists to rub together to get an inkling of what you’re about. It’s your fault for producing too much writing for the poor dummies to keep up with.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Safety in numbers.
  220. @Anatoly Karlin

    AltRabbi Retweeted Charles Murray
    I'm always surprised at how many in the alt/new right are mostly unfamiliar with @Steve_Sailer who invented most of the language they employ
     
    Personally, no surprise there. Sailer's IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter's.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn't get the level of recognition he deserves.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn’t get the level of recognition he deserves.

    Par for the course for +3 SDs. What did you expect?

    +3 SDs are always more Merlin than Arthur, Mithrandir than Elessar. It’s the nature of the species.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Heinrich Heine writes, that Hegel is said to have whispered on his death bed: "There's only one, who did understand what I was at - but he, too, didn't quite get it."

    It's a year now, that I regularly read this blog. I have the impression, our host loves what he's doing - and he's doing it in a way, that still makes me laugh, literally, or smile, too - in pure admiration, and joy too, every now and then.

    If I can put it the way I'm used to, I'd say: Nothing sad here at all - quite the contrary.

  221. @AnotherDad

    Well done Steve!
     
    They spelled his name right!

    Actually, agree with others. The authors threw in the requisite tut-tutting, but given it's an establishment media piece it's much fairer than i would have expected. I think the citizenism paragraph is quite accessible to the (rare) random fair-minded individual who comes in without fixed PC mindset. Also there's an undertone from the authors that suggests at least some healthy skepticism about conventional "wisdom", or at least that cosmopolitan liberal globalism might be a little overreaching/overbaked at present.

    Steve, post-taxes i'll get my act together here and send you the spring contribution--sufficient for the purchase of a Mossberg 500, so you can air cool any random antifa loon, now motivated to try and burst through your front window.

    it’s much fairer than i would have expected.

    The simple explanation is that Steve isn’t AltRight because he’s not Right, so he’s safer than a dissident who is for journalists who get published in places like NYMag. It goes without saying that they’re not Right either.

  222. The picture is fine.

    His eyes in particular are the exact opposite of extremist crazy.

  223. @Kylie
    "You’re becoming a serious player, Steve. (Not that you haven’t been one all along, but now it’s out in the open.)"

    Yes, Steve has always been a serious player*. This article indicates that hee is now a serious target. Don't expect future MSM articles to be so innocuous. Steve has a slippery quality that doesn't give his opponents much traction. That doesn't mean they won't try their best to launch a smear campaign against him, just that they'll have to work harder and lie better than these yo-yos.

    So this article made me very uneasy though insofar as it helps his career (i.e.by allowing him to provide his long-suffering wife with garage doors, dishwashers, etc.), I'm of course very pleased for him.

    *Serious player and, paradoxically, the funniest writer I've ever read except for Henry James and Iris Murdoch. His captions are brilliant. I'm still laughing over "the not late Angie Dickinson".

    I’m sure the good folks at the Washington Post are forging a hatchet job on Steve as we speak.

    • Agree: Kylie
  224. In related news, Nancy Pelosi, exulting over Congress’s spending bill that denied funding for the Wall, calls Wall “immoral.”

  225. @Anon
    Hey, they finally gave you some attention! Congrats. Although it's kind of weird that they needed two writers to produce one not-very-thorough article on your ideas. I get the impression they needed the brain cells of two journalists to rub together to get an inkling of what you're about. It's your fault for producing too much writing for the poor dummies to keep up with.

    Safety in numbers.

  226. Congratulations to Steve!!! Count me as another long-time reader, since 2001-ish, at least. It’s very exciting to see Steve get recognition as one of the founding fathers of the New Right.

  227. @kaganovitch
    Yes it seems it did. (from the ny mag wiki)

    "In 1980, Murdoch hired Edward Kosner, who had worked at Newsweek. Murdoch also bought Cue, a listings magazine created by Mort Glankoff, that had covered the city since 1932, and folded it into New York, simultaneously creating a useful going-out guide and eliminating a competitor.[12] Kosner's magazine tended toward a mix of newsmagazine-style stories, trend pieces, and pure "service" features—long articles on shopping and other consumer subjects—as well as close coverage of the glitzy 1980s New York City scene epitomized by financiers Donald Trump and Saul Steinberg. The magazine was profitable for most of the 1980s.[citation needed] The term "the Brat Pack" was coined for a 1985 story in the magazine.[13]"

    Thanks. (I had no idea that Cue went back to the 30s.)

  228. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Old Palo Altan
    I'm ten years younger, and maybe it is just the glow of childhood memory, but, yes, the fifties were wonderful. It lasted until Kennedy's assassination, which really did mean the end of innocence. I noticed just yesterday that the decline in SAT scores started immediately thereafter. We faltered, shocked and dazed.
    And then the immigration madness of 1965 begin the end-run to encircle and choke-off whatever future we might still have had.

    This joke may be transposed towards any particular date.
    I will tell it referring to assassination of Kennedy.

    It is 2017 now. A journalist asks a 100-year old person:
    — When life was better: before Kennedy’s assassination, or after that?
    — Sure, before!
    — And why do you feel so?
    — Before Kennedy’s assassination I had erection.

  229. @kihowi
    How about point-and-splutter?

    How about point-and-splutter?

    • Replies: Unladen Swallow

    Hey now, this is a family blog. Keep it clean.

  230. @Percy Gryce

    If anything it will draw new readers.
     
    Steve, can Ron design some new badges to appear next to our screen names to denote that some of us were here before the New York magazine profile?

    Keep out the dilettantes! Steve should have another blog where he posts the same material, but only newcomers get to comment there. Sort of like a different country club. /joke

    I wonder if Tyler Cowen will link to the profile.

    EDIT Seems not. He went with the evolution of Indian brothels and how cassava is genetically decaying.

  231. @Georgina
    I could not disagree more. He looks very handsome in the picture. Let's just hope he does not forget us now that he is famous.

    That’s a good question: if Steve were tomorrow given an endowed chair at a well-funded thinktank would he still bother with us commenters. He has freely admitted getting good ideas from commenters–indeed he posts them often–but maybe he would delegate the moderation grunt work to one of his interns.

  232. @Jack D
    Yes, the top 3/4 of his face is not just a shade of grey as you would expect to find in a b&w photo but bleached completely white. I'm sure this was not accidental.

    Here is the original photo from which this was photoshopped:

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Steve-Sailer-2015a.jpg

    He appears much less svengali-like.

    A not accidental subliminal smear job.

    A not accidental subliminal smear job.

    I prefer the ‘shopped version for the article, the original is nice but looks kind of melancholic. A bit of mystery and menace can be a good thing.

    Steve, congrats on some long-deserved ‘MSM’ recognition.

  233. They didn’t even mention the two other staples of his writing – golf and movie reviews.

  234. The Cucks and neo-Cons have to concede that Sailerism – looking out for your own, the white middle and working classes – works in practice, but it is still flawed in theory, so therefore it must be rejected. Jeb/Marco 2020.

  235. it’s the gulag for sure now

  236. @Johann Ricke

    Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.
     
    Would you care to list a few of the lesser lights on this list so we can match them up with our own?

    That they still regularly run columns from Jay Nordlinger and Mona Charen is baffling. David French absolutely embarrassed himself and National Review by seriously considering Bill Kristol’s efforts to get him to run for President. Most of their contributors wanted him to run and ended up endorsing Evan McMullin. Charles CW Cooke has made a mess of their website as it’s editor. He also doesn’t seem to hold many conservative positions, other than being an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment.

    Somehow, they just hired Michael Brendan Dougherty from The Week. His views don’t seem to mesh well with most of their staff. I wonder if they are trying to drum up some faux internal controversies to drive page views.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Somehow, they just hired Michael Brendan Dougherty from The Week.
     
    They're trying to move downmarket to appeal to Trump supporters. (Dougherty's Irish).

    Their take, in both cases, not mine.
    , @Gross Terry
    Dougherty is a good boy, like a less internet addled/nerdy Ross Douthat.
  237. @Horseball
    About as fair as.could be hoped. Could have snuck Affordable Family Formation in there. That will be Steve's real legacy, I thinl

    Related – young UK house owners (an increasingly endangered class) are having more babies than young renters (greatly increasing class).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/12/soaring-house-prices-reduce-number-babies-born-england/

    “The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development found that for every 10 per cent increases in house prices, the birth rate falls by 1.3 per cent.

    The trend is reversed for people who own their own home, with a 10 per cent house price rise sparking a rise in the number of births by 2.8 per cent. However among renters, the same increase causes a birth rate decline of 4.9 per cent.”

    Ignore the crap about increases “sparking a rise”, there’s no posited mechanism for that. Mind, most “social housing” tenants (renters) seem to breed pretty well.

    • Replies: @Jay Ritchie
    I'd love to see further analysis on this - particularly splitting out the long term benefit claimants with multiple offspring.
    , @Opinionator
    What is the reason?
  238. @Johann Ricke

    Some of the people Lowry has hired over the years have been pathetic.
     
    Would you care to list a few of the lesser lights on this list so we can match them up with our own?

    I’ll start: Steorts and Pomera.

  239. @Anonymous Nephew
    Related - young UK house owners (an increasingly endangered class) are having more babies than young renters (greatly increasing class).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/12/soaring-house-prices-reduce-number-babies-born-england/


    "The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development found that for every 10 per cent increases in house prices, the birth rate falls by 1.3 per cent.

    The trend is reversed for people who own their own home, with a 10 per cent house price rise sparking a rise in the number of births by 2.8 per cent. However among renters, the same increase causes a birth rate decline of 4.9 per cent."
     

    Ignore the crap about increases "sparking a rise", there's no posited mechanism for that. Mind, most "social housing" tenants (renters) seem to breed pretty well.

    I’d love to see further analysis on this – particularly splitting out the long term benefit claimants with multiple offspring.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "long term benefit claimants with multiple offspring"

    As I undertand it one of the more sensible moves of the last Cameron administration was (going forward) to restrict child-related benefits to a maximum of two children. Previously the benefit system made it possible (if you could hack the living standards) to make a career of having children - which is how you got the Mick Philpott "family setting", and also how you got the singer Ms Dynamite ("She is the eldest of eleven siblings") - it's also one reason why the UK Muslim population has expanded exponentially.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott
  240. @unpc downunder
    Reading this review is strikes me how obsessed educated liberals are with "dangerous ideas" and unpc language. In the modern liberal view, all nasty and extreme things that happen (like black on black violence in the US, or historical events like the Holocaust) are due to "dangerous ideas" and politically incorrect discourse (even though most of history's despots, such as Stalin and Genghis Khan, weren't very ideological). It's a kind of magical thinking, where nice words and thoughts lead to nice outcomes, and not so nice words and thoughts lead to bad outcomes. Hence, politically incorrect thinkers like Steve are considered a dangerous threat.

    This contrasts with the common sense view that most nasty or extreme things occur because of extreme or tragic circumstances, or human stupidity, or nasty individuals getting too much power.

    A liberal is someone who believes that you can make blacks into Asians by closing your eyes, clicking the heels of your magic shoes together three times, and chanting, “The gap is a myth … the gap is a myth … the gap is a myth” until the sun goes supernova.

    This progressive nuttiness over the power of positive thinking brings to mind Jared Lee Loughner – the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had some crackpot theory that if a) everything is made of thoughts, and b) thoughts are made of words, then c) everything is a bunch of words floating around in our heads. Words are like atoms – the building blocks of reality. Words make worlds. Wordsmiths are worldlords.

    Or something like that – his rantings are hard to follow. He is a madman, after all. (He’s also half-tribe, if anyone cares.)

    He once went to a Giffords rally and asked her, “What is government if words have no meaning?” She didn’t know what the hell he was talking about and politely blew him off. He took it badly. Thus, she ended up with bullets in her head.

    Loughner also had a bug up his butt about how money is useless paper whose worth is controlled by the government.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Loughner also had a bug up his butt about how money is useless paper whose worth is controlled by the government.
     
    How is this part crazy, Stan? The rest of what you wrote about this guy is pretty out-there, but yes, money currency like the US dollar is just paper whose worth is controlled by the Feral Government (OK, the Federal Reserve bank is not officially part of the US government).

    The "useless" part will come in due time, and it won't be a good time for most of us.
  241. Noah Millman outs himself as a reader of this blog. Doesn’t seem like those of us in the comment section though. I wonder if he thinks anyone on the left is “poorly served by his own fan base?” Who needs enemies when you have friends like The American Conservative.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/steve-sailers-moment/

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Millman performing gatekeeper tactics there.
  242. @Ed

    His record contains ample reasons to question the rather innocent description of his politics. In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”
     
    So when one watched the civilizational collapse during Katrina, the post-Ferguson effects in cities like Baltimore or Chicago or even the last few decades of cultural deterioration among poor blacks, what do they think caused it if not what Steve says? The quoted comment seems like a reasonable foundation to the issue of African-American inequality & saving black lives.

    Oh and congrats Steve!

    Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”

    Simply quoting Steve’s “infamous and widely condemned” post, instead of just stating his racial outreness is actually a subversive act suggesting perhaps the authors themselves are a bit skeptical\dissenting. It lets people judge the quote themselves and see whether they think it’s a) a big deal and/or b) actually false.

    Back in my scoutmastering years, i had conversations with SWPLy Obama voting dads who were nonetheless quite well aware that there were large numbers of blacks (as well as some whites) who were simply too stupid to have very good employment prospects in the “new economy” and that we didn’t–neither our nation nor his party–have any real solution for them. He–i’m thinking of one man in particular, who was my Committee Chair at the time–wouldn’t be taken back at all by Steve’s statement despite being a reliable SWPL Democrat voter. It’s one of those “you aren’t supposed to say that!” but nonetheless pretty obviously true statements whether we like it or not. Of course, this guy is an engineer–a profession where things have to work in the real world–not a social scientist, educator, lawyer, bureaucrat.

    I think a lot of folks would read Steve’s statement and think “ok, that’s blunt non-PC talk”, but not actually find it very “out there” or meriting over-the-top condemnation. Some will no doubt be somewhat intrigued–“what else does this guy say?”.

  243. @Art Deco
    New York is distributed nationally, and has been for decades. IIRC, it began as a supplement to some other publication (cannot recall which one). Its content is not purely local and hasn't been for some time. The parent corporation at one time published The Village Voice as well.

    Originally it was the Sunday magazine of the NY Herald Tribune newspaper but when the Herald-Tribune (the last broadsheet competitor to the NY Times) went under Clay Felker bought the rights to the name. Felker was also connected to the Village Voice at one point but both publications have changed hands a number of times. I think the current owner of NY Mag is the financier Bruce Wasserstein.

    • Replies: @Flip
    Probably by Wasserstein's estate as he died in 2009.
  244. @Anonymous Nephew
    Related - young UK house owners (an increasingly endangered class) are having more babies than young renters (greatly increasing class).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/12/soaring-house-prices-reduce-number-babies-born-england/


    "The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development found that for every 10 per cent increases in house prices, the birth rate falls by 1.3 per cent.

    The trend is reversed for people who own their own home, with a 10 per cent house price rise sparking a rise in the number of births by 2.8 per cent. However among renters, the same increase causes a birth rate decline of 4.9 per cent."
     

    Ignore the crap about increases "sparking a rise", there's no posited mechanism for that. Mind, most "social housing" tenants (renters) seem to breed pretty well.

    What is the reason?

  245. • Replies: @Opinionator
    The NYM headline in that tweet:

    "How Steve Sailer went from pariah to prophet"
  246. @Jack D
    Yes, too optimistic. In the view of the left (and you can be assured that NY Magazine journalists belong to the left) there are only goodwhites and badwhites and they put Sailer in the badwhite category - if you are not with us, then you are against us. Given that, it was less of a hatchet job than I expected but I think the left is fearful now - they saw how well "let's insult white people until we shame them into agreeing with us" worked for Hillary.

    Given that, it was less of a hatchet job than I expected but I think the left is fearful now – they saw how well “let’s insult white people until we shame them into agreeing with us” worked for Hillary.

    Maybe they are starting to realize that the ol’ boot stamping on a human face forever might soon be on the other foot, which has implications for whose face gets stepped on.

  247. @Emblematic
    The average IQ of alt right people would be higher than mainstream conservatives. Writers like Gregory Hood from Radix, Greg Johnson from Counter Currents and some of the writers at The Right Stuff offer more insight and intellect than almost anything you'll find at dopey Conservatism Inc sites. And without the preciously nursed pretend-ignorance to the most consequential matters facing us.

    The alt right has it's trolls but also a lot former libertarians and mainstream conservatives who, being smarter than average, have seen through those scams and have seen what's coming, which is why they're alt right.

    Emblematic, An old shoulder injury and a touch of arthritis keeps me from patting my self on the back, otherwise your comment is good.

  248. Good work Sailer, hope the slight publicity helps you while you’re driving a crappy car home.

  249. @Barnard
    That they still regularly run columns from Jay Nordlinger and Mona Charen is baffling. David French absolutely embarrassed himself and National Review by seriously considering Bill Kristol's efforts to get him to run for President. Most of their contributors wanted him to run and ended up endorsing Evan McMullin. Charles CW Cooke has made a mess of their website as it's editor. He also doesn't seem to hold many conservative positions, other than being an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment.

    Somehow, they just hired Michael Brendan Dougherty from The Week. His views don't seem to mesh well with most of their staff. I wonder if they are trying to drum up some faux internal controversies to drive page views.

    Somehow, they just hired Michael Brendan Dougherty from The Week.

    They’re trying to move downmarket to appeal to Trump supporters. (Dougherty’s Irish).

    Their take, in both cases, not mine.

  250. @Daniel Chieh
    You're missing that in the end, he's still the best choice. The Democrats will inevitably run a full scale liberal alternative which means that even if Trump mostly goes against his promises, he will still be a less complete disaster.

    At this point, I would vote for a "full fash" candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0. That's just how intolerable the social liberals have gotten.

    “At this point, I would vote for a “full fash” candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0.”

    Allow yourself to be murdered, including your wife and offspring, just to ensure an “intolerable social liberal” would not get elected? That is absolutely insane.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Yup, this is just how much people like you piss me off.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Corvinus:

    Ya gotta be kidding! Obviously "eliminate" in this context is removal from the continental US.

    And from Mr Chieh's commentary history, he and his family's removal would be a loss to our country.

    , @Hunsdon
    Well, you know how politicians' promises are, Corvy.
  251. @Opinionator
    Churchill believed that Robert E. Lee was a great man.

    Opi, I have the four volume biography of Robert E. Lee by
    Douglas Southall Freeman. Lee comes across as a man of high character with a soul.

  252. Shoutout with the usual disclaimer. Hard to teach an old wuss new tricks.

    I’d bet if put to it Murray couldn’t name three major issues where he and Sailer aren’t on the same page.

    • Replies: @timothy
    > Charles Murray

    > "an old wuss"

    GTFO

    Do you know how ridiculous that sounds, ANON?
  253. @Jack D
    Originally it was the Sunday magazine of the NY Herald Tribune newspaper but when the Herald-Tribune (the last broadsheet competitor to the NY Times) went under Clay Felker bought the rights to the name. Felker was also connected to the Village Voice at one point but both publications have changed hands a number of times. I think the current owner of NY Mag is the financier Bruce Wasserstein.

    Probably by Wasserstein’s estate as he died in 2009.

  254. @Opinionator
    With any golfer one meets, don't miss the opportunity of, "Oh, have you read Steve Sailer on golf course architecture?"

    Opi, If iSteve was a magazine the centerfold would be of famous holes at notable golf courses and your wife would come running over to see what you are ogling after you muttered …” Oh, would I love to play around there.”

  255. Steve, now that the Eye of the Left is on you, beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it’s full force.

    The Left has converged Fox News and taken scalps and is currently destroying the network, they are pulling Alinksy tactics. It went after Milo and slowed his momentum way down. I strongly suspect you’re on their hit list. Make sure Ron Unz has your back and is prepared for the onslaught.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it’s full force
     
    If it dares, this will be it's fate:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vry0ijbJVE

    They've not had to contend with the likes of Sailer.
    , @Dan Hayes
    whorefinder:

    Don't worry about Ron. By his past record of establishing and nurturing this web site he has been shown to be impervious to the wiles of the "good thinking" crowd and will not back down!

    , @Anonym
    Steve, now that the Eye of the Left is on you, beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it’s full force.

    Exactly what are they going to do? Drive traffic towards him so that he starts earning Coulter money? Oh no, please don't throw Steve into that Briar patch!

    BTW Here is one other concept that Steve has helped to bring back to the discourse - noblesse oblige - the concept that the rich and powerful should use some of that power to do things in the interests of the rank and file in their nation. And at the very least, not sell them out.

    There are lots of little concepts as well, such as the exception that proves the rule.
  256. Finally read the piece. If “Sailer’s views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion,” the author must be living in one of those alternate timelines I keep reading about.

  257. @Sean
    Nixon did absolutely nothing against busing, affirmative action or any other policy impacting on white communities the South or elsewhere. In fact Nixon often expanded those programs.

    Whites went to the Republicans simply because the Democrats were so antagonistic to white Southerners (and not just Southerners) that there was nowhere else to go but the Republicans, because the Democrats acted as if whites were venal (greedy as you put it).

    “Nixon did absolutely nothing against busing, affirmative action or any other policy impacting on white communities the South or elsewhere. In fact Nixon often expanded those programs.”

    Those programs were already required by past legislation, with Nixon enforcing the law of the land and executive orders of past presidents. However, how that legislation would be implemented and at what “deliberate speed” was left up to the states.

    “Whites went to the Republicans simply because the Democrats were so antagonistic to white Southerners (and not just Southerners) that there was nowhere else to go but the Republicans, because the Democrats acted as if whites were venal (greedy as you put it).”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.

    • Replies: @Sean

    Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.
     
    After Nixons time those things. The pro military stance was about the only Republican thing that appealed, and again that was really because the Democrats had moved away from traditional strong defence. I think Nixon got a windfall, it was not the result of any strategy by him' and nothing about his policies actually catered to whites as such. He didn't and didn't have to for politcal reasons,, but the evidence doesn't suggest he was personally 100% in favour of busing ect..
  258. “Subliminal” here means: Everybody reads Steve, but few quote him publicly.

  259. @lavoisier
    Congratulations Steve. You have finally made the big time.

    I always thought of you as a serious thinker, and the more you were thought of as a hateful extremist the more I admired your courage for presenting information that in hindsight was obvious but would take a man of courage to report.

    But you will have not made it completely until you win the genius award currently held by genius Coates. At that time you will cease to be relevant to original and creative thought.

    May you forever dwell in obscurity.

    lav, Maybe if some old white woman had pushed Steve’s rabbit on the escalator and Steve had written a book about it he would have some standing with the SJWs.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    Lol! I always enjoy your comments but you are really on a roll here.
  260. IBC says:

    Steve, I thought that piece in NY Mag was relatively fair. There definitely is a fundamental “inconvenient truth” aspect to your worldview, but at least you’re honest about your reasoning and preferences. All serious journalists and political advisors with good critical thinking skills and self-esteem, should be reading and reflecting on your work, whether they agree with you or not. Thanks for choosing to work outside the Narrative and standing up for public reason and moderation. Keep up the good work!

  261. @Art Deco
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations–which typically harm this group.

    Corvinus, there was no Southern Strategy as the term is commonly used. The term is a shorthand for a self-aggrandizing political/historical myth which partisan Democrats have peddled for decades, among the Paul Krugman, who was alive at the time and does not have any excuse for not knowing it's tripe. Another peddler is Thomas Sieger Derr, who was a voting adult at the time but could not and cannot tell the difference between Richard Nixon and his own inane caricatures of Richard Nixon.

    Garry Wills and Joe McGinnis covering the 1968 election campaign (and composing books on it which appeared in 1969/70) interviewed Kevin Phillips, then a Republican and a number cruncher for the Nixon campaign. Phillips discussed in descriptive terms the shifts which were taking place in electoral preferences in the South (which were manifest as early as 1952) and the implications for Republican advertising campaigns. Specifically, there wasn't much point in pursuing core city electorates when Southern votes were up for grabs. The advertising campaigns actually used in the South consisted of Roy Acuff and others singing boilerplate country and western ditties ("Yes! We can bring our country back but it's up to everyone. This time this time with leadership from Richard M. Nixon"). and some issue ads featuring Strom Thurmond. You can look here for examples of Mr. Nixon's national advertising. It's pretty unremarkable:

    http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

    The film treatments are reproduced in McGinnis' The Selling of the President, 1968.


    If segregationists were expecting something out of Richard Nixon, they got nothing. There was no reason to expect anything. Nixon wasn't personally invested in segregation and had never been antagonistic to the interests of blacks qua blacks during his political career. Spiro Agnew had once given an assemblage of black politicians a dressing down for temporizing about law and order during a series of riots, but otherwise he was a Rockefeller Republican to the extent he wasn't governed by careerism. And, of course, they got nothing out of any of Mr. Nixon's successors.

    The Democrats lost the South because of generational change (each succeeding cohort had fewer and fewer people who would vote Democratic just because) and because once the segregationist program had been defeated, there was no particular reason to vote for people whose appeal was predicated (to a great extent) on seniority which could be used to occupy gatekeeper positions and protect Southern interests. White Southern votes were then redistributed between the parties according to the various and sundry concerns and impulses people had apart from segregation.

    “Corvinus, there was no Southern Strategy as the term is commonly used.”

    Patently false. Refer to the 1981 interview, later published in the 1990’s, by Republican strategist Lee Atwater, who openly admitted how the GOP implemented it.

    “If segregationists were expecting something out of Richard Nixon, they got nothing.”

    No, white southerners were expecting a “friend” in the White House to slow down the process. Now while it is true that Nixon enforced Civil Rights legislation under his “law and order” pledge, he was other than an activist compared to his Democrat predecessors.

    “The Democrats lost the South because of generational change (each succeeding cohort had fewer and fewer people who would vote Democratic just because)…”

    Any documentation here?

    “and because once the segregationist program had been defeated, there was no particular reason to vote for people whose appeal was predicated (to a great extent) on seniority which could be used to occupy gatekeeper positions and protect Southern interests.”

    The Republicans intelligently focused on issues like pro-family, pro-gun, and anti-homo, along with slow integration, that conservative Democrats here found attractive.

    “The only unions the Republican Party ever ‘busted’ were PATCO and the collection of public sector unions representing Wisconsin state workers. PATCO was so far out on a limb the other public sector unions were fairly circumspect and decidedly unmilitant about the whole mess. As for the Wisconsin state employees, the unions were ‘busted’ by the simple expedient of ending the payment of union dues through withholdings.”

    Under the Reagan Administration, the National Labor Relations Board generally sat on the sidelines. His die-hard team consisted of individuals who were other than interested in investigating union accusations of employer malfeasance. NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson once declared that “unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once healthy industries”. In eight years, it settled half of the complaints unions had made, with longer wait times on hearing and ruling on said complaints, regarding the illegal firing of union members and the hampering of union organizing efforts. During this same time frame, corporation lobbying focused on strictly limiting union activities, in particular in being able to replace employees who exercised their legal right to strike. Busting unions took on a more sophisticated effort.

  262. @Fredrik

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion. Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.
     
    The writer doesn't tell me why this should be avoided.

    I don't think this biography was that bad. If anything it will draw new readers.

    “Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion.”

    I always thought Steve will inevitably be best-known for his observations on golf course design.

    • Replies: @anon
    I know, rite? This article's clearly a total hatchet job since it ignores his most important work!
  263. @whorefinder
    Steve, now that the Eye of the Left is on you, beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it's full force.

    The Left has converged Fox News and taken scalps and is currently destroying the network, they are pulling Alinksy tactics. It went after Milo and slowed his momentum way down. I strongly suspect you're on their hit list. Make sure Ron Unz has your back and is prepared for the onslaught.

    beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it’s full force

    If it dares, this will be it’s fate:

    They’ve not had to contend with the likes of Sailer.

  264. @Barnard
    Noah Millman outs himself as a reader of this blog. Doesn't seem like those of us in the comment section though. I wonder if he thinks anyone on the left is "poorly served by his own fan base?" Who needs enemies when you have friends like The American Conservative.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/steve-sailers-moment/

    Millman performing gatekeeper tactics there.

  265. @Charles Pewitt
    https://twitter.com/NYMag/status/859152907119321091

    The NYM headline in that tweet:

    “How Steve Sailer went from pariah to prophet”

  266. @Auntie Analogue

    "Effectuating this philosophy — putting 'Americans First,' as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels."

     

    Draconian is a word chained to punishment, not to immigration policy. How reducing immigration amounts to punishment of foreigners - punishment of citizens of other countries, Messrs. MacDougal and Willick do not deign to tell us. Might those two men be fervent advocates of The Zeroth Amendment?

    Bingo!

  267. “In all things preserve integrity; and the consciousness of thine own uprightness will alleviate the toil of business, soften the hardness of ill-success and disappointments, and give thee humble confidence before God, when the ingratitude of man, or the iniquity of the times may rob thee of other reward.”

    – William Paley

  268. @Desiderius

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn’t get the level of recognition he deserves.
     
    Par for the course for +3 SDs. What did you expect?

    +3 SDs are always more Merlin than Arthur, Mithrandir than Elessar. It's the nature of the species.

    Heinrich Heine writes, that Hegel is said to have whispered on his death bed: “There’s only one, who did understand what I was at – but he, too, didn’t quite get it.”

    It’s a year now, that I regularly read this blog. I have the impression, our host loves what he’s doing – and he’s doing it in a way, that still makes me laugh, literally, or smile, too – in pure admiration, and joy too, every now and then.

    If I can put it the way I’m used to, I’d say: Nothing sad here at all – quite the contrary.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  269. @whorefinder
    Steve, now that the Eye of the Left is on you, beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it's full force.

    The Left has converged Fox News and taken scalps and is currently destroying the network, they are pulling Alinksy tactics. It went after Milo and slowed his momentum way down. I strongly suspect you're on their hit list. Make sure Ron Unz has your back and is prepared for the onslaught.

    whorefinder:

    Don’t worry about Ron. By his past record of establishing and nurturing this web site he has been shown to be impervious to the wiles of the “good thinking” crowd and will not back down!

  270. @I, Mudd
    "Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion."

    I always thought Steve will inevitably be best-known for his observations on golf course design.

    I know, rite? This article’s clearly a total hatchet job since it ignores his most important work!

  271. Well-earned acknowledgement, which should lead to a wider audience. More opportunities to expand noticing! More birdies leading to eagles.

  272. “Affordable Family Formation” (AFF) is a nice slogan but a slogan is like a pancreas.

    One wouldn’t expect New York Magazine to get to the real nitty gritty of Sailer’s contributions. It’s actually rather surprising that they linked to the article by Brooks and even Brooks failed to get into the nitty gritty. But this is only surprising because none of these effete elites are worth the pixels their words are rendered on. Suffice to say: When Sailer came up with AFF he found what may be the single most important discovery in the social sciences directly relevant to electoral politics:

    The coefficient of determination between States voting Republican and white fertility & years married (aka AFF) is 88%. It may not be practical to find a stronger* predictive measure in the social sciences that is non-trivial (trivial example: HIV positive and AIDS prevalence per capita).

    This is such a big deal that no one in the social sciences or in the Washington DC think tanks would touch it with a ten foot pole. It would upset _way_ too many apple carts — not the least of which is Conservatism, Inc.’s commitment to replacing their own voting base with immigrant labor.

    Not even Karl Rove’s fanboys, at the height of their delirium could expect that travesty of a wunderkind to come up with a Republican voting predictor with a coefficient of determination of 88% — let alone one that could be affected by public policy — let alone one that Republican political consultants like Rove had done everything in their power to push in the “Vote Democrat” direction.

    I’m actually kind of surprised Steve doesn’t beat people over the head with this number more often.

    In any event Steve’s readers should do that wet work for him every chance they get.

    Here’s the link (again).

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/affordable-family-formation-the-neglected-key-to-gops-future

    *I assert this based on data-dredging hundreds of demographic variables at the level of State ecology to see how Steve’s predictor came out even when cheating against it (data-dredging is cheating). Even then, AFF came out close to the top. I was sorely impressed.

    • Replies: @anon
    yes - security and AFF are political economy in a nutshell
  273. @Georgina
    I could not disagree more. He looks very handsome in the picture. Let's just hope he does not forget us now that he is famous.

    The gloomy (or pensive) Germanic look, according to your taste or perception, is much less pronounced in the dead tree edition of the magazine : for Steve’s lovely mug is there presented in a size that is less than that of a small postage stamp, positively microscopic in all its Lilliputian aspects and, as we all know, Steve is a big guy.

    New York magazine is hard Left. Its editors will strain, to the point of a hernia, to make someone on the Right look bad.

  274. Thoughtful
    Well-admired
    Influential
    ——————-
    Pick two

  275. @Auntie Analogue

    "Effectuating this philosophy — putting 'Americans First,' as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels."

     

    Draconian is a word chained to punishment, not to immigration policy. How reducing immigration amounts to punishment of foreigners - punishment of citizens of other countries, Messrs. MacDougal and Willick do not deign to tell us. Might those two men be fervent advocates of The Zeroth Amendment?

    Bingo
    !The simple message that needs to be hammered home is this:
    Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

    Since I left Sodom on Hudson, both places I’ve lived are within 5 miles of a Money in the Jar vegetable stand.
    This was not accidental.
    Outside of those founded by Northwestern Europeans (Primarily British) there are no other societies with that level of inate trust.

    • Replies: @European-American
    I think money-in-the-jar fruit and vegetable stands are common in Switzerland, I saw one or two outside Zurich. And many years ago I was awed by the newspaper dispensers in Geneva where you just help yourself without a locking mechanism to ensure you put in the coin.

    Just to say that "northwestern European" is a little too restrictive, and, shall we say, self-serving? Especially the "primarily British" part, haha. East Asians might also politely question placing the Brits at the apex of civilized behavior rotfl.

  276. @Corvinus
    "At this point, I would vote for a “full fash” candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0."

    Allow yourself to be murdered, including your wife and offspring, just to ensure an "intolerable social liberal" would not get elected? That is absolutely insane.

    Yup, this is just how much people like you piss me off.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    LOL (@ both your comments)
  277. “the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration”

    Always found it odd that campaigning for black or Hispanic votes is never portrayed as “divisive.”

  278. HA says:
    @Ed

    His record contains ample reasons to question the rather innocent description of his politics. In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”
     
    So when one watched the civilizational collapse during Katrina, the post-Ferguson effects in cities like Baltimore or Chicago or even the last few decades of cultural deterioration among poor blacks, what do they think caused it if not what Steve says? The quoted comment seems like a reasonable foundation to the issue of African-American inequality & saving black lives.

    Oh and congrats Steve!

    Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.”

    As a reminder, here’s an example of how a liberal gets away with saying the exact same thing that Steve did:

    LARRY WILMORE: Who’s taking out loans that skyrocket the minute you sign them? [sheepishly points 2 thumbs to himself]

    …Where my sub-primers at? Can a sub-primer get a table dance?

    …Subprimes…the menthol cigarettes of loans (but unlike menthol cigarettes, these loans have a downside)…

    […cut to refinancing ads featuring blingy toys and a hip-hop jingle…]

    In other words, Steve simply forgot to slap on a sentence or two explaining how the white banking establishment (and don’t anyone get any ideas — I specifically said WHITE banking establishment) deviously exploits any such lack of native judgment and impulse control, and he also forgot to suggest that this is all just a grand psych-out by which wily black folk are once again able to stick it to the man. (To be fair, Steve repeatedly did all that in his numerous posts slamming Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide but really, you’ve got to follow through right away when it comes to blaming everything on the man, not save it for another post.)

    Oh yeah, and Steve also forgot about not being black. He’ll have to fix that, too, if he wants to get away with saying stuff like that.

  279. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/858981499781218305

    Shoutout with the usual disclaimer. Hard to teach an old wuss new tricks.

    I'd bet if put to it Murray couldn't name three major issues where he and Sailer aren't on the same page.

    > Charles Murray

    > “an old wuss”

    GTFO

    Do you know how ridiculous that sounds, ANON?

  280. Congratulations, Mr. Sailer, for this very fine recognition in the mainstream media.

    I was surprised by, setting aside the usual caveats, how even-handed this treatment was. It actually acknowledged that you were a citizenist rather than a white supremacist or some sort of an unhinged racist.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    It actually acknowledged that you were a citizenist rather than a white supremacist or some sort of an unhinged racist.
     
    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.

    The balanced NY Mag article described Steve’s citizenism concept in good faith, but it certainly did not absolve him of racism—of which even the slightest amount, no matter how empirically based—is officially and by decree unhinged.
  281. My dear Mr. Sailer, congratulations. As the article cannot help saying, you got covered not by your know-who but by sheer solid argument. It doesn’t mention your sense of humor though, which is a shame.

    Now, I know men boldly walk where we women fear to tread, but have you got a media advisor?

    Depending, I think, on the fortunes of the Trump admin, you might get more coverage. Have you thought of writing up talking points about yourself? Offensive, defensive and deflective?

    Hombre preparado vale por dos.

  282. @BB753
    Steve Hanson, I think you ought to acknowledge that you were wrong in the recent past, mocking everybody who said Steve Sailer was very influential.

    Congratulations, Steve! I hope donations start flying your way!

    Hahhaha you wish. Everything I said about the back patting tendency of commenters here and the Secret Masters of Politics nonsense still stands.

    I’ve been written up in TakiMag. It doesn’t make me a fucking personage.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Ok, please provide a link to Takimag.
  283. @Desiderius

    This is probably the prelude to the Eye of Soros sweeping in on you.
     
    I should hope so.

    How else will Frodo get to Mt. Doom undetected?

    Is that how it works? I thought it was just the prelude to an Emmanuel Goldstein style 3 minute hate with real life consequences.

    Who was Frodo when Darren Wilson became unemployable? Just to keep track of one out of many examples.

  284. Anonymous [AKA "Joe145"] says:

    “With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response.”

    ^ this

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Cite?
  285. Identity politics as it is labeled here is the bifurcation of the entire world into 2 primary classes, victim and oppressor.

    Identity politics also designates the victim class as being good, and the oppressor class as being bad.

    White working people are not necessarily the victim or oppressor class.

    White working people are the victim class if they have at least one of these adjectives applied to their white and working status:

    Jewish
    Queer
    Disabled
    Female
    Hispanic
    Muslim
    Veteran
    Zionist

    White working people are the oppressor class if they have at least three of these adjectives applied to their white and working status:

    Male
    Straight
    Christian
    Anti-Zionist

  286. I’m surprised more reporters haven’t done iSteve profiles. I expected a lot of them after the Trump election, but they did not happen, and this is puzzling to me. I presume Steve isn’t out maximizing interviews. Even the NY profile here has only about two oral sentences actually attributed to Steve.

    What’s the story? Minimizing media interviews or what?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe the explanation is that people in the mainstream media who actually know who Steve is find that they are actually somewhat sympathetic. I started reading around four or five years ago when I certainly considered myself a leftist (and even a far leftist, but a far leftist with certain very right wing views). Now I consider myself something of a rightist, but with some very left wing views. But what kept me reading was that I actually found things interesting here, and things that were not being discussed in the official media or academia. It took me around a year of sporadic reading, maybe, before I realized that I wasn't just "slumming it" here, but that I was actually reading this because I respected what was being said, and found it illuminating. I suspect that people with the power to order profiles come to realize that Steve is a thoughtful guy (no matter what "official" views they proclaim) and they don't want to do a hit job, but they also realize that it is not acceptable to do an overly friendly profile. So it doesn't get done.

    Anyway, the NY Mag profile was better than expected. Congrats to Steve.

    If Mark Zuckerberg is really running for president, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he's a reader. Really. OK, I'm lying. I'd be very slightly surprised that I called it. (Hi, Mark.)
  287. Good deal, Steve! I read your post early this morning, but without time to comment. After reading through 283 comments here, I can’t add much.

    I may have not mentioned before that my favorite part of your writing is the snarky lines (is that a combo of snotty/sarcastic? I dunno, but I like it!). I hope this article brings an order of magnitude more readers to your opinions (well, the truth, really), but I sure hope to not see a bunch of left-wing idiot commenters that ruin this part of my enjoyment of the unz site.

  288. @Dennis Dale
    Begrudging respect, and the pointing/sputtering is relatively mild, but the bar is pretty low. Still objectively shitty treatment. There's something in there about "critics" (not experts in the relevant fields) finding your work "pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst", which doesn't make sense a couple of ways.'
    And like somebody said above, they should have mentioned Affordable Family Formation.

    But still, this is exciting. Let's get Sailer a speaking gig at Berkeley. It'll be lit.

    But still, this is exciting. Let’s get Sailer a speaking gig at Berkeley. It’ll be lit.

    No.

    I already fear for his life. The Democrats murdered the DNC leaker Seth Rich. You amplify the problem by sending Steve to stick his head in the lion’s mouth, after having repeatedly, and with great force, kicked that lion in the swinging jewels for about a quarter century now.

    Do not tempt the Fates Steve. And keep that life insurance policy paid up!

  289. @Stan Adams
    A liberal is someone who believes that you can make blacks into Asians by closing your eyes, clicking the heels of your magic shoes together three times, and chanting, "The gap is a myth ... the gap is a myth ... the gap is a myth" until the sun goes supernova.

    This progressive nuttiness over the power of positive thinking brings to mind Jared Lee Loughner - the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had some crackpot theory that if a) everything is made of thoughts, and b) thoughts are made of words, then c) everything is a bunch of words floating around in our heads. Words are like atoms - the building blocks of reality. Words make worlds. Wordsmiths are worldlords.

    Or something like that - his rantings are hard to follow. He is a madman, after all. (He's also half-tribe, if anyone cares.)

    He once went to a Giffords rally and asked her, "What is government if words have no meaning?" She didn't know what the hell he was talking about and politely blew him off. He took it badly. Thus, she ended up with bullets in her head.

    Loughner also had a bug up his butt about how money is useless paper whose worth is controlled by the government.

    Loughner also had a bug up his butt about how money is useless paper whose worth is controlled by the government.

    How is this part crazy, Stan? The rest of what you wrote about this guy is pretty out-there, but yes, money currency like the US dollar is just paper whose worth is controlled by the Feral Government (OK, the Federal Reserve bank is not officially part of the US government).

    The “useless” part will come in due time, and it won’t be a good time for most of us.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Oh, I agree. But the problem is that my description of my interpretation of his ramblings is semi-coherent, while his writing is ... not. I'm not entirely certain that I understand precisely what he's trying to say.

    Behold the inner workings of the Loughnerian mind:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE3kikVbaeI

    If you can make heads or tails out of that, then you are either smarter than me or crazier than me, or both.

    For reasons that I won't go into here, I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the phenomenon of spree killing. Suffice it to say that, even among the whackjobs, Loughner is a veritable loon.

    Richard McBeef, scripted by Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), is orders of magnitude more comprehensible than even the most lucid of Jared's currency treatises:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9dMiLE-DLQ
  290. @Daniel Chieh
    Yup, this is just how much people like you piss me off.

    LOL (@ both your comments)

  291. @Corvinus
    "At this point, I would vote for a “full fash” candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0."

    Allow yourself to be murdered, including your wife and offspring, just to ensure an "intolerable social liberal" would not get elected? That is absolutely insane.

    Corvinus:

    Ya gotta be kidding! Obviously “eliminate” in this context is removal from the continental US.

    And from Mr Chieh’s commentary history, he and his family’s removal would be a loss to our country.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Ya gotta be kidding! Obviously “eliminate” in this context is removal from the continental US."

    "Full fash", is that not in reference to "full fascism"? Do not fascists generally seek to "eliminate" their rivals by killing them?

    "And from Mr Chieh’s commentary history, he and his family’s removal would be a loss to our country."

    Did his ancestors not immigrate here from an "undesirable" nation? Is he not in essence an invader? Why are you defending someone who is other than white?
  292. @James Bowery
    "Affordable Family Formation" (AFF) is a nice slogan but a slogan is like a pancreas.

    One wouldn't expect New York Magazine to get to the real nitty gritty of Sailer's contributions. It's actually rather surprising that they linked to the article by Brooks and even Brooks failed to get into the nitty gritty. But this is only surprising because none of these effete elites are worth the pixels their words are rendered on. Suffice to say: When Sailer came up with AFF he found what may be the single most important discovery in the social sciences directly relevant to electoral politics:

    The coefficient of determination between States voting Republican and white fertility & years married (aka AFF) is 88%. It may not be practical to find a stronger* predictive measure in the social sciences that is non-trivial (trivial example: HIV positive and AIDS prevalence per capita).

    This is such a big deal that no one in the social sciences or in the Washington DC think tanks would touch it with a ten foot pole. It would upset _way_ too many apple carts -- not the least of which is Conservatism, Inc.'s commitment to replacing their own voting base with immigrant labor.

    Not even Karl Rove's fanboys, at the height of their delirium could expect that travesty of a wunderkind to come up with a Republican voting predictor with a coefficient of determination of 88% -- let alone one that could be affected by public policy -- let alone one that Republican political consultants like Rove had done everything in their power to push in the "Vote Democrat" direction.

    I'm actually kind of surprised Steve doesn't beat people over the head with this number more often.

    In any event Steve's readers should do that wet work for him every chance they get.

    Here's the link (again).

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/affordable-family-formation-the-neglected-key-to-gops-future

    *I assert this based on data-dredging hundreds of demographic variables at the level of State ecology to see how Steve's predictor came out even when cheating against it (data-dredging is cheating). Even then, AFF came out close to the top. I was sorely impressed.

    yes – security and AFF are political economy in a nutshell

  293. jJay says:

    I read the comments to NY Mag article. Most are OK. On the other side, this one sticks out:

    And it is silly to say people find fulfillment by living in extended families otherwise America would have never come about. Virtually all of my ancestors who came to America came ALONE, except my great, great grandfather who came here with his brother.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Virtually all of my ancestors who came to America came ALONE, except my great, great grandfather who came here with his brother.

    Those were the days.
  294. @Anonymous
    "With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response."


    ^ this

    Cite?

    • Replies: @European-American

    “With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response.”

    ^ this

    Cite?
     

    Comment 20 by Anonym in this same post
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/ny-mag-the-man-who-invented-identity-politics-for-the-new-right/#comment-1855439
  295. @jJay
    I read the comments to NY Mag article. Most are OK. On the other side, this one sticks out:

    And it is silly to say people find fulfillment by living in extended families otherwise America would have never come about. Virtually all of my ancestors who came to America came ALONE, except my great, great grandfather who came here with his brother.

    Virtually all of my ancestors who came to America came ALONE, except my great, great grandfather who came here with his brother.

    Those were the days.

  296. @J1234

    As for the title, “The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right,”...My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.
     
    Can we just call you "TMWIIPFTNR" instead? It kind of rolls off the tongue.

    My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.

    God forbid we foresee and avoid this situation to start with. Because obviously that’s just crazy talk!

  297. @Anatoly Karlin

    AltRabbi Retweeted Charles Murray
    I'm always surprised at how many in the alt/new right are mostly unfamiliar with @Steve_Sailer who invented most of the language they employ
     
    Personally, no surprise there. Sailer's IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter's.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn't get the level of recognition he deserves.

    Sailer’s IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter’s.

    So about 160 then? Could be.

  298. Congratulations, of sorts, Mr. Sailer.

  299. I think Sailer’s BIG DAY was when he came up with the Bush-has-a-higher-IQ-than-Kerry article in Vdare and they had on NBC News Tom Brokaw questioning Kerry about that. That was proof that MSM does read Vdare and Sailer and they just don’t want people knowing about them. Funny thing though, I was reading the NYT once and an article referred to Vdare as a “popular” site.

  300. @Art Deco
    The Sailer strategy is an offshoot of the Southern Strategy as implemented by the Nixon Administration. The observable flaw in the GOP chasing white working class voters is that this political party tends to bust unions, lower business taxes, and ease regulations–which typically harm this group.

    Corvinus, there was no Southern Strategy as the term is commonly used. The term is a shorthand for a self-aggrandizing political/historical myth which partisan Democrats have peddled for decades, among the Paul Krugman, who was alive at the time and does not have any excuse for not knowing it's tripe. Another peddler is Thomas Sieger Derr, who was a voting adult at the time but could not and cannot tell the difference between Richard Nixon and his own inane caricatures of Richard Nixon.

    Garry Wills and Joe McGinnis covering the 1968 election campaign (and composing books on it which appeared in 1969/70) interviewed Kevin Phillips, then a Republican and a number cruncher for the Nixon campaign. Phillips discussed in descriptive terms the shifts which were taking place in electoral preferences in the South (which were manifest as early as 1952) and the implications for Republican advertising campaigns. Specifically, there wasn't much point in pursuing core city electorates when Southern votes were up for grabs. The advertising campaigns actually used in the South consisted of Roy Acuff and others singing boilerplate country and western ditties ("Yes! We can bring our country back but it's up to everyone. This time this time with leadership from Richard M. Nixon"). and some issue ads featuring Strom Thurmond. You can look here for examples of Mr. Nixon's national advertising. It's pretty unremarkable:

    http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

    The film treatments are reproduced in McGinnis' The Selling of the President, 1968.


    If segregationists were expecting something out of Richard Nixon, they got nothing. There was no reason to expect anything. Nixon wasn't personally invested in segregation and had never been antagonistic to the interests of blacks qua blacks during his political career. Spiro Agnew had once given an assemblage of black politicians a dressing down for temporizing about law and order during a series of riots, but otherwise he was a Rockefeller Republican to the extent he wasn't governed by careerism. And, of course, they got nothing out of any of Mr. Nixon's successors.

    The Democrats lost the South because of generational change (each succeeding cohort had fewer and fewer people who would vote Democratic just because) and because once the segregationist program had been defeated, there was no particular reason to vote for people whose appeal was predicated (to a great extent) on seniority which could be used to occupy gatekeeper positions and protect Southern interests. White Southern votes were then redistributed between the parties according to the various and sundry concerns and impulses people had apart from segregation.

    A good summary. The South disliked the “National Democratic Party” for various reasons apart from race.

  301. @Clyde
    Yikes Steve! That relic Malcolm Gladwell is so so envious! Of your extravagant NY Magazine mention. John Derbyshire of Long Island, NY feels neglected too! What is The Derb? Chopped liver? (that's how they tawk in Nu Yawk)

    What is The Derb? Chopped liver?

    Bubble and squeak!

  302. It’s been a source of confusion to some actually on the right why nobody is talking about the Steve Sailer elephant in the room over the last 15 months or so.
    They put Richard Spencer on the TV machine to horrify old ladies in Florida, but nary a mention for the fellow whose ideas actually are dangerous. Because unlike Spencer, Sailer don’t scare the normies, and his ideas actually make perfect sense.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Sailer don’t scare the normies,
     
    which is why the Left isn't interested.

    and his ideas actually make perfect sense
     
    which is why the Right isn't.

    Steve is not personally of the Right.
  303. @Twinkie
    Congratulations, Mr. Sailer, for this very fine recognition in the mainstream media.

    I was surprised by, setting aside the usual caveats, how even-handed this treatment was. It actually acknowledged that you were a citizenist rather than a white supremacist or some sort of an unhinged racist.

    It actually acknowledged that you were a citizenist rather than a white supremacist or some sort of an unhinged racist.

    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.

    The balanced NY Mag article described Steve’s citizenism concept in good faith, but it certainly did not absolve him of racism—of which even the slightest amount, no matter how empirically based—is officially and by decree unhinged.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    but it certainly did not absolve him of racism
     
    Hence "the usual caveats."

    of which even the slightest amount, no matter how empirically based—is officially and by decree unhinged.
     
    Well, it's MY definition of unhinged, not theirs. I draw the line on people who believe in exclusion of their fellow citizens (of different races) by force, rather than voluntary association.
    , @Twinkie

    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.
     
    You confuse white majoritarianism with white supremacism. You can't believe in citizenism while being a white supremacist. Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow - existing - citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    White majoritarianism - the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture - is compatible with citizenism.
  304. @Peripatetic commenter
    Can we expect Wikipedia to update its entry on Steve Sailer or does Infogalactic have to do the real work?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer

    Well, the Infogalactic article has been updated to reflect some of the new stuff:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer

    In a hit-piece published in the New York Magazine, the mainstream media finally recognized Sailer as a legitimate alt-right intellectual. They actually quote Sailer’s views while at the same time labeling it as reactionary:

    Perhaps the Sailerist idea most closely echoed by the Trump movement is “citizenism,” which he describes as the philosophy that a nation should give overwhelming preference to the interests of its current citizens over foreigners, in the same way as a corporation prioritizes the interests of its current shareholders over everyone else.
    — Park MacDougald and Jason Willick, New York Magazine

  305. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    It actually acknowledged that you were a citizenist rather than a white supremacist or some sort of an unhinged racist.
     
    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.

    The balanced NY Mag article described Steve’s citizenism concept in good faith, but it certainly did not absolve him of racism—of which even the slightest amount, no matter how empirically based—is officially and by decree unhinged.

    but it certainly did not absolve him of racism

    Hence “the usual caveats.”

    of which even the slightest amount, no matter how empirically based—is officially and by decree unhinged.

    Well, it’s MY definition of unhinged, not theirs. I draw the line on people who believe in exclusion of their fellow citizens (of different races) by force, rather than voluntary association.

  306. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    It actually acknowledged that you were a citizenist rather than a white supremacist or some sort of an unhinged racist.
     
    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.

    The balanced NY Mag article described Steve’s citizenism concept in good faith, but it certainly did not absolve him of racism—of which even the slightest amount, no matter how empirically based—is officially and by decree unhinged.

    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.

    You confuse white majoritarianism with white supremacism. You can’t believe in citizenism while being a white supremacist. Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.
     
    I put “white supremacists” in scare quotes because the term is somewhat nebulous and often used in melodramatic boogeyman fashion by SJWs (not that you are an SJW, of course). My thoughts:

    One— the term “white supremacy” is literally redundant, in a racial hierarchical sense. I’m talking superiority of cultural and civilizational achievement/expression, phenotypes (#26), and temperaments. Some of these may be held in common with other races, but not the whole shebang. I concede one huge ‘inferior’ impulse—many whites have a newly evolved Darwinian liability: widespread out-group altruism and virtue-signaling pride which might bring it all to destruction.

    Two— “white supremacism” as it is used today. Classic white supremacism is as you described—de jure hegemonic elevation of whites over non-whites. In modern academic parlance, the definition is expanded to include anything that is perceived to give whites any positive consideration, even defensively. SJW ‘academics’ (and Ta-Nehisi Coates) may throw the phrase around with idiotic abandon, but I think there’s some merit in a nuanced concept of the term. One can be “white supremacist” in sentiment and personal choice without wanting to kill, enslave, banish, or create different classes of citizens.


    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.
     
    Sure, “white majoritarianism” (whatta mouthful!) is compatible with citizenism—but the former is itself a white supremacist sentiment and goal. One form of hegemony in a democracy is numbers, and if a racially identifiable group’s superior numbers and “cultural and civic traditions” should “predominate in the shared national culture,” well, that sounds a lot like de facto supremacy to me.

    Regarding immigration to America, the de facto “white supremacist” policy would be to basically end it, both the illegal and legal varieties (exceptions given to extraordinarily valuable individuals and their families). One may cite economic reasons for halting immigration, but these can be argued pro and con forever.

    Ultimately, for most people, white or otherwise, the real question is: Who do you want to see in your country, your cities, your towns? If, in the main, it’s white faces, you just may reckon whites to be supreme, you devil you.

  307. White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.

    The zeitgeist appears to be that anything short of black supremacism – including white majoritarianism – is white supremacism.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The zeitgeist appears to be that anything short of black supremacism – including white majoritarianism – is white supremacism.
     
    I was under the impression that I was carrying out a dialogue with someoen who is not of the said Zeitgeist.
  308. @Buffalo Joe
    lav, Maybe if some old white woman had pushed Steve's rabbit on the escalator and Steve had written a book about it he would have some standing with the SJWs.

    Lol! I always enjoy your comments but you are really on a roll here.

  309. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Boomstick
    I'm surprised more reporters haven't done iSteve profiles. I expected a lot of them after the Trump election, but they did not happen, and this is puzzling to me. I presume Steve isn't out maximizing interviews. Even the NY profile here has only about two oral sentences actually attributed to Steve.

    What's the story? Minimizing media interviews or what?

    Maybe the explanation is that people in the mainstream media who actually know who Steve is find that they are actually somewhat sympathetic. I started reading around four or five years ago when I certainly considered myself a leftist (and even a far leftist, but a far leftist with certain very right wing views). Now I consider myself something of a rightist, but with some very left wing views. But what kept me reading was that I actually found things interesting here, and things that were not being discussed in the official media or academia. It took me around a year of sporadic reading, maybe, before I realized that I wasn’t just “slumming it” here, but that I was actually reading this because I respected what was being said, and found it illuminating. I suspect that people with the power to order profiles come to realize that Steve is a thoughtful guy (no matter what “official” views they proclaim) and they don’t want to do a hit job, but they also realize that it is not acceptable to do an overly friendly profile. So it doesn’t get done.

    Anyway, the NY Mag profile was better than expected. Congrats to Steve.

    If Mark Zuckerberg is really running for president, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he’s a reader. Really. OK, I’m lying. I’d be very slightly surprised that I called it. (Hi, Mark.)

  310. @Achmed E. Newman

    Loughner also had a bug up his butt about how money is useless paper whose worth is controlled by the government.
     
    How is this part crazy, Stan? The rest of what you wrote about this guy is pretty out-there, but yes, money currency like the US dollar is just paper whose worth is controlled by the Feral Government (OK, the Federal Reserve bank is not officially part of the US government).

    The "useless" part will come in due time, and it won't be a good time for most of us.

    Oh, I agree. But the problem is that my description of my interpretation of his ramblings is semi-coherent, while his writing is … not. I’m not entirely certain that I understand precisely what he’s trying to say.

    Behold the inner workings of the Loughnerian mind:

    If you can make heads or tails out of that, then you are either smarter than me or crazier than me, or both.

    For reasons that I won’t go into here, I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the phenomenon of spree killing. Suffice it to say that, even among the whackjobs, Loughner is a veritable loon.

    Richard McBeef, scripted by Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), is orders of magnitude more comprehensible than even the most lucid of Jared’s currency treatises:

  311. @Scott Locklin
    It's been a source of confusion to some actually on the right why nobody is talking about the Steve Sailer elephant in the room over the last 15 months or so.
    They put Richard Spencer on the TV machine to horrify old ladies in Florida, but nary a mention for the fellow whose ideas actually are dangerous. Because unlike Spencer, Sailer don't scare the normies, and his ideas actually make perfect sense.

    Sailer don’t scare the normies,

    which is why the Left isn’t interested.

    and his ideas actually make perfect sense

    which is why the Right isn’t.

    Steve is not personally of the Right.

  312. Steve has had an international readership for some time, going back to his pre-Unz blog. His readership is more ideologically broad than the comments section would indicate, Tiny Duck aside. I know people who veer left or stand in the center on a number of issues who nevertheless read Steve regularly and not as a form of electronic water torture. Whether or not one agrees with Steve top-to-bottom, he makes valuable contributions.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Agreed. Steve has a wide readership politically. I'm closer to the socialist side of things and have been reading Steve for a decade now.
  313. The article was enjoyable. It mentioned many great phrases and concepts that Steve has published. There were maybe ten sentences of leftist dribble and apologetics.

    Pretty great photo!

  314. @Old fogey
    Too true. How it has come to pass that people nowadays put the 1950s down as some sort of evil age will never cease to amaze me.

    I was born in 1938 and graduated from college in 1959. The fifties were golden years full of confidence. We had defeated Germany and Japan in an ungodly war and were king of the hill.

    I was born in 1938 and graduated from college in 1959. The fifties were golden years full of confidence. We had defeated Germany and Japan in an ungodly war and were king of the hill.

    I can only connect to the 1950s through memories of my grandparents and some leftover artifacts of those times, most notably my grandmother’s 1959 Dodge convertible, which my father restored and kept in showroom condition. That car is the maximum utmost! Every chance I get I love to drive around in that car and listen to hit tunes from that era. They are funny, sweet, intensely romantic, silly…but always “up” somehow.
    Everyone seemed to be having so much fun and enjoying life without a care.
    How could you not be happy driving around on a warm summer night with the top down and listening to “Kookie, Lend Me Your Comb,” “Pink Shoe Laces,” “Tallahassee Lassie,” “Sea Cruise,” “Along Came Jones,” … not to mention the most beautiful, sincere pop love ballads there may have ever been.
    You were so lucky to have been a young adult in that era.

  315. @Opinionator
    Thank you for the interesting response and perspective. Are counter arguments to anti-Whitism and to anti-Gentilism allowed in the United States?

    Counterarguments are fine as long as you stay in the business world, or investment banking. As a white Christian in the US, I have never experienced anti-Whitism, anti-Gentilism or anti-Maleism. My colleagues have been 95% white men, the C-suite executives I have worked with were 95% white men, and corporate lawyers seem to be 98% white, if only 60% male and not so Christian.

    Academia is the most obvious arena where white males are being pushed out, but I suspect over the long term the result is going to be, unfortunately, to discredit liberal arts and liberal arts institutions as places of serious thought and inquiry.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    My assessment of the prevalence of anti-Whitism and anti-Gentilism in the United States and of permissibility of counterarguments differs from your own. But I appreciate your response. Regards.
  316. @Hodag
    "But I only read Sailer for the golf course architecture" is the 21st century version of reading Playboy for the articles.

    I’m out of button uses at the moment, but that’s hilarious!

  317. @Daniel Chieh
    You're missing that in the end, he's still the best choice. The Democrats will inevitably run a full scale liberal alternative which means that even if Trump mostly goes against his promises, he will still be a less complete disaster.

    At this point, I would vote for a "full fash" candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0. That's just how intolerable the social liberals have gotten.

    One group Trump is not particularly interested in taking on is “social liberals”. He just doesn’t care very much, he is not a devout Christian, and grew up in New York, where social deviancy is a badge of honor.

    Trump does seem to be a real improvement on immigration, but the normalization of transgenderism, gay marriage, “empowerment of women”, all seems to be unchanged. I had kind of hoped Hillary’s overreach might provoke a backlash.

    The truth is that “social liberalism” seems to be based on much larger societal trends that probably can’t be changed by a conservative President. How is it that the societal acceptance of the gay rights movement made more progress under Reagan than under any previous Democratic President? Even Obama did not come into office promising gay marriage, he was following the wave, not leading.

  318. @5371
    There was less pointing and spluttering in the article than I would have expected.

    If NYT ever attempts an article it will have much more pointing and spluttering.

    NYT doesn’t really seem to be analyzing the current trends. They take them as self-evidently wrong and attack only.

    They might see an article on Steve as giving him more publicity.

    I’m not familiar with NY Mag but it’s much calmer than hyper partisan NYT.

    Congratulations, Steve, on being vindicated by events and having it acknowledged.

  319. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “…Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration…”

    Everything in politics is ‘divisive’. If we want unity, why have TWO or more parties? Why not a one-party system like China? Or Japan as it’s been a defacto one-party state.

    Also, Democratic Politics has been more divisive because of its stress on identity politics catering to non-whites for special treatment.

    Noq, if Democrats accepted non-whites and if Republicans rejected them, one could argue that Democrats try to unify all Americans whereas Republicans divide Americans between whites(okay) and non-whites(not okay). But that is not American politics.
    Democrats win over non-whites with special favors that are often detrimental to whites, especially of lower classes. Blacks are offered ‘affirmative action’ in admission/hiring, Hispanics are offered ‘affirmative immigration'(aka tolerance of illegal immigration), and ‘progressive’ PC blames all problems on White Conservatives(while lionizing White ‘progressives’ as the ‘good whites’ who heroically play the role of ‘white knight’ in defending the ‘poor huddled masses’ of non-whites). Also, homos are offered the supremacist privilege to alter the meaning of marriage, a privilege denied to Polygamists and Incest-sexuals, by the way. Also, Democrats play sexual politics by driving a wedge between white women and white men. Feminist ideology teaches white women that white men, at least those who refused to be cucked, as the source of all evil.

    [MORE]

    The GOP party line has been more unifying in opening the party to all comers on the basis of colorblindness. (One exception is Jews. Both parties go way out to favor Jewish interests and Israel over all else. Jewish supremacism is the real supremacism in the US, but it goes unaddressed since Jewish power controls the media. New York Magazine certainly doesn’t address it for what it is: supremacism.) If the GOP must not favor whites, it must also not favor non-whites if it is to be colorblind. Favoring one group over another leads to the divisiveness, which is why the Democratic Coalition is so divided among the various races and classes. Ironically, even as Progs accuse the GOP of being divisive, the bogeyman of the Evil White Male is the ONLY factor that keeps the Democratic Coalition united. They are united by hate of Whitey as scapegoat for everything that is wrong. That is their ‘intersectionality’.

    American Politics is not about anti-white vs pro-white. It is about anti-white vs anti-anti-white. GOP hasn’t been pro-white in anything for a long time. It is just less anti-white than the Democrats. But even this anti-anti-whiteness is pretty weak, with Bush II sucking up to blacks and Hispanics, indeed much more than for whites. Indeed, American Politics puts white gentiles(except for homos and trannies) in moral deficit vis-a-vis other groups, especially blacks and Jews. This is why even the GOP feels this need to suck up to Jewish supremacism and Magic Negro BS.
    American Politics says it’s okay for non-whites to be pro-identity, but it is wrong for whites to be pro-white. GOP’s line is generic pro-Americanism. Even so, it is not explicitly anti-white like the Democrats are. The PC narrative is that non-whites flock to Democrats because the GOP won’t have them. In truth, non-whites flock to Democratic Party because they get special favors than mere equality, which is what the GOP offers. If one side offers equality while another side offers bribes, why wouldn’t you go for the latter? More free stuff.

    But then, things get weirder because, even as the Democratic or ‘progressive’ line is anti-white, most of Real White Privilege is located in the ‘progressive’ community of Silicon Valley, elite colleges, upscale yuppie neighborhoods, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Pentagon, and etc. In some ways, it seems anti-white rhetoric of Democratic elites is a ruse to mask ‘white privilege’, which is okay if billed as ‘liberal’. After all, the Clintons got pretty far. So did the Kerrys and Tim Caines and Jerry Browns of the world.
    Indeed, the Democratic Party is more appealing to the educated elites, successful people, and the cool crowd because status-narcissism goes hand-in-hand with moral narcissism. These people want wealth, privilege, and power, but they also want to feel cool and morally justified. Since the Democratic Party is Liberal and since most artists and entertainers are Liberal, rich and successful people want to be with the Liberal Creative types. Also, the holy three in the US are Jews, blacks, and homos, and all three are in the Democratic Party. In contrast, the Southern Strategy won the GOP temporary electoral advantage but saddled them with neo-Confederacy in a nation where there is no greater sin than ‘racism’. KKK is the most hated symbol in the US, and the Deep South is connected with it. Of course, Black Terror has done far more damage than KKK ever did, but the Narrative decides what is worth remembering and paying attention to. The American Narrative resets to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over. Also, the Democratic Party got legacy of New Deal and Civil Rights movement. Even though Democrats eventually abandoned the working class, the GOP has hardly been a friend to the working man except in symbolism of flags and guns. Eventually, symbolic legacy runs out of steam when reality changes too much. One could argue that the New Deal legacy finally ended for Democrats with the demise of Hillary. But the New Deal legacy had nostalgic appeal to Big Labor for a long time. Democrats also have the Civil Rights legacy. As blacks are seen as holy in America, this means a lot. There is no greater evil in America than ‘racism’. Since JFK and Johnson led the way in the Civil Rights Era, Democrats came to own the issue. Also, blacks turned overwhelmingly Democratic, though one wonders if this has more to do with the Civil Rights bill or massive welfare increases under Johnson. (Maybe if Trump offers Negroes bigass reparations, blacks will move to GOP. Civil Rights Legacy may be lost to Democratic Party if it plays the homo card and immigrant card too much at the expense of blacks.) Given the iconic value of the Civil Rights Era and near-worship of MLK, Democratic Party has the moral advantage over the GOP. And this is why most successful people prefer to be associated with the Democrats EVEN THOUGH they don’t want to live with most blacks. Your average Prog would prefer to live in a safe white community(even a conservative one) than in a black democratic town, but he still wants to be morally and politically associated with the Party of Civil Rights. And then, the mass media made homos holy too, and Democrats came to totally own that issue. And since Homos came to be synonymous with both suffering and cool celebrity culture in Hollywood and fashion, successful people wanted to become Democrats. So, the Democratic Party became party of both the have-lesses and the have-mosts. As a Democrat, the have-mosts and other elites can win some radical chic points by being members of the Party of Progress… even though their main obsession is really Privilege.

    “Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right. Yet Sailer describes citizenism as the best possible bulwark against ethnonationalist impulses.”

    As for anti-immigrationism, it can be said to be pro-white since most immigrants are non-white, and white nationalists fear that more immigration will reduce white power in the US. On the other hand, anti-immigrationism is unifying than divisive. If current American citizens are to form into One united people, they need to work on what they have in common. Just when the American identity is becoming more confused(even more so with 50 new genders derived from 0.5% of the US population of trannies), the last thing we need is more immigration. US is diverse as it is. If anything, it is overly diverse and falling apart at the seams. The divisiveness isn’t the product of political machinations but demographic realities. If all these different Americans are to come together, there must be respect for Rule of Law. As different Americans have different cultural backgrounds and values, the one thing they can have in common is respect for Rule of Law. For this reason, illegal immigration must be ended and opposed as it violates Rule of Law, and the ideal of Citizenship. Stuff like amnesty leads to breakdown in Rule of Law and commonly shared principle of what makes a person American. If anyone can break in and become ‘American’, then Americanism is no longer about respect for rule of law but a grab-bag of who can get here by whatever nefarious means.

    Also, even legal immigration needs to end. For white nationalists, the reasons are obvious. But even for non-whites, if they really want a united America of common identity and shared values, the urgent necessity right now is to encourage feelings of shared bond among all Americans, white, black, brown, and etc. One has to be blind not to see the racial, cultural, and ethnic divisions all across America. When so much division is an undeniable reality in America, why bring in even more immigrants? How do we fix the problem of current divisiveness by adding more diversity, which leads to even more divisiveness? Also, non-whites are more likely to assimilate into white standards and values when they are a decisive minority. They are more likely to respect the majority and try to fit into it. But as majority numbers and power decline, the minorities will be more demanding and contentious, also more confused as to what really constitutes Americanism. Traditionally, Americanism entailed non-whites trying to become like White America. Now, Americanism entails non-whites defining ‘True America’ in rejection and revilement of White America. Especially with the notion of ‘America is a nation of immigrants’, there is the sense that newcomers fresh off the boat are More American than Americans, and if anything, Americans must reverse-assimilate to the World. Thus, the New Americanism is not about foreigners coming to dissolve into what was essentially White America but America dissolving into the World. Thus, White America as the Core American Ideal is replaced by various tribalisms from all over the world. (It is surely correct to say Sailer has a preference for White America, being white himself and respecting the European legacy and heritage. And Sailer never denied that like Conservative Inc types pretend they are totally for colorblind equality. No, Sailer prefers whites just like Jews prefer Jews and blacks prefer blacks. With Sailer, the issue is about finding the best way to arrive at a compromise whereby each group gets something but can’t get everything. Citizenism isn’t white nationalism but it does offer something for whites in curtailing excessive immigration and defending traditional America. But it offers something for all groups who strive to be legal citizens. But American Politics of the Current Year assumes that it is wrong for white Americans to have any sense of white identity or interests at all. Whites must always prove themselves as totally colorblind or mindful of non-whites and Jews. But that is bogus. Why should white Americans be without white identity and white interests? The only sensible thing is to arrive at some formula where all groups get something but not everything. The current formula is one where whites get NOTHING, and that is unacceptable to any sane bunch of whites. It’s like what Merlin says to Uther in EXCALIBUR. “He has given, now you must.” Citizenism, good or bad, is at least an attempt at compromise between white interests and other interests. But Prog thought denies the rightness of any white identity or interests.)

    Demise of Core White America is leading to more divisiveness all over America. Given that the bogeyman is ‘white racism’, all groups tend to blame ‘white privilege’ as easy scapegoat, but the problem is too much diversity and the lack of Core Americanism to hold the nation together. Diversity can be of peripheral value. It cannot constitute the core. It’s like the sun is the center of solar system. The diverse planets revolve around it. In the USSR, the core culture was Russia. But as the Russian core dwindled in population vis-a-vis non-Russians who came to represent 51% in the 80s, the empire broke apart. China has Han Chinese as the core around with ethnic minorities revolve around. With that Han Core, China would begin to fall apart.
    The demise of white core is leading to more division in America. The great paradox of American politics is that Diversity has been made to revile the only thing that can hold the various diverse groups together: the white core. In the past, the white core brought non-whites together as the model of assimilation and emulation. Various non-white groups were different from one another but had in common the desire to be part of White America, culturally if not racially. Today, White America still functions as a glue for non-whites but as a mutual object of hatred and contempt. Hating Whitey is the only thing that many non-whites have in common. It’s useful for now because without whitey to hate, they will hate one another. For now, when browns are angry with blacks, they blame whites. When blacks are angry with immigrants, they blame whites. When yellows are angry with browns or blacks, they blame whites. When Jews are angry with Muslims, they blame whites. When Muslims are angry with Jews, they blame whites. But if respect for whiteness pulled various non-whites together around the orbit of the white core in the past, the repulsion of whiteness pulls them away from whites and eventually from one another. They keep saying Diversity is their core, but diversity can never be the core. Diversity can only work as a peripheral entity that revolves around a solid core.

    Mexicans in California are more aggressive than in the past. Somalis in Minnesota have no respect for anything. They make demands like US belongs to them. Multi-culturalists denounce ‘divisiveness’, but they thrive on divisiveness, which is their bread-and-butter. Indeed, they admonished non-whites not to assimilate into white America and maintain their separateness politically and ideologically. Thus, non-whites were made to see whites as the enemy than as the host to respect and assimilate into. Multi-culturalists even came up with the notion of ‘micro-aggression’ to make non-whites feel offended by any gesture, no matter how innocuous, made by whites. (Of course, non-white macro-aggressions are a bigger problem in America. Surely, people have more to worry about Mexican drug gangs and black thugs, but academics in their bubble dream up nonsense issues like white ‘micro-aggressions’ like asking ‘where are you from?’) The message of multi-culturalism is bogus and hypocritical. It says, “we non-whites will reject and insult you whites, but you whites must accept and praise us.” In a way, it is a twist on Jewish attitude to white gentile America. Jews keep their culture of uniqueness and exclusion(toward goyim), but white goyim must be welcoming and open to everything Jewish.
    It’s like a card game where one guy can keep his cards in the hole but the other player has to show all his cards.
    And we see this play out over and over. So, the cast of HAMILTON insults Mike Pence, but Pence has to be gracious and accommodating. Kanye West and other nasty blacks dump on Bush II, but Bush II goes out of his way to whimper, boo hoo, that the worst part of his presidency was hearing that a rapper said he doesn’t like black people. “But I wuv black people oh so very much, and I even gave tens of billions to Africa to prove I love them Negroes.” (Palestinians not so much, though, and no one seems to care about that, not even Liberals and Progs. Btw, if the progs are New York magazine are appalled by tribalism and nationalism, how do they feel about America’s overwhelming support for Zionist ethnic-cleansers and apartheiders over Palestinians? I’m guessing is they made too much fuss about that, the publishers of New York magazine and other such media won’t have much use for them in the future.)

    Another reason why immigration is divisive is it has the effect of weakening the ties between native elites and native masses. We see this in US, Canada, and EU. As US elites dedicate themselves more to Diversity via more immigration to create ‘new Americans’, they have less time to address the issues of Already-Americans. Also, when Already-Americans protest this injustice, the elites hug the New Americans or Future Americans and call the Already-Americans ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. British and Canadian white elites do the same thing. This leads to class division, the Coming Apart as investigated by Charles Murray. This turns a nation from a organic system to a mere commercial enterprise. A company may fire workers and get new ones, but a family doesn’t get rid of family members to get new family members. US and UK were not like a national family or at least national community. But with massive immigration, every American is treated like a worker by a faceless transnational corporation that can just hire someone else. America is an ‘indispensable nation’ where Americans are all dispensable. America is an ‘exceptional nation’ where Americans are not exceptional but replaceable by any bunch of ‘new Americans’.
    Everyone is expendable and replaceable, not only as worker but as citizen and patriot. Indeed, patriotism is impossible with this kind of globalist system where the Already-Americans are told they will soon be replaced by New Americans. America goes form a nation of posterity to a nation of ceaseless ‘imposterity’, what with even illegals being labeled as ‘dreamers’ and ‘what America is all about’. The fact that Hillary insulted so many Americans as ‘deplorables’ says it all. She would rather hug non-Americans as soon-to-be-new-Americans over real Americans, some of whom have deep roots in the US. It’s a strange state of affairs when the US elites care more about yet-to-be-Americans than already-Americans. Whom do these elites represent? American voters or foreigners? They might as well be open ballots as well as open borders. If US must prioritize all the foreigners who want to come to America, why not let the whole world vote for American president? After all, only letting Americans vote is ‘exclusive’.
    As long as elections are national and not global, shouldn’t US leaders represent, first and foremost, the Already Americans? (But then, given US meddling and invasion of other nations, maybe people in invaded nations should be given the vote. If US can intrude into their affairs and turn upside down, maybe they should have a say in who gets to rule America since America sees fit to rule the world.)

    “In Sailer’s view, people are naturally inclined to pursue “ethnic nepotism” — that is, to help those like themselves at the expense of those who are not. The goal of citizenism, therefore, is to redirect these energies by providing a more expansive definition of “us” than the race or tribe.”

    That is true. More diversity has a way of creating a massive number of immigrant-voters whose main loyalty is to their kins in other parts of the world than with fellow Americans. So, even Mexican-Americans side more with Mexicans in Mexico than with fellow Americans. Chinese-Americans prioritize allowing more Chinese into the US than working for the good of All Americans. Many Jewish Americans feel closer to Jews in other parts of the world than with other Americans. With Open Borders, Diversity leads to more divisiveness as each group will then try to bring more of their kind over to the US to gain more power for their own community. If Asian Indians could bring 100 million hindus to the US, they certainly would. Thus, these groups no longer see the US as an already-made nation into which they must assimilate and become a part of. It turns into a contest of ‘how many of our own people can we bring to boost our ethnic leverage in the US’. They think more like colonizers and smugglers than immigrants. American turns into a game of Mr. Mouth: Feed the Frog. Each group thinks, “how many of our kind can we bring to the US as the big frog.” It’s like the Jewish kid trying to his friend into seeing the hooker in RISKY BUSINESS:

    Even though the globalist elites politically embrace these immigrant types, the fact is they have little in common. The globalist elites live in their own world, and the immigrant groups(especially those without much chance for success) live in a separate world. And these immigrant types don’t get along with whites or blacks or other immigrant types. So, we have a fraying of America along racial, ethnic, and class lines. Elites hug immigrants but live apart from them. In hugging immigrants, they dump on white masses and even black masses. And white masses and immigrants don’t get along. In the past, immigrants tried to fit into White America and regarded White America as the Core America. This was true enough in the mid-70s. But due to rising non-white population, decay of white culture, and PC’s attack on whiteness(and rise of black thug culture as the core Americanism and Diversity as national religion), there is nothing to assimilate into.

    Multi-culturalist said past assimilation was unfair in favoring the norms of White America. Actually, it made perfect sense. Since whites founded, defined, and built the US — and since they were the solid majority until recently — , it was inevitable that US would be essentially a European-American nation. (Besides, the Anglo-American formula for nation-building has been, far and away, the most successful, principled, and productive in the world.) If Chinese had founded America and populated it for most of its history, then assimilating into Americanism would have entailed assimilating into much that is Chinese. But history didn’t play out that way. Europeans built America, so it’s natural for newcomers to assimilate to European-American norms. But that would mean special place and prestige for whiteness as Core Americanism,and that was unacceptable to multi-culturalists, especially Jews whose resentment of Christianity never faded away.

    “His specialty was a plain-spoken form of science journalism… but also infamous for applying, often in a blunt and inflammatory manner, such methods to alleged racial differences… Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right — … which, despite winning a few lonely adherents in the academy, has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst.”

    ROTFL. Sailer can be blunt, yes. But inflammatory? That was never his style. If anything, what Sailer’s statements were spun as inflammatory by others prone to hyperventilation. The most obvious example is ‘let the good times roll’. The actual piece was rather droll. If anything, “let the good times roll” is a very mild understatement when it comes to characterizing black pathologies which blacks themselves have more colorful ways of describing. It’s nothing like what Chris Rock or Fred G. Sanford said of black problems. If anything, Sailer made it as un-inflammatory as possible. But nutjobs like Podhoretz went ballistic(despite his kind having said truly inflammatory things about Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, etc; for inflammatory, try Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin’s friend Rachel Abrams denouncements of Palestinians).

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/rachel-abrams-says-palestinian-children-are-devils-spawn-while-israeli-children-play-with-tranformers-and-draw-your-heart-strings/

    Sailer wasn’t inflammatory, and this explains his limited appeal to those on the Alt Right who prefer redder meat. I personally would describe black pathology in a more colorful way.
    But PC overreacts, throws tantrums, and goes ballistic. It reacts in inflammatory manner to what was not intended as such. We saw this as Middlebury over Charles Murray. PC crazies are easily triggered by anything. They see ‘racism’ in everything. And PC commissars snoop around for incorrect thoughts everywhere. It’s hard to tell what is academics and what is satire. Get a load of this:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/4/e20154154?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

    ‘Natural’ in breastfeeding is also inflammatory apparently.

    Indeed, the line “has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst” is typical of how PC turns interesting ideas into inflammatory rhetoric.
    It is not HBD that is inflammatory. It’s been very matter-of-fact. It is PC that is inflammatory in its hysterical and rabid derision of any challenge to PC as ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘eugenics at worst’.
    Only an idiot or a pathological liar would deny the reality of race. It is so obvious, it is so everywhere in intelligence, muscularity, sports, mating, crime, violence, personality, and etc.
    The ‘critics’ of HBD have no facts on their side. Just emotions. They are the ones who act in inflammatory manner but accuse others of being inflammatory even though Sailer, Murray, and others like them made their point in non-inflammatory manner. Also, shouldn’t social/culture writers be blunt and plain-spoken? Those are just different words for honest and forthright. PC has made people so disingenuous, self-censorious, and esoteric that simple honesty is triggering and ‘inflammatory’. It’s like the saying the kid in EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES is inflammatory. There are some people who are willfully inflammatory. Michael Moore is one of them. Sometimes, Ann Coulter relishes throwing rhetorical molotov cocktails. But that’s never been the style of Murray or Sailer. If their views are inflammatory, it’s because PC threw molotov cocktails at those views.

    “In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans ‘possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.’ And he regularly plays up a sort of white grievance politics — grousing about ‘black privilege’ or complaining about Jordan Peele’s Get Out as ‘a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie.’ Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing…”

    This is where we need the concept of the Deep Self. Just like there is the State and the Deep State, there is the Self and Deep Self.
    The Prog Self and even mainstream Conservative Self fitfully denounce the notion that blacks are more likely to ‘let the good times roll’. Given the holiness of blackness in PC narrative, it is simply unthinkable in proper circles to cast any negative light to black character or nature.

    But the Deep Self of Progs really agrees on ‘let the good times roll’. After all, why are Progs so into black culture over other cultures? Blacks love to let the good times roll and be funky and colorful, and progs have a racial preference for blackness over other kinds of racial expressions. Black culture wallows in pathology and wanton sexuality and violence, and this is appealing to white progs because pop culture serves as the fantasy of anarchy and licentiousness.
    Also, why do white Progs try to avoid black areas? Why do they seek to gentrify? They see too-many-blacks as trouble. Why did they elect Guiliani twice and why did they elect Michael Stop-and-Frisk Bloomberg three times? Why did they elect Clinton who locked up record numbers of blacks? Why do Progs say the military has been a constructive place for blacks? What does that imply? Why do Progs say that black kids must be taught and educated from earlier age? Why do white women go to Cuba and Africa to hook up with black men? Why are white boys so enamored of black athletes who act wild? White progs fear, loathe, and love blacks on the basis of racial differences. White progs prefer to see fewer blacks in their neighborhood and more blacks on TV. And the classic article about Hyde Park: Despite all the Nice things they SAY, white prog elites DO something quite different, summoning massive police force to control the blacks.

    http://uchicagogate.com/2014/06/02/a-wall-around-hyde-park/

    White progs are attracted to black wildness as entertaining and colorful, but they are also scared to death of black thuggery and aggression. So, despite what the Prog Self says, the Prog Deep Self is very much aware of racial differences. Everything a prog does is just as race-ist as what a conservative does. The Self says one thing, but the Deep Self senses something else and does something other.

    As for ‘black privilege’, it certainly applies to the Obamas and fancy Negroes of the world who knows what buttons to push on the white psyche. Unlike most whites, the clever black with just enough intelligence and savvy can get very far just by making the right moves and noises. Obama got to be president despite having done nothing in life because he knew what buttons to push, and this is true of a certain class of blacks. Of course, most blacks are too dim to get this or play this, but those in the know can get very far. Blacks with modicum of talent can go much farther than any white or Asian person.

    As for Jordan Peele’s movie GET OUT, isn’t it race-ist in the sense that is premised on natural black racial superiority? Even though I haven’t seen it, isn’t it about how white folks want to steal black bodies because they come with longer dongs and can play better basketball? If that is the premise of the movie, it sounds pretty HBD to me.

    Progs are funny. They control music and entertainment, and they feature blacks are thugs, studs, and badass mofos. But if whites take notice of such stereotypical images and match them with social reality of black crime and violence, they are deemed as ‘blatantly bigoted’.
    So, ‘let the good times roll’ is wrong, but it’s okay to feature blacks are crazy rappers with nothing on their minds but shooting people and humping ho’s. Progs promote the image of the wildass black mofo badass killer and sex beast but get all antsy with a remark as tame and mild as ‘let the good times roll’. I mean that is old school and tame compared to how blacks talk about one another these days:

  320. @Peter Akuleyev
    Counterarguments are fine as long as you stay in the business world, or investment banking. As a white Christian in the US, I have never experienced anti-Whitism, anti-Gentilism or anti-Maleism. My colleagues have been 95% white men, the C-suite executives I have worked with were 95% white men, and corporate lawyers seem to be 98% white, if only 60% male and not so Christian.

    Academia is the most obvious arena where white males are being pushed out, but I suspect over the long term the result is going to be, unfortunately, to discredit liberal arts and liberal arts institutions as places of serious thought and inquiry.

    My assessment of the prevalence of anti-Whitism and anti-Gentilism in the United States and of permissibility of counterarguments differs from your own. But I appreciate your response. Regards.

  321. @Opinionator
    I also think almost all of us are naturally racist one way or another and it is probably healthier to express that racism in public than to pretend.


    Is that your opinion of depictions of jews in Germany during the Third Reich?

    Well, why not? At least some people realized that its time to leave since the Nazi government broadcast their level of anti-Semitism openly. Would you rather have had them unleash a secret plan with no warning?

    Of course I get it that you’re trying to imply the usual “they printed this propaganda about Jews and it led to the Holocaust” but that’s hardly what happened: they only started printing anti-Semitic government propaganda once the anti-Semites and their plans were already in power. Obviously it’s not the propaganda of the Nazi government that led to the Nazis taking over the government.

    Germany before the Nazis, of course, tried to stop the rise of the nationalist movements (and specifically Hitler) with what we would now call “hate speech” bans and they failed.

  322. Glad to see the article, Steve.

    I agree with several other commenters: the article comprises, mostly, a legitimate if narrow review of some of your themes, but it’s punctuated by the PC Choristers intoning the standard responses from the Book of Common Sputters.

  323. map says:

    The true beginning of the Alt-Right is the recognition that the Left is an Anti-White party…Full Stop. What binds all flavors of the Alt-Right is the recognition of the common enemy first…while the various contradictions are ironed out after the Peace has been won.

    The Left sees America as a racist, sexist, classsist, homophobic country, whose economy is based on slavery and colonialism and who is willing to oil the machinery of capitalism with the blood of the workers. The corollary that the Left follows is that all of these evils stem from America being too hideously White.

    The Leftist politician, therefore, sees her purpose in life to punish White people for the original sin of Whiteness.

    In what reality can any White person share the same country with such an ideology, when its goal is to strangle you and your children’s future? Answer: there is none.

    And…no…there will be no separation into different countries.

    • Agree: Kylie
  324. Sean says:
    @Corvinus
    "Nixon did absolutely nothing against busing, affirmative action or any other policy impacting on white communities the South or elsewhere. In fact Nixon often expanded those programs."

    Those programs were already required by past legislation, with Nixon enforcing the law of the land and executive orders of past presidents. However, how that legislation would be implemented and at what "deliberate speed" was left up to the states.

    "Whites went to the Republicans simply because the Democrats were so antagonistic to white Southerners (and not just Southerners) that there was nowhere else to go but the Republicans, because the Democrats acted as if whites were venal (greedy as you put it)."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.

    Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.

    After Nixons time those things. The pro military stance was about the only Republican thing that appealed, and again that was really because the Democrats had moved away from traditional strong defence. I think Nixon got a windfall, it was not the result of any strategy by him’ and nothing about his policies actually catered to whites as such. He didn’t and didn’t have to for politcal reasons,, but the evidence doesn’t suggest he was personally 100% in favour of busing ect..

    • Replies: @Sean
    Correction:meant to say the evidence suggest Nixon was personally 100% in favour of busing ect., did nothing to obstruct it, yet Southern and other whites supported him nevertheless. They had nowhere else to go.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Nixon immediately forced the Southern schools to desegregate after 15 years of resistance. Nixon did a lot more to resist busing in from Northern big cities to suburbs.
  325. @Sean

    Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.
     
    After Nixons time those things. The pro military stance was about the only Republican thing that appealed, and again that was really because the Democrats had moved away from traditional strong defence. I think Nixon got a windfall, it was not the result of any strategy by him' and nothing about his policies actually catered to whites as such. He didn't and didn't have to for politcal reasons,, but the evidence doesn't suggest he was personally 100% in favour of busing ect..

    Correction:meant to say the evidence suggest Nixon was personally 100% in favour of busing ect., did nothing to obstruct it, yet Southern and other whites supported him nevertheless. They had nowhere else to go.

  326. The battle for history is on

    Politico tries to scoop NY mag, claims Buchanan responsible for Sailer strategy:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/22/pat-buchanan-trump-president-history-profile-215042

  327. @Sean

    Increasing numbers of southern conservative whites who traditionally aligned with Democrats transformed themselves into Republicans because its party platform planks (e.g. anti-gay marriage, pro-gun laws, pro-family policies) fit more with their ideology.
     
    After Nixons time those things. The pro military stance was about the only Republican thing that appealed, and again that was really because the Democrats had moved away from traditional strong defence. I think Nixon got a windfall, it was not the result of any strategy by him' and nothing about his policies actually catered to whites as such. He didn't and didn't have to for politcal reasons,, but the evidence doesn't suggest he was personally 100% in favour of busing ect..

    Nixon immediately forced the Southern schools to desegregate after 15 years of resistance. Nixon did a lot more to resist busing in from Northern big cities to suburbs.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Review of Brendan Simms's history of Europe

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary:
     
    I think Peter Frost suggested that the Cold War Soviets trashing the international reputation of the US by bringing up the way blacks were treated in the South, led to the those mainly interested in foreign policy, like Nixon, deciding that the South had to be made an example of. JFK is an even clearer example, he completely changed tack once he was Pres and concerned with US soft power projection.

    This view of desegrigation as a Cold War necessityis quite ainstream

    http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/Civil_Rights_and_Cold_Warriors(PrinterFriendly).pdf

    As a result of international pressure, one of the first government agencies to move towards integration was the U.S. State Department. Department officials, “directly engaged with  the world,” were moved to integrate the agency as concern “heightened” worldwide in regards to black civil rights.7 Secretary of State Dean Acheson argued that race discrimination “remains a  source of constant embarrassment to this government” by harming our reputation; he was convinced that mistreatment of blacks jeopardized our conduct in foreign relations and questioned America’s moral leadership of the ‘free and democratic nations of the world.’” 
     
  328. @whorefinder
    Steve, now that the Eye of the Left is on you, beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it's full force.

    The Left has converged Fox News and taken scalps and is currently destroying the network, they are pulling Alinksy tactics. It went after Milo and slowed his momentum way down. I strongly suspect you're on their hit list. Make sure Ron Unz has your back and is prepared for the onslaught.

    Steve, now that the Eye of the Left is on you, beware that the Eye of Soros does not turn on you with it’s full force.

    Exactly what are they going to do? Drive traffic towards him so that he starts earning Coulter money? Oh no, please don’t throw Steve into that Briar patch!

    BTW Here is one other concept that Steve has helped to bring back to the discourse – noblesse oblige – the concept that the rich and powerful should use some of that power to do things in the interests of the rank and file in their nation. And at the very least, not sell them out.

    There are lots of little concepts as well, such as the exception that proves the rule.

  329. @Twinkie

    I’m not claiming the following is true of Steve, but citizenists can easily be “white supremacists” and/or racists (hinged or unhinged), to varying levels of intensity.
     
    You confuse white majoritarianism with white supremacism. You can't believe in citizenism while being a white supremacist. Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow - existing - citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    White majoritarianism - the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture - is compatible with citizenism.

    Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    I put “white supremacists” in scare quotes because the term is somewhat nebulous and often used in melodramatic boogeyman fashion by SJWs (not that you are an SJW, of course). My thoughts:

    One— the term “white supremacy” is literally redundant, in a racial hierarchical sense. I’m talking superiority of cultural and civilizational achievement/expression, phenotypes (#26), and temperaments. Some of these may be held in common with other races, but not the whole shebang. I concede one huge ‘inferior’ impulse—many whites have a newly evolved Darwinian liability: widespread out-group altruism and virtue-signaling pride which might bring it all to destruction.

    Two— “white supremacism” as it is used today. Classic white supremacism is as you described—de jure hegemonic elevation of whites over non-whites. In modern academic parlance, the definition is expanded to include anything that is perceived to give whites any positive consideration, even defensively. SJW ‘academics’ (and Ta-Nehisi Coates) may throw the phrase around with idiotic abandon, but I think there’s some merit in a nuanced concept of the term. One can be “white supremacist” in sentiment and personal choice without wanting to kill, enslave, banish, or create different classes of citizens.

    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.

    Sure, “white majoritarianism” (whatta mouthful!) is compatible with citizenism—but the former is itself a white supremacist sentiment and goal. One form of hegemony in a democracy is numbers, and if a racially identifiable group’s superior numbers and “cultural and civic traditions” should “predominate in the shared national culture,” well, that sounds a lot like de facto supremacy to me.

    Regarding immigration to America, the de facto “white supremacist” policy would be to basically end it, both the illegal and legal varieties (exceptions given to extraordinarily valuable individuals and their families). One may cite economic reasons for halting immigration, but these can be argued pro and con forever.

    Ultimately, for most people, white or otherwise, the real question is: Who do you want to see in your country, your cities, your towns? If, in the main, it’s white faces, you just may reckon whites to be supreme, you devil you.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Sure, “white majoritarianism” (whatta mouthful!) is compatible with citizenism—but the former is itself a white supremacist sentiment and goal. One form of hegemony in a democracy is numbers, and if a racially identifiable group’s superior numbers and “cultural and civic traditions” should “predominate in the shared national culture,” well, that sounds a lot like de facto supremacy to me.
     
    It's not supremacy, because - at the individual level - there is choice. Put another way, it provides for a way for those who were not born in to the said supremacy to join it as a legally equal member.

    Ultimately, for most people, white or otherwise, the real question is: Who do you want to see in your country, your cities, your towns? If, in the main, it’s white faces, you just may reckon whites to be supreme, you devil you.
     
    It doesn't necessarily require me to consider whites to be "supreme" to want to see mostly white faces in the United States. It only takes wanting the U.S. to be socially cohesive from a public good point of view and, from a personal point of view, prefer a society with mostly this particular group of whites.

    Regarding the second point, for example, a considerable number of Europeans, if forced to choose between an über-safe and orderly Japan and gun-toting United States, may choose the former. I, on the other hand, choose freedom over security/safety. Objectively and rationally, absolute safety might be better than more chaotic freedom. But that's what *I* prefer - freedom, even if it's more costly and irrational.

    Personally, I love the United States and consider it the greatest country the human race has ever produced. I don't have such love for, say, Russia or Spain though I gather those countries are also full of whites.

    The problem with many white nationalist types (of course, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily one of them) is that they fixate on race to the total exclusion of other things. Race is important, but it's not everything, and it doesn't correspond perfectly with culture/ideology/race and a whole host of other variables that make the human beings/society.
  330. @Johann Ricke

    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.
     
    The zeitgeist appears to be that anything short of black supremacism - including white majoritarianism - is white supremacism.

    The zeitgeist appears to be that anything short of black supremacism – including white majoritarianism – is white supremacism.

    I was under the impression that I was carrying out a dialogue with someoen who is not of the said Zeitgeist.

  331. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.
     
    I put “white supremacists” in scare quotes because the term is somewhat nebulous and often used in melodramatic boogeyman fashion by SJWs (not that you are an SJW, of course). My thoughts:

    One— the term “white supremacy” is literally redundant, in a racial hierarchical sense. I’m talking superiority of cultural and civilizational achievement/expression, phenotypes (#26), and temperaments. Some of these may be held in common with other races, but not the whole shebang. I concede one huge ‘inferior’ impulse—many whites have a newly evolved Darwinian liability: widespread out-group altruism and virtue-signaling pride which might bring it all to destruction.

    Two— “white supremacism” as it is used today. Classic white supremacism is as you described—de jure hegemonic elevation of whites over non-whites. In modern academic parlance, the definition is expanded to include anything that is perceived to give whites any positive consideration, even defensively. SJW ‘academics’ (and Ta-Nehisi Coates) may throw the phrase around with idiotic abandon, but I think there’s some merit in a nuanced concept of the term. One can be “white supremacist” in sentiment and personal choice without wanting to kill, enslave, banish, or create different classes of citizens.


    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.
     
    Sure, “white majoritarianism” (whatta mouthful!) is compatible with citizenism—but the former is itself a white supremacist sentiment and goal. One form of hegemony in a democracy is numbers, and if a racially identifiable group’s superior numbers and “cultural and civic traditions” should “predominate in the shared national culture,” well, that sounds a lot like de facto supremacy to me.

    Regarding immigration to America, the de facto “white supremacist” policy would be to basically end it, both the illegal and legal varieties (exceptions given to extraordinarily valuable individuals and their families). One may cite economic reasons for halting immigration, but these can be argued pro and con forever.

    Ultimately, for most people, white or otherwise, the real question is: Who do you want to see in your country, your cities, your towns? If, in the main, it’s white faces, you just may reckon whites to be supreme, you devil you.

    Sure, “white majoritarianism” (whatta mouthful!) is compatible with citizenism—but the former is itself a white supremacist sentiment and goal. One form of hegemony in a democracy is numbers, and if a racially identifiable group’s superior numbers and “cultural and civic traditions” should “predominate in the shared national culture,” well, that sounds a lot like de facto supremacy to me.

    It’s not supremacy, because – at the individual level – there is choice. Put another way, it provides for a way for those who were not born in to the said supremacy to join it as a legally equal member.

    Ultimately, for most people, white or otherwise, the real question is: Who do you want to see in your country, your cities, your towns? If, in the main, it’s white faces, you just may reckon whites to be supreme, you devil you.

    It doesn’t necessarily require me to consider whites to be “supreme” to want to see mostly white faces in the United States. It only takes wanting the U.S. to be socially cohesive from a public good point of view and, from a personal point of view, prefer a society with mostly this particular group of whites.

    Regarding the second point, for example, a considerable number of Europeans, if forced to choose between an über-safe and orderly Japan and gun-toting United States, may choose the former. I, on the other hand, choose freedom over security/safety. Objectively and rationally, absolute safety might be better than more chaotic freedom. But that’s what *I* prefer – freedom, even if it’s more costly and irrational.

    Personally, I love the United States and consider it the greatest country the human race has ever produced. I don’t have such love for, say, Russia or Spain though I gather those countries are also full of whites.

    The problem with many white nationalist types (of course, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily one of them) is that they fixate on race to the total exclusion of other things. Race is important, but it’s not everything, and it doesn’t correspond perfectly with culture/ideology/race and a whole host of other variables that make the human beings/society.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    culture/ideology/race
     
    I meant "culture/ideology/religion."
  332. @Twinkie

    Sure, “white majoritarianism” (whatta mouthful!) is compatible with citizenism—but the former is itself a white supremacist sentiment and goal. One form of hegemony in a democracy is numbers, and if a racially identifiable group’s superior numbers and “cultural and civic traditions” should “predominate in the shared national culture,” well, that sounds a lot like de facto supremacy to me.
     
    It's not supremacy, because - at the individual level - there is choice. Put another way, it provides for a way for those who were not born in to the said supremacy to join it as a legally equal member.

    Ultimately, for most people, white or otherwise, the real question is: Who do you want to see in your country, your cities, your towns? If, in the main, it’s white faces, you just may reckon whites to be supreme, you devil you.
     
    It doesn't necessarily require me to consider whites to be "supreme" to want to see mostly white faces in the United States. It only takes wanting the U.S. to be socially cohesive from a public good point of view and, from a personal point of view, prefer a society with mostly this particular group of whites.

    Regarding the second point, for example, a considerable number of Europeans, if forced to choose between an über-safe and orderly Japan and gun-toting United States, may choose the former. I, on the other hand, choose freedom over security/safety. Objectively and rationally, absolute safety might be better than more chaotic freedom. But that's what *I* prefer - freedom, even if it's more costly and irrational.

    Personally, I love the United States and consider it the greatest country the human race has ever produced. I don't have such love for, say, Russia or Spain though I gather those countries are also full of whites.

    The problem with many white nationalist types (of course, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily one of them) is that they fixate on race to the total exclusion of other things. Race is important, but it's not everything, and it doesn't correspond perfectly with culture/ideology/race and a whole host of other variables that make the human beings/society.

    culture/ideology/race

    I meant “culture/ideology/religion.”

  333. @Corvinus
    "At this point, I would vote for a “full fash” candidate that promised to eliminate me and my family from the US over Hillary 2.0."

    Allow yourself to be murdered, including your wife and offspring, just to ensure an "intolerable social liberal" would not get elected? That is absolutely insane.

    Well, you know how politicians’ promises are, Corvy.

  334. @Dan Hayes
    Corvinus:

    Ya gotta be kidding! Obviously "eliminate" in this context is removal from the continental US.

    And from Mr Chieh's commentary history, he and his family's removal would be a loss to our country.

    “Ya gotta be kidding! Obviously “eliminate” in this context is removal from the continental US.”

    “Full fash”, is that not in reference to “full fascism”? Do not fascists generally seek to “eliminate” their rivals by killing them?

    “And from Mr Chieh’s commentary history, he and his family’s removal would be a loss to our country.”

    Did his ancestors not immigrate here from an “undesirable” nation? Is he not in essence an invader? Why are you defending someone who is other than white?

    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Technically, my KMT ancestors were pretty consistently pro-US and my family always saw themselves as guests, not immigrants. But in the end, I understand why others would see my existence as invaders and I can't completely disagree with them. But I have to live, anyway, and I hate the harm that social liberals cause more than I love greed for my own advancement.
  335. @mobi
    The authors are clearly more sympathetic than they're allowed to be.

    I had the same thought. Even if the NYMag story isn’t actually sympathetic to Steve, it isn’t strongly hostile, either.

    There are other articles on the so-called alt-right in the same issue and those really are hostile.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I had the same thought. Even if the NYMag story isn’t actually sympathetic to Steve, it isn’t strongly hostile, either.
     
    We're entering the bargaining phase. See also:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/andrew-sullivan-why-the-reactionary-right-must-be-taken-seriously.html
  336. Neil says:

    I have read Sailer’s blog nearly daily since 1999. Yes, that is literally true. Steve, I am curious, among people you have heard from, is that the record?

    I first stumbled across this site when doing basically a “whatever happened to…” type of internet search for basketball player Manute Bol, who used to play for my local team, and I came to the “Human Biodiversity Hall of Fame.” Currently I can’t find it, is that still around?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    https://archive.is/aB7Wz
  337. @Bill Jones
    Bingo
    !The simple message that needs to be hammered home is this:
    Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
    Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

    Since I left Sodom on Hudson, both places I've lived are within 5 miles of a Money in the Jar vegetable stand.
    This was not accidental.
    Outside of those founded by Northwestern Europeans (Primarily British) there are no other societies with that level of inate trust.

    I think money-in-the-jar fruit and vegetable stands are common in Switzerland, I saw one or two outside Zurich. And many years ago I was awed by the newspaper dispensers in Geneva where you just help yourself without a locking mechanism to ensure you put in the coin.

    Just to say that “northwestern European” is a little too restrictive, and, shall we say, self-serving? Especially the “primarily British” part, haha. East Asians might also politely question placing the Brits at the apex of civilized behavior rotfl.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    My dad mentioned the amazing existence of pay-by-honor convenience stores in Japan. You couldn't have such nice things in China.
  338. @Neil
    I have read Sailer's blog nearly daily since 1999. Yes, that is literally true. Steve, I am curious, among people you have heard from, is that the record?

    I first stumbled across this site when doing basically a "whatever happened to..." type of internet search for basketball player Manute Bol, who used to play for my local team, and I came to the "Human Biodiversity Hall of Fame." Currently I can't find it, is that still around?
  339. @Anatoly Karlin

    AltRabbi Retweeted Charles Murray
    I'm always surprised at how many in the alt/new right are mostly unfamiliar with @Steve_Sailer who invented most of the language they employ
     
    Personally, no surprise there. Sailer's IQ is about 3 SD higher than the average Alt Righter's.

    Still, its quite sad how Sailer still doesn't get the level of recognition he deserves.

    Given that the average Alt-Righter was able to see past the curtain of pervasive propaganda and break free while in the midst of a theocracy’s dominance, Mr. Karlin, what would be your mean IQ estimate for them?

    I never used to understand why Pol Pot’s merry henchmen tried to murder every “educated” Cambodian. When I encounter the derision that drips from certain kinds of “educated” people, I begin to understand.

    Those who happily heap insults on others might wish to remember that the Wheel has a funny habit of turning, and that those who you think are safe targets today may turn out tomorrow to have the position to remind you of your manners. Holding a different view of things from yours, and doing so emotionally, is not a sign of low intelligence. Those who fail to grasp this are apt to be on the Wrong Side of History…which in the past has come complete with a very small plot of land, sometimes shared with many others.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    He's not wrong. There's not an insignificant number of the Alt-Right which aren't geniuses. There certainly is a lot of say, blue-collar white men who would prefer to work on a factory forever who are being displaced by globalization and automation.

    And I've known not a small number who are basically born from broken families, pretty alcoholic, very homeless, etc. By most modern standards, the people I used to spent time with in the countryside are violent and pretty primitive, often highly religious and committed to guest codes and other rituals that aren't very modern. They're not the brightest, though often good people at the end of the day.

    A person's worth is not measured by his IQ, though, and there's nothing wrong that they are fighting for their own interests. When the zeitgeist is telling you to literally hurry up and die, they have every right to fight for their life.
  340. @Opinionator
    Cite?

    “With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response.”

    ^ this

    Cite?

    Comment 20 by Anonym in this same post
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/ny-mag-the-man-who-invented-identity-politics-for-the-new-right/#comment-1855439

  341. @European-American
    I think money-in-the-jar fruit and vegetable stands are common in Switzerland, I saw one or two outside Zurich. And many years ago I was awed by the newspaper dispensers in Geneva where you just help yourself without a locking mechanism to ensure you put in the coin.

    Just to say that "northwestern European" is a little too restrictive, and, shall we say, self-serving? Especially the "primarily British" part, haha. East Asians might also politely question placing the Brits at the apex of civilized behavior rotfl.

    My dad mentioned the amazing existence of pay-by-honor convenience stores in Japan. You couldn’t have such nice things in China.

    • Replies: @European-American
    You might in Taiwan?... The differences between cultures in Japan and China are, of course fascinating. Similar cultural and genetic roots, different behaviors... I can't even begin to have an opinion about them. Throw in Korea, Taiwan, differences within the countries, differences in time periods...

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human. There's lots of British "nice things", like orderly queueing or what not, that you simply cannot have in France. What, you think French people are stupid? Cutting the line or poisoning the commons is just smart, if you can get away with it. But of course there's a lot more to the Continent than France. Like, um, Germany... It's all very complicated.

    , @Twinkie

    My dad mentioned the amazing existence of pay-by-honor convenience stores in Japan. You couldn’t have such nice things in China.
     
    But you can in Chinese-run Singapore.
  342. @Daniel Chieh
    My dad mentioned the amazing existence of pay-by-honor convenience stores in Japan. You couldn't have such nice things in China.

    You might in Taiwan?… The differences between cultures in Japan and China are, of course fascinating. Similar cultural and genetic roots, different behaviors… I can’t even begin to have an opinion about them. Throw in Korea, Taiwan, differences within the countries, differences in time periods…

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human. There’s lots of British “nice things”, like orderly queueing or what not, that you simply cannot have in France. What, you think French people are stupid? Cutting the line or poisoning the commons is just smart, if you can get away with it. But of course there’s a lot more to the Continent than France. Like, um, Germany… It’s all very complicated.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human.
     
    I covered this ground earlier: https://www.unz.com/isteve/kat-chow-on-npr-andrew-sullivans-model-minority-myth-ignores-poverty-of-bhutanese-americans/#comment-1844042

    Here’s my list of Asians and their Western equivalents:

    Japanese = Asian Englishmen. They are the second biggest customers of Savile Row in England. That says it all.

    Chinese = Asian Continentals, an amalgamation of Russians, French, and Germans. They are basically Asian Roman-Byzantines.

    Koreans = The (Ulster) Irishmen of Asia. They drink, they fight, they hate each other, and everyone else. They are liable to fall apart on their own, but do great things under Anglo tutelage.

    Taiwanese = If the Chinese are Asian Russians, the Taiwanese are Asian Serbo-Croats. They do well economically, but have the highest murder rate in East Asia.

    Filipinos = Asian Italians. Catholics who keep their heads down and do trade/service labor with good cheer. A little on the slow side.

    Indochinese (Vietnamese/Laotians/Cambodians) = Asian Balkans, I suppose. But really Asian Salvadorans. Some of them work hard, others join violent gangs. Still others (if from the mountains) hunt people in the woods.

    Thai = Asian Mexicans. Hard working, moderate IQ folks with spicy food.

    Indians = Asian equivalents of Middle Easterners in Europe. A small subset is made up of very high IQ folks of ancient tradition, but the rest are liable to be low IQ gang-rapists.

    Indonesians/Malaysians = Asian North Africans. Most are mellow, but the religious ones are scary.

    Singaporeans = Asian Swiss. Clean, corruption-free, and oh-so-superior to everyone else around them. Don’t litter – or you will pay a fine!
     
  343. @anonymous
    Corvinus,

    The era has long passed when the white working class is represented by unions, now the handmaiden of the bureaucratic or government class. Unions that represent private sector workers are declining in membership. This is why the middle and working class are helped -- on balance -- if unions are busted: government unions represent those who are taking from their paychecks and future livelihood (there is no upside, to those in the private sector who struggle to subsidize the public sector, when government unions increase in power and influence).

    As private unions declined, white middle class people created small businesses to carve out a living. Helping small businesses by lowering taxes helps ordinary Americans. Ditto with easing regulations. Most regulations are seen as punitive to those who aren't government dependents ... and unnecessary.

    Obviously, rescinding NAFTA is a boonfor the American working and middle class, though not so much for illegal immigrants who will have to go home to face the problems that their own governments created. Their job futures will be limited because of their own inept governments. Running away to America, avoiding their own problems, and thus hurting ordinary Americans was only their palliative, not a cure. Their cure is in straightening out their own cultures and countries. Globalists and big business sorts who rely on undercutting American labor with cheap foreigners and paid access to corrupt American politicians will be hurt. They deserve the hurt they earned. They deserve to experience for themselves the pain they have caused ordinary Americans.

    krbu

    Up defense spending to Reagan levels. The auto industry never paid as well as the aerospace defense did in its peak. The good thing about high levels of defense spending is almost every state has the military-industrial complex. Upping defense spending to 100 billion would make San Diego richer than the bay area which does little of that.

  344. @Hunsdon
    I guess touching Sailer's Law of Female Journalism was right out of bounds.

    Tremendous achievement. You have been doing spectacular work, consistently, for a long, long time. This is the first place I come in the morning, as I sit down with my first quart of coffee.

    I tried that for a while but had to stop after I realized I wasn’t going to make rent that month.

  345. Steve Sailer’s website is a welcome refuge from the anti-white content supported by emotionally laden innumeracy embraced by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

    Well done Steve, it is comforting to know we backed the right horse.

  346. Anonymous [AKA "bastion of something"] says:

    OT

    Joanne Jacobs writes “Well-off liberals choose mostly white schools” and points to two new articles on this evergreen phenomenon:

    The New York Times: Family by Family, How School Segregation Still Happens
    and
    The Atlantic: The Privilege of School Choice – When given the chance, will wealthy parents ever choose to desegregate schools?

    Christ, I love watching these people squirm.

    If you’re new to iSteve, brought here by the NY Mag piece, these articles provide some context for another classic iSteve theme: the intersection of real-estate, diversity, and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do liberalism. Really, it’s Steve’s world. We’re just living in it.

  347. @Corvinus
    "Ya gotta be kidding! Obviously “eliminate” in this context is removal from the continental US."

    "Full fash", is that not in reference to "full fascism"? Do not fascists generally seek to "eliminate" their rivals by killing them?

    "And from Mr Chieh’s commentary history, he and his family’s removal would be a loss to our country."

    Did his ancestors not immigrate here from an "undesirable" nation? Is he not in essence an invader? Why are you defending someone who is other than white?

    Technically, my KMT ancestors were pretty consistently pro-US and my family always saw themselves as guests, not immigrants. But in the end, I understand why others would see my existence as invaders and I can’t completely disagree with them. But I have to live, anyway, and I hate the harm that social liberals cause more than I love greed for my own advancement.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Technically, my KMT ancestors were pretty consistently pro-US and my family always saw themselves as guests, not immigrants."

    Exactly like most immigrants who come to America today.

    "But in the end, I understand why others would see my existence as invaders and I can’t completely disagree with them."

    Then you must leave. Immediately. Self-deport now. You have been leeching the U.S. similar to the incoming Somalis, Guatemalans, and Kenyans.

    "But I have to live, anyway, and I hate the harm that social liberals cause more than I love greed for my own advancement."

    See, this is hypocrisy at its finest. Your ancestors immigrate here, make their home here, and you have the audacity to tell immigrants who come to this nation perhaps for similar reasons like your ancestors that they are other than welcome. Time for you and your family to go.
  348. @PV van der Byl
    I had the same thought. Even if the NYMag story isn't actually sympathetic to Steve, it isn't strongly hostile, either.

    There are other articles on the so-called alt-right in the same issue and those really are hostile.

    I had the same thought. Even if the NYMag story isn’t actually sympathetic to Steve, it isn’t strongly hostile, either.

    We’re entering the bargaining phase. See also:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/andrew-sullivan-why-the-reactionary-right-must-be-taken-seriously.html

  349. @Daniel Chieh
    Technically, my KMT ancestors were pretty consistently pro-US and my family always saw themselves as guests, not immigrants. But in the end, I understand why others would see my existence as invaders and I can't completely disagree with them. But I have to live, anyway, and I hate the harm that social liberals cause more than I love greed for my own advancement.

    “Technically, my KMT ancestors were pretty consistently pro-US and my family always saw themselves as guests, not immigrants.”

    Exactly like most immigrants who come to America today.

    “But in the end, I understand why others would see my existence as invaders and I can’t completely disagree with them.”

    Then you must leave. Immediately. Self-deport now. You have been leeching the U.S. similar to the incoming Somalis, Guatemalans, and Kenyans.

    “But I have to live, anyway, and I hate the harm that social liberals cause more than I love greed for my own advancement.”

    See, this is hypocrisy at its finest. Your ancestors immigrate here, make their home here, and you have the audacity to tell immigrants who come to this nation perhaps for similar reasons like your ancestors that they are other than welcome. Time for you and your family to go.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn't a bad thing. And as a "current shareholder", I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders. You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you're just being your usual mendacious self.

    I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the "we."

    As for myself, I don't really have any illusions what'll happen to me if the right-wing faction fully prevails, but I don't have any reason to leave until I can make sure that I can cause as much trouble as possible for the liberals. After that happens, que sera, sera.

  350. @Corvinus
    "Technically, my KMT ancestors were pretty consistently pro-US and my family always saw themselves as guests, not immigrants."

    Exactly like most immigrants who come to America today.

    "But in the end, I understand why others would see my existence as invaders and I can’t completely disagree with them."

    Then you must leave. Immediately. Self-deport now. You have been leeching the U.S. similar to the incoming Somalis, Guatemalans, and Kenyans.

    "But I have to live, anyway, and I hate the harm that social liberals cause more than I love greed for my own advancement."

    See, this is hypocrisy at its finest. Your ancestors immigrate here, make their home here, and you have the audacity to tell immigrants who come to this nation perhaps for similar reasons like your ancestors that they are other than welcome. Time for you and your family to go.

    No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn’t a bad thing. And as a “current shareholder”, I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders. You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you’re just being your usual mendacious self.

    I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the “we.”

    As for myself, I don’t really have any illusions what’ll happen to me if the right-wing faction fully prevails, but I don’t have any reason to leave until I can make sure that I can cause as much trouble as possible for the liberals. After that happens, que sera, sera.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    I'm sorry you wasted your time replying to Corvinus's deliberate twisting of your earlier comment. I understood exactly what you meant and, as a white US citizen, have no problem or quarrel with it.
    , @BB753
    Don't worry, you'll count as an honorary White.
    , @Corvinus
    "No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn’t a bad thing.

    Except that your ancestors would have never been here in the first place if those past attitudes remained in place. Your ancestors benefitted from those whites who "allowed" them as non-whites to enter their nation. Exactly why you are a hypocrite.

    "And as a “current shareholder”,"I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders."

    It's not about you. It's about America and historically what it stands for. It's about making sure that whites as a race and European-Americans as an ethnic group do not become "extinct" here. That's what the Alt Right commands. And yet we have you and your white helpmates making exceptions, which is clearly anti-white.

    Were your ancestors here at the time when America was founded, i.e. 1600's? I believe the answer is no.

    Were your ancestors at one point in time prohibited from entering our nation in the past? I believe the answer is yes.

    In the end, white male citizens granted your ancestors "paper citizenship". I thought you were opposed to the Zeroth Amendment. Dare I say that you are a civic nationalist! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    "You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you’re just being your usual mendacious self."

    Praytell, what is this "essential point of citizenship" from your angle?

    "I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the “we.”"

    That's hilarious. Your ancestors were never part of this "we", at least that is what is touted by the Alt Right. Why are you considered the exception? Remember, this "we" consisted of white people. You know, "Anglos".

    Apparently, Dan Hayes and ic1000 have turned in their both their European card and their Alt Right card by supporting your "right" to be here in the United States.

  351. It’s a good write-up, mostly positive. It shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, one man can make a difference.

    In common with the NYT, the journalists express what they really think in the final paragraph:

    “In 2017, I’m the voice of reason and moderation,” Sailer told us, in reference to the open ethnonationalists to his right and cosmopolitan liberals to his left. That isn’t true —

    – so think the writers, though I agree with Steve. The end of mass immigration, combined with equal treatment of those already here, is the best, most moderate plan that we can hope for. In France, for example, the end of mass immigration is inevitable, but voters have a choice: elect Marine le Pen this year and end mass immigration now; or wait thirty years and do these things when the country is 30% Muslim and approaching civil war. Somehow the former course is painted as extremist, and the latter as moderate and humanitarian, when the truth is the exact opposite.

    Sailer is a perceptive thinker, but his views on race, for which he will inevitably be best-known, still represent the more resentful end of white opinion.

    I wouldn’t bet on that. Maybe the more resentful end of expressed white opinion.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  352. @dc.sunsets
    Given that the average Alt-Righter was able to see past the curtain of pervasive propaganda and break free while in the midst of a theocracy's dominance, Mr. Karlin, what would be your mean IQ estimate for them?

    I never used to understand why Pol Pot's merry henchmen tried to murder every "educated" Cambodian. When I encounter the derision that drips from certain kinds of "educated" people, I begin to understand.

    Those who happily heap insults on others might wish to remember that the Wheel has a funny habit of turning, and that those who you think are safe targets today may turn out tomorrow to have the position to remind you of your manners. Holding a different view of things from yours, and doing so emotionally, is not a sign of low intelligence. Those who fail to grasp this are apt to be on the Wrong Side of History...which in the past has come complete with a very small plot of land, sometimes shared with many others.

    He’s not wrong. There’s not an insignificant number of the Alt-Right which aren’t geniuses. There certainly is a lot of say, blue-collar white men who would prefer to work on a factory forever who are being displaced by globalization and automation.

    And I’ve known not a small number who are basically born from broken families, pretty alcoholic, very homeless, etc. By most modern standards, the people I used to spent time with in the countryside are violent and pretty primitive, often highly religious and committed to guest codes and other rituals that aren’t very modern. They’re not the brightest, though often good people at the end of the day.

    A person’s worth is not measured by his IQ, though, and there’s nothing wrong that they are fighting for their own interests. When the zeitgeist is telling you to literally hurry up and die, they have every right to fight for their life.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  353. @Jack Hanson
    Hahhaha you wish. Everything I said about the back patting tendency of commenters here and the Secret Masters of Politics nonsense still stands.

    I've been written up in TakiMag. It doesn't make me a fucking personage.

    Ok, please provide a link to Takimag.

  354. @Barnard
    That they still regularly run columns from Jay Nordlinger and Mona Charen is baffling. David French absolutely embarrassed himself and National Review by seriously considering Bill Kristol's efforts to get him to run for President. Most of their contributors wanted him to run and ended up endorsing Evan McMullin. Charles CW Cooke has made a mess of their website as it's editor. He also doesn't seem to hold many conservative positions, other than being an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment.

    Somehow, they just hired Michael Brendan Dougherty from The Week. His views don't seem to mesh well with most of their staff. I wonder if they are trying to drum up some faux internal controversies to drive page views.

    Dougherty is a good boy, like a less internet addled/nerdy Ross Douthat.

  355. @Daniel Chieh
    No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn't a bad thing. And as a "current shareholder", I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders. You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you're just being your usual mendacious self.

    I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the "we."

    As for myself, I don't really have any illusions what'll happen to me if the right-wing faction fully prevails, but I don't have any reason to leave until I can make sure that I can cause as much trouble as possible for the liberals. After that happens, que sera, sera.

    I’m sorry you wasted your time replying to Corvinus’s deliberate twisting of your earlier comment. I understood exactly what you meant and, as a white US citizen, have no problem or quarrel with it.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, ic1000
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I understood exactly what you meant and, as a white US citizen, have no problem or quarrel with it."

    Great! Then you agree that non-Europeans, whether it be Latin Americans or Asians, in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture.

  356. Happy May Day, host.

  357. @Daniel Chieh
    No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn't a bad thing. And as a "current shareholder", I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders. You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you're just being your usual mendacious self.

    I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the "we."

    As for myself, I don't really have any illusions what'll happen to me if the right-wing faction fully prevails, but I don't have any reason to leave until I can make sure that I can cause as much trouble as possible for the liberals. After that happens, que sera, sera.

    Don’t worry, you’ll count as an honorary White.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Don’t worry, you’ll count as an honorary White."

    What gives you this authority? Did you get formal training? Were you granted this opportunity through a prize in a Cracker Jack box?

    Or did you simply empower yourself? If that be the case, then I am able to make non-whites "honorary Whites" as well.

    I thought "white" was not a social construct, so how does your designation fall in line with "race realism" and HbD?

    Furthermore, when this race war comes to the States, will you come to his defense? I thought "race was your uniform"? Are you just begging to have your "white" card stripped from you?

    So many questions for you to answer...
    , @Anon
    Should he say, "Me so lucky lucky long time. Me so honorary, me so honorary"?
  358. @Anonym
    Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other. This is a future we should try to avoid.

    As per the quoted section, rather than why this should be avoided, the author should tell us how, if SJWs and liberals try to maintain their current trajectory. Unless the idea is to relinquish identitarian leftism. Well, good luck with that.

    Without mass immivasion, we would still have a very morally bankrupt, degenerate world where the non-immigration tenets of liberalism would still be popular. It would be an enjoyable world as a young adult, not so much as a child. There would be no white nationalism of any consequence.

    With mass immigration in every white country, and no reciprocation of any consequence such that non-whites still have their ethnostates or near enough, there is the cause for white nationalism. I think relatively few of us really dislike other races per se. But a relatively bloodless economic and migratory takeover of what have historically been our countries is an aggressive act by the immigrants, tantamount to an act of treason by our leaders and the media who have tried their best to foil discourse on the topic, and it merits a response.

    raw white nationalism

    I wondered whether the author would find it less objectionable cooked.

  359. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Nixon immediately forced the Southern schools to desegregate after 15 years of resistance. Nixon did a lot more to resist busing in from Northern big cities to suburbs.

    Review of Brendan Simms’s history of Europe

    Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary:

    I think Peter Frost suggested that the Cold War Soviets trashing the international reputation of the US by bringing up the way blacks were treated in the South, led to the those mainly interested in foreign policy, like Nixon, deciding that the South had to be made an example of. JFK is an even clearer example, he completely changed tack once he was Pres and concerned with US soft power projection.

    This view of desegrigation as a Cold War necessityis quite ainstream

    http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/Civil_Rights_and_Cold_Warriors(PrinterFriendly).pdf

    As a result of international pressure, one of the first government agencies to move towards integration was the U.S. State Department. Department officials, “directly engaged with  the world,” were moved to integrate the agency as concern “heightened” worldwide in regards to black civil rights.7 Secretary of State Dean Acheson argued that race discrimination “remains a  source of constant embarrassment to this government” by harming our reputation; he was convinced that mistreatment of blacks jeopardized our conduct in foreign relations and questioned America’s moral leadership of the ‘free and democratic nations of the world.’” 

  360. @European-American
    Kudos. Don't forget us when you're jetsetting to Davos and Bilderberg with the other fat cats!

    I like to imagine our host in attendance there at the far end of the conference table or dias, sitting in a Saarinen ball chair petting the bunny.

    And I thought the chiaroscuro portrait made the hair look spikier, i.e., punker.

  361. @Kylie
    I'm sorry you wasted your time replying to Corvinus's deliberate twisting of your earlier comment. I understood exactly what you meant and, as a white US citizen, have no problem or quarrel with it.

    “I understood exactly what you meant and, as a white US citizen, have no problem or quarrel with it.”

    Great! Then you agree that non-Europeans, whether it be Latin Americans or Asians, in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    "Then you agree that non-Europeans, whether it be Latin Americans or Asians, in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture."

    There you go again. I commend one poster who self-identifies as of Chinese ancestry and you twist my comment to read as inclusive of Asians generally. You are dishonest.

    And for the record, I strongly disagree. I do not believe Latin Americans or Asians in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture. I don't even believe they want to. I believe they come here primarily if not solely for material gain. I wish they'd leave and take you and your ilk with them.

    Obviously, Daniel Chieh is an exception to this.

  362. @Daniel Chieh
    No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn't a bad thing. And as a "current shareholder", I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders. You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you're just being your usual mendacious self.

    I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the "we."

    As for myself, I don't really have any illusions what'll happen to me if the right-wing faction fully prevails, but I don't have any reason to leave until I can make sure that I can cause as much trouble as possible for the liberals. After that happens, que sera, sera.

    “No, to be specific, I have the audacity to tell illegal immigrants to get lost and suggest that limits on future immigration isn’t a bad thing.

    Except that your ancestors would have never been here in the first place if those past attitudes remained in place. Your ancestors benefitted from those whites who “allowed” them as non-whites to enter their nation. Exactly why you are a hypocrite.

    “And as a “current shareholder”,”I do not owe any obligations to future shareholders.”

    It’s not about you. It’s about America and historically what it stands for. It’s about making sure that whites as a race and European-Americans as an ethnic group do not become “extinct” here. That’s what the Alt Right commands. And yet we have you and your white helpmates making exceptions, which is clearly anti-white.

    Were your ancestors here at the time when America was founded, i.e. 1600’s? I believe the answer is no.

    Were your ancestors at one point in time prohibited from entering our nation in the past? I believe the answer is yes.

    In the end, white male citizens granted your ancestors “paper citizenship”. I thought you were opposed to the Zeroth Amendment. Dare I say that you are a civic nationalist! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    “You miss the essential point of citizenship, but of course, you’re just being your usual mendacious self.”

    Praytell, what is this “essential point of citizenship” from your angle?

    “I have zero obligation for other immigrants, whoever they are. They are not part of the “we.””

    That’s hilarious. Your ancestors were never part of this “we”, at least that is what is touted by the Alt Right. Why are you considered the exception? Remember, this “we” consisted of white people. You know, “Anglos”.

    Apparently, Dan Hayes and ic1000 have turned in their both their European card and their Alt Right card by supporting your “right” to be here in the United States.

    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
  363. Steve’s post mentioning the New Yorker article has 362 comments.

    The article itself has 59 comments.

    The past takes a moment to get to know the future it is being replaced by.

  364. Kylie says:
    @Corvinus
    "I understood exactly what you meant and, as a white US citizen, have no problem or quarrel with it."

    Great! Then you agree that non-Europeans, whether it be Latin Americans or Asians, in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture.

    “Then you agree that non-Europeans, whether it be Latin Americans or Asians, in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture.”

    There you go again. I commend one poster who self-identifies as of Chinese ancestry and you twist my comment to read as inclusive of Asians generally. You are dishonest.

    And for the record, I strongly disagree. I do not believe Latin Americans or Asians in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture. I don’t even believe they want to. I believe they come here primarily if not solely for material gain. I wish they’d leave and take you and your ilk with them.

    Obviously, Daniel Chieh is an exception to this.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "There you go again. I commend one poster who self-identifies as of Chinese ancestry and you twist my comment to read as inclusive of Asians generally. You are dishonest."

    So, you "commend" and "condemn" Daniel Chieh for being of Chinese ancestry.

    "And for the record, I strongly disagree. I do not believe Latin Americans or Asians in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture. I don’t even believe they want to."

    These two groups have generally proven they are more than willing to immerse themselves into our society.

    "I believe they come here primarily if not solely for material gain. I wish they’d leave and take you and your ilk with them."

    First, it would appear that you are other than a hard-core advocate of the Zeroth Amendment and a supporter of invaders, regardless of their small numbers.

    Second, you do realize that I am a white American man who is a citizen. One of your brethren. And you are demanding I leave because I think differently than yourself. Your anti-white stance, as well as your lack of true devotion to the Alt-Right, is duly noted.

    And in any event, you should be the one self-deporting. Unless you are able to trace directly your ancestors to the United Kingdom, you are are not a "real American". Vox Day and his merry band of henchmen have made it abundantly clear that only this group of people represent the "posterity" of the United States.

    "Obviously, Daniel Chieh is an exception to this."

    Because he and his family are "outliers" to what the Chinese normally aspire to when they come to America? So long as he embraces conservatism or Alt Right thinking, right?

    Great to know you have "exceptions" to the rule. I don't think the Alt Right takes too kindly to that sort of thinking.
  365. @European-American
    You might in Taiwan?... The differences between cultures in Japan and China are, of course fascinating. Similar cultural and genetic roots, different behaviors... I can't even begin to have an opinion about them. Throw in Korea, Taiwan, differences within the countries, differences in time periods...

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human. There's lots of British "nice things", like orderly queueing or what not, that you simply cannot have in France. What, you think French people are stupid? Cutting the line or poisoning the commons is just smart, if you can get away with it. But of course there's a lot more to the Continent than France. Like, um, Germany... It's all very complicated.

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human.

    I covered this ground earlier: https://www.unz.com/isteve/kat-chow-on-npr-andrew-sullivans-model-minority-myth-ignores-poverty-of-bhutanese-americans/#comment-1844042

    Here’s my list of Asians and their Western equivalents:

    Japanese = Asian Englishmen. They are the second biggest customers of Savile Row in England. That says it all.

    Chinese = Asian Continentals, an amalgamation of Russians, French, and Germans. They are basically Asian Roman-Byzantines.

    Koreans = The (Ulster) Irishmen of Asia. They drink, they fight, they hate each other, and everyone else. They are liable to fall apart on their own, but do great things under Anglo tutelage.

    Taiwanese = If the Chinese are Asian Russians, the Taiwanese are Asian Serbo-Croats. They do well economically, but have the highest murder rate in East Asia.

    Filipinos = Asian Italians. Catholics who keep their heads down and do trade/service labor with good cheer. A little on the slow side.

    Indochinese (Vietnamese/Laotians/Cambodians) = Asian Balkans, I suppose. But really Asian Salvadorans. Some of them work hard, others join violent gangs. Still others (if from the mountains) hunt people in the woods.

    Thai = Asian Mexicans. Hard working, moderate IQ folks with spicy food.

    Indians = Asian equivalents of Middle Easterners in Europe. A small subset is made up of very high IQ folks of ancient tradition, but the rest are liable to be low IQ gang-rapists.

    Indonesians/Malaysians = Asian North Africans. Most are mellow, but the religious ones are scary.

    Singaporeans = Asian Swiss. Clean, corruption-free, and oh-so-superior to everyone else around them. Don’t litter – or you will pay a fine!

    • Replies: @BB753
    "Taiwanese = If the Chinese are Asian Russians, the Taiwanese are Asian Serbo-Croats. They do well economically, but have the highest murder rate in East Asia."

    I don't quite follow you here.
    , @European-American
    Nice. And also maddeningly as arguable as it is right, but how could it not be.

    The one that surprises me most, besides the not-fair-to-Italy comparison with the Philippines, is Koreans as the Irish. You would know better of course, but I think of Koreans as super East Asians, more Confucian than the Chinese, more crazy racially pure conformist than the Japanese. Messed up by successive 20th century occupations, of course, and long vassalized by China, but with a rather glorious and ancient and independent civilization.
  366. @Daniel Chieh
    My dad mentioned the amazing existence of pay-by-honor convenience stores in Japan. You couldn't have such nice things in China.

    My dad mentioned the amazing existence of pay-by-honor convenience stores in Japan. You couldn’t have such nice things in China.

    But you can in Chinese-run Singapore.

  367. @Dieter Kief
    As long as good humored and good-hearted comon sense is at work, everything is just fine.

    Same with communism. German writer Hermann Peter Piwitt once had it this way: Communism is just great, as long as there are no people involved. They are the biggest mistake.

    Except for that - be careful with words. Watch out. Don't get bewitched by them (Wittgenstein), and don't you think to make a proper use of them would be easy - or, as the New York magazine-article about Steve Sailer has it, could be - or should be, even - innocent.

    This idea, that innocence should be looked upon as one of the main guidelines of public discourse, leads directly to Snowflake Ave. and Purity-Lane junction: That leaves out the basic insight, that any worthwhile discourse has to deal with arguments - a n d counter-arguments. And therefor has as his basis the golden rule of old: We agree to disagree.

    If this democratic interior homeland gets lost, if the grown-up person's willingness to live with the tensions caused by argumentation and counter-argumentation gets lost, if a kind of wellness-public takes over, that is way less complex than reality, than a society is in danger to - let me put it a little bit short & sharp: To lose it's mind.
    With Freud, you could call this state of the affairs: Regressive.
    A less vitiolic way to describe it would be: A public sphere, that is not up to it's tasks.

    The tasks being, as is widely accepted not least because Steve Sailer worded (most) of those tasks so appropriately: Don't invite/ invade the world; citizenship (family affordance); HBD, sustainability (respect for nature).
    - Now, for this short moment in time, I all of a sudden rest assured, that things aren't that complicated.

    But I know, this feeling, sweet as it is, will sooner or later be transformed in something quite different.

    ...since:... "the times, they-are a-changing"... (such is the very nature of our earthly ways)...

    Same with communism. German writer Hermann Peter Piwitt once had it this way: Communism is just great, as long as there are no people involved. They are the biggest mistake.

    I seem to recall a story about someone going to myrmecologist extraordinaire E.O. Wilson and asking him to discuss his views on Marxism.

    With hardly a beat he replied, “Good idea. Wrong species.”

  368. I paste below an excellent, excellent comment to the NY Mag profile of Steve that was recently left in the comment section there. It deserves in my opinion to be pulled and highlighted by Steve as a top-line blog post on his blog here.

    From “random.observer”:

    That’s a good and remarkably balanced profile.

    It’s worth stressing that Sailer’s original and so far as I can tell, still favored political philosophy has been and is what he calls “citizenism”, an attempt to frame a fairly inclusive nationalism around the idea of American nationhood, heritage, common culture, and institutions.

    He gave it a name for his own use, but it’s not far from what others have called civic nationalism, institutional nationalism, cultural nationalism, or for that matter to some ‘patriotism’. Perhaps patriotism with a more nationalist tinge.

    Now looked at from a certain point of view, that does bias in favor of a lot of traditional ‘white American’ concerns, but from another point of view that is not unreasonable as an expectation of what was for so long the overwhelming majority and the population that actually shaped the forms of government and built the nation to its boundaries and its institutions.

    Such a nationalism should, and in Sailer’s hands did, make room for the obvious identification of the Native American heritage, African American reality, cultural importance and citizenship, and full constitutional rights for the aforementioned and for all others who have come to the US.

    But it would also prioritize such things as a national-interest based foreign policy [which does not preclude even if it moderates idealistic crusading] and a national-interest based trade policy [which does not preclude free trade, it never did, but sees it as instrumental rather than teleological]. It would have expected and assumed sovereign control over immigration as a norm [as it long was globally assumed to be] not a controversy, and treated illegal entry as such. It would have assumed that legal entry followed by taking up citizenship meant loyalty to the US and not a former nation, and generally adoption of an American identity.

    I always thought this was the vision American liberals wanted in the Kennedy-Johnson era and for a while after. I am just about able to credit the Clinton era liberals with sharing it. Although their emphases on economics and class, foreign policy, and many other social and legal issues differed, I see only evidence that both Nixon and Reagan style conservatives had reached this point also.

    I might even argue that, despite how it is relentlessly characterized otherwise, and wished to be otherwise by some on the right, anything that might resemble American nationalism in Trump’s head follows assumptions like these.

    It’s actually pretty conventional liberal democratic nationalism and scarcely any of its bases were much questioned outside the academy until the late 1990s. Plenty of goodwill in it. It isn’t even actually hostile to other nations.

    It was not the right that abandoned it for identity politics first.

    On Sailer’s other frequent insight, that identity politics is an inevitable consequence of diversity. He’s right, but he’s also channeling telegrams from the Department of Duh there. It’s a useful service but it’s not him coming up with something new. It’s observation.

    There has never been an ethnically, culturally or religiously diverse society in which identity politics was not the default mode. The closer it gets to not having a majority consensus, the more identity politics becomes the only mode. Bronze Age to today, can find no exception. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s what we’re choosing.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    Opinionator, thanks. Citizenism is what Steve uses, so I'll go with that. I'd also suggest traditionalism or national traditionalism, a corrective to the armada of weird-shit ideas that flooded America after WWII, when America's astounding victory and the ignominious defeat of Hitler and Mussolini rendered the politics of national community unpalatable, and even invidious, to many Americans.
    , @res
    I wonder if that is "our" "random observer": https://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/random+observer/
    Odd that he has no comments on Unz since January.

    Opinionator, thanks for reposting that here (I haven't been checking back there). Especially since one never knows when a good counter Narrative comment will be deleted by the MSM.
  369. @Opinionator
    I paste below an excellent, excellent comment to the NY Mag profile of Steve that was recently left in the comment section there. It deserves in my opinion to be pulled and highlighted by Steve as a top-line blog post on his blog here.

    From "random.observer":

    That's a good and remarkably balanced profile.

    It's worth stressing that Sailer's original and so far as I can tell, still favored political philosophy has been and is what he calls "citizenism", an attempt to frame a fairly inclusive nationalism around the idea of American nationhood, heritage, common culture, and institutions.

    He gave it a name for his own use, but it's not far from what others have called civic nationalism, institutional nationalism, cultural nationalism, or for that matter to some 'patriotism'. Perhaps patriotism with a more nationalist tinge.

    Now looked at from a certain point of view, that does bias in favor of a lot of traditional 'white American' concerns, but from another point of view that is not unreasonable as an expectation of what was for so long the overwhelming majority and the population that actually shaped the forms of government and built the nation to its boundaries and its institutions.

    Such a nationalism should, and in Sailer's hands did, make room for the obvious identification of the Native American heritage, African American reality, cultural importance and citizenship, and full constitutional rights for the aforementioned and for all others who have come to the US.

    But it would also prioritize such things as a national-interest based foreign policy [which does not preclude even if it moderates idealistic crusading] and a national-interest based trade policy [which does not preclude free trade, it never did, but sees it as instrumental rather than teleological]. It would have expected and assumed sovereign control over immigration as a norm [as it long was globally assumed to be] not a controversy, and treated illegal entry as such. It would have assumed that legal entry followed by taking up citizenship meant loyalty to the US and not a former nation, and generally adoption of an American identity.

    I always thought this was the vision American liberals wanted in the Kennedy-Johnson era and for a while after. I am just about able to credit the Clinton era liberals with sharing it. Although their emphases on economics and class, foreign policy, and many other social and legal issues differed, I see only evidence that both Nixon and Reagan style conservatives had reached this point also.

    I might even argue that, despite how it is relentlessly characterized otherwise, and wished to be otherwise by some on the right, anything that might resemble American nationalism in Trump's head follows assumptions like these.

    It's actually pretty conventional liberal democratic nationalism and scarcely any of its bases were much questioned outside the academy until the late 1990s. Plenty of goodwill in it. It isn't even actually hostile to other nations.

    It was not the right that abandoned it for identity politics first.

    On Sailer's other frequent insight, that identity politics is an inevitable consequence of diversity. He's right, but he's also channeling telegrams from the Department of Duh there. It's a useful service but it's not him coming up with something new. It's observation.

    There has never been an ethnically, culturally or religiously diverse society in which identity politics was not the default mode. The closer it gets to not having a majority consensus, the more identity politics becomes the only mode. Bronze Age to today, can find no exception. It's not the end of the world, but it's what we're choosing.

    Opinionator, thanks. Citizenism is what Steve uses, so I’ll go with that. I’d also suggest traditionalism or national traditionalism, a corrective to the armada of weird-shit ideas that flooded America after WWII, when America’s astounding victory and the ignominious defeat of Hitler and Mussolini rendered the politics of national community unpalatable, and even invidious, to many Americans.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Hiroshima did that.
  370. @Kylie
    "Then you agree that non-Europeans, whether it be Latin Americans or Asians, in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture."

    There you go again. I commend one poster who self-identifies as of Chinese ancestry and you twist my comment to read as inclusive of Asians generally. You are dishonest.

    And for the record, I strongly disagree. I do not believe Latin Americans or Asians in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture. I don't even believe they want to. I believe they come here primarily if not solely for material gain. I wish they'd leave and take you and your ilk with them.

    Obviously, Daniel Chieh is an exception to this.

    “There you go again. I commend one poster who self-identifies as of Chinese ancestry and you twist my comment to read as inclusive of Asians generally. You are dishonest.”

    So, you “commend” and “condemn” Daniel Chieh for being of Chinese ancestry.

    “And for the record, I strongly disagree. I do not believe Latin Americans or Asians in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture. I don’t even believe they want to.”

    These two groups have generally proven they are more than willing to immerse themselves into our society.

    “I believe they come here primarily if not solely for material gain. I wish they’d leave and take you and your ilk with them.”

    First, it would appear that you are other than a hard-core advocate of the Zeroth Amendment and a supporter of invaders, regardless of their small numbers.

    Second, you do realize that I am a white American man who is a citizen. One of your brethren. And you are demanding I leave because I think differently than yourself. Your anti-white stance, as well as your lack of true devotion to the Alt-Right, is duly noted.

    And in any event, you should be the one self-deporting. Unless you are able to trace directly your ancestors to the United Kingdom, you are are not a “real American”. Vox Day and his merry band of henchmen have made it abundantly clear that only this group of people represent the “posterity” of the United States.

    “Obviously, Daniel Chieh is an exception to this.”

    Because he and his family are “outliers” to what the Chinese normally aspire to when they come to America? So long as he embraces conservatism or Alt Right thinking, right?

    Great to know you have “exceptions” to the rule. I don’t think the Alt Right takes too kindly to that sort of thinking.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This is where you show no knowledge of "full fash" Alt-Right, which by the way, is only one part of the movement.

    But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.

    2) You, however, are a traitor.

    3) They shoot traitors before invaders.

    They despise no one more than a traitor. Even an enemy can have honor, because he's fighting for his goals and for his family. You are basically family, trying to undermine the rest of your family. And then you express surprise why they are disgusted by your attempts at logic?

    But yes, you're still missing Steve's point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire's points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders. So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more.

    To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn't mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world.
  371. @Twinkie

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human.
     
    I covered this ground earlier: https://www.unz.com/isteve/kat-chow-on-npr-andrew-sullivans-model-minority-myth-ignores-poverty-of-bhutanese-americans/#comment-1844042

    Here’s my list of Asians and their Western equivalents:

    Japanese = Asian Englishmen. They are the second biggest customers of Savile Row in England. That says it all.

    Chinese = Asian Continentals, an amalgamation of Russians, French, and Germans. They are basically Asian Roman-Byzantines.

    Koreans = The (Ulster) Irishmen of Asia. They drink, they fight, they hate each other, and everyone else. They are liable to fall apart on their own, but do great things under Anglo tutelage.

    Taiwanese = If the Chinese are Asian Russians, the Taiwanese are Asian Serbo-Croats. They do well economically, but have the highest murder rate in East Asia.

    Filipinos = Asian Italians. Catholics who keep their heads down and do trade/service labor with good cheer. A little on the slow side.

    Indochinese (Vietnamese/Laotians/Cambodians) = Asian Balkans, I suppose. But really Asian Salvadorans. Some of them work hard, others join violent gangs. Still others (if from the mountains) hunt people in the woods.

    Thai = Asian Mexicans. Hard working, moderate IQ folks with spicy food.

    Indians = Asian equivalents of Middle Easterners in Europe. A small subset is made up of very high IQ folks of ancient tradition, but the rest are liable to be low IQ gang-rapists.

    Indonesians/Malaysians = Asian North Africans. Most are mellow, but the religious ones are scary.

    Singaporeans = Asian Swiss. Clean, corruption-free, and oh-so-superior to everyone else around them. Don’t litter – or you will pay a fine!
     

    “Taiwanese = If the Chinese are Asian Russians, the Taiwanese are Asian Serbo-Croats. They do well economically, but have the highest murder rate in East Asia.”

    I don’t quite follow you here.

  372. @Jay Ritchie
    I'd love to see further analysis on this - particularly splitting out the long term benefit claimants with multiple offspring.

    “long term benefit claimants with multiple offspring”

    As I undertand it one of the more sensible moves of the last Cameron administration was (going forward) to restrict child-related benefits to a maximum of two children. Previously the benefit system made it possible (if you could hack the living standards) to make a career of having children – which is how you got the Mick Philpott “family setting”, and also how you got the singer Ms Dynamite (“She is the eldest of eleven siblings”) – it’s also one reason why the UK Muslim population has expanded exponentially.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Philpott

  373. @BB753
    Don't worry, you'll count as an honorary White.

    “Don’t worry, you’ll count as an honorary White.”

    What gives you this authority? Did you get formal training? Were you granted this opportunity through a prize in a Cracker Jack box?

    Or did you simply empower yourself? If that be the case, then I am able to make non-whites “honorary Whites” as well.

    I thought “white” was not a social construct, so how does your designation fall in line with “race realism” and HbD?

    Furthermore, when this race war comes to the States, will you come to his defense? I thought “race was your uniform”? Are you just begging to have your “white” card stripped from you?

    So many questions for you to answer…

    • Replies: @BB753
    Well, if Japanese counted as honorary Whites in Apartheid Africa, I don't see why Daniel Chieh should be deprived of this privilege in modern America. We need all the allies we can.
  374. @Corvinus
    "There you go again. I commend one poster who self-identifies as of Chinese ancestry and you twist my comment to read as inclusive of Asians generally. You are dishonest."

    So, you "commend" and "condemn" Daniel Chieh for being of Chinese ancestry.

    "And for the record, I strongly disagree. I do not believe Latin Americans or Asians in general are able to embrace our republican ideals and assimilate into our culture. I don’t even believe they want to."

    These two groups have generally proven they are more than willing to immerse themselves into our society.

    "I believe they come here primarily if not solely for material gain. I wish they’d leave and take you and your ilk with them."

    First, it would appear that you are other than a hard-core advocate of the Zeroth Amendment and a supporter of invaders, regardless of their small numbers.

    Second, you do realize that I am a white American man who is a citizen. One of your brethren. And you are demanding I leave because I think differently than yourself. Your anti-white stance, as well as your lack of true devotion to the Alt-Right, is duly noted.

    And in any event, you should be the one self-deporting. Unless you are able to trace directly your ancestors to the United Kingdom, you are are not a "real American". Vox Day and his merry band of henchmen have made it abundantly clear that only this group of people represent the "posterity" of the United States.

    "Obviously, Daniel Chieh is an exception to this."

    Because he and his family are "outliers" to what the Chinese normally aspire to when they come to America? So long as he embraces conservatism or Alt Right thinking, right?

    Great to know you have "exceptions" to the rule. I don't think the Alt Right takes too kindly to that sort of thinking.

    This is where you show no knowledge of “full fash” Alt-Right, which by the way, is only one part of the movement.

    But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.

    2) You, however, are a traitor.

    3) They shoot traitors before invaders.

    They despise no one more than a traitor. Even an enemy can have honor, because he’s fighting for his goals and for his family. You are basically family, trying to undermine the rest of your family. And then you express surprise why they are disgusted by your attempts at logic?

    But yes, you’re still missing Steve’s point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire’s points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders. So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more.

    To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn’t mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Well put, Daniel Chieh!
    , @Corvinus
    "But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.
    2) You, however, are a traitor.
    3) They shoot traitors before invaders."

    I have not engaged in any treasonous actions. Stop being overdramatic. You are grasping at straws because you have been outed for your hypocrisy. You are in essence embracing "magic dirt", those mystical qualities back when efforts were made to break the old habits of newcomers--European newcomers. Nativists had insisted Asians in particular could NEVER properly assimilate...and here you are, front and center, stating how you are a "current shareholder" in light of your ancestors overcoming anti-Asian sentiment. What say you about those modern nativists who hold similar attitudes?

    "Nowadays, immigrants are looked upon as a source of laundered votes and cheap labor, and integration is actively discouraged."

    They are viewed in this manner by certain groups of people. Pray tell, were not the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Assyrians, etc. viewed by nativists at some point in time as being a source of political corruption and financial finagling? Your ancestors especially were held in low regard, that they lacked the wherewithal to embrace the dominant American culture by shedding their peculiar ways. How did they transform into "proper Americans"?

    "But yes, you’re still missing Steve’s point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire’s points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders."

    The "current shares for new shareholders" would include whites and non-whites, Europeans and non-Europeans, right? Because Vox Day, intrepid leader of the Alt Right, states that our posterity according to the Founding Fathers was only directed to the English. How would craft an argument that takes apart his position?

    "So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more."

    Those "current stakeholders" are fake Americans according to nativists, especially non-Europeans. They generally lacked the ability to assimilate. So why are able to assume this status despite nativist protestations?

    As I have stated before, I have no problem if Congress limits immigration. I have no issues with whites and non-whites, Christians or non-Christians who have come this our nation as immigrants, provided they meet certain criteria. What I do take umbrage to is the belief that only certain groups of people are capable of being assimilated, given that those same groups of people who faced similar disdain by nativists have children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who, ironically, embrace nativism. How easy they forget what their ancestors had experienced.

    "To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn’t mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world."

    Except the nativists were opposed to any and all "foreign children" to be adopted; rather, the parents ought to have more "biological children" of their own race. Is that not one of the tenets of Alt Right philosophy--more white people having more white children, with less "race mixing"?

    Moreover, why was that family "adopting foreign children" in the first place, especially those children deemed "troublemakers" like the Irish, Jews, and Chinese? Are not these groups still "agent provocateurs" today?

    And, Mr. Sailer, it would seem that Vox Day takes credit for "magic dirt".

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/11/derb-and-magic-dirt.html
    , @Corvinus
    For clarity's sake...

    How would you craft an argument that takes apart his position?

    So why are you able to assume this status despite nativist protestations?
  375. From Chuck Johnson’s reddit AMA:

    Q. When did you first realize you were a glorious shitlord?

    A. I started (((noticing))) things and read the Bell Curve. I legit hid it under my mattress. Steve Sailer was a huge influence. I used to work in a computer lab in high school and I would read him and delete my history lest anyone found out.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4js4s8/i_am_chuck_c_johnson_ama/#d39240y

  376. @JackOH
    Opinionator, thanks. Citizenism is what Steve uses, so I'll go with that. I'd also suggest traditionalism or national traditionalism, a corrective to the armada of weird-shit ideas that flooded America after WWII, when America's astounding victory and the ignominious defeat of Hitler and Mussolini rendered the politics of national community unpalatable, and even invidious, to many Americans.

    Hiroshima did that.

  377. @Old Palo Altan
    I'm ten years younger, and maybe it is just the glow of childhood memory, but, yes, the fifties were wonderful. It lasted until Kennedy's assassination, which really did mean the end of innocence. I noticed just yesterday that the decline in SAT scores started immediately thereafter. We faltered, shocked and dazed.
    And then the immigration madness of 1965 begin the end-run to encircle and choke-off whatever future we might still have had.

    I was born in 1950 and recall family vacations during 1958-59, one year to Michigan, the next to Florida. At that time, America was made up of people who proudly bestrode the continent.

  378. @Opinionator
    I paste below an excellent, excellent comment to the NY Mag profile of Steve that was recently left in the comment section there. It deserves in my opinion to be pulled and highlighted by Steve as a top-line blog post on his blog here.

    From "random.observer":

    That's a good and remarkably balanced profile.

    It's worth stressing that Sailer's original and so far as I can tell, still favored political philosophy has been and is what he calls "citizenism", an attempt to frame a fairly inclusive nationalism around the idea of American nationhood, heritage, common culture, and institutions.

    He gave it a name for his own use, but it's not far from what others have called civic nationalism, institutional nationalism, cultural nationalism, or for that matter to some 'patriotism'. Perhaps patriotism with a more nationalist tinge.

    Now looked at from a certain point of view, that does bias in favor of a lot of traditional 'white American' concerns, but from another point of view that is not unreasonable as an expectation of what was for so long the overwhelming majority and the population that actually shaped the forms of government and built the nation to its boundaries and its institutions.

    Such a nationalism should, and in Sailer's hands did, make room for the obvious identification of the Native American heritage, African American reality, cultural importance and citizenship, and full constitutional rights for the aforementioned and for all others who have come to the US.

    But it would also prioritize such things as a national-interest based foreign policy [which does not preclude even if it moderates idealistic crusading] and a national-interest based trade policy [which does not preclude free trade, it never did, but sees it as instrumental rather than teleological]. It would have expected and assumed sovereign control over immigration as a norm [as it long was globally assumed to be] not a controversy, and treated illegal entry as such. It would have assumed that legal entry followed by taking up citizenship meant loyalty to the US and not a former nation, and generally adoption of an American identity.

    I always thought this was the vision American liberals wanted in the Kennedy-Johnson era and for a while after. I am just about able to credit the Clinton era liberals with sharing it. Although their emphases on economics and class, foreign policy, and many other social and legal issues differed, I see only evidence that both Nixon and Reagan style conservatives had reached this point also.

    I might even argue that, despite how it is relentlessly characterized otherwise, and wished to be otherwise by some on the right, anything that might resemble American nationalism in Trump's head follows assumptions like these.

    It's actually pretty conventional liberal democratic nationalism and scarcely any of its bases were much questioned outside the academy until the late 1990s. Plenty of goodwill in it. It isn't even actually hostile to other nations.

    It was not the right that abandoned it for identity politics first.

    On Sailer's other frequent insight, that identity politics is an inevitable consequence of diversity. He's right, but he's also channeling telegrams from the Department of Duh there. It's a useful service but it's not him coming up with something new. It's observation.

    There has never been an ethnically, culturally or religiously diverse society in which identity politics was not the default mode. The closer it gets to not having a majority consensus, the more identity politics becomes the only mode. Bronze Age to today, can find no exception. It's not the end of the world, but it's what we're choosing.

    I wonder if that is “our” “random observer”: https://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/random+observer/
    Odd that he has no comments on Unz since January.

    Opinionator, thanks for reposting that here (I haven’t been checking back there). Especially since one never knows when a good counter Narrative comment will be deleted by the MSM.

  379. Wow, that 2000 article you wrote was almost prescient. You talked about Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania being the key states. A three million vote gap. Trump nailed it.

  380. @Twinkie

    A friend had an analogy that sort of works, for this dumb northwesterner anyway: Japan is Britain, weird, insular, cold, a bit inhuman, China is France, grounded, warm, all-too human.
     
    I covered this ground earlier: https://www.unz.com/isteve/kat-chow-on-npr-andrew-sullivans-model-minority-myth-ignores-poverty-of-bhutanese-americans/#comment-1844042

    Here’s my list of Asians and their Western equivalents:

    Japanese = Asian Englishmen. They are the second biggest customers of Savile Row in England. That says it all.

    Chinese = Asian Continentals, an amalgamation of Russians, French, and Germans. They are basically Asian Roman-Byzantines.

    Koreans = The (Ulster) Irishmen of Asia. They drink, they fight, they hate each other, and everyone else. They are liable to fall apart on their own, but do great things under Anglo tutelage.

    Taiwanese = If the Chinese are Asian Russians, the Taiwanese are Asian Serbo-Croats. They do well economically, but have the highest murder rate in East Asia.

    Filipinos = Asian Italians. Catholics who keep their heads down and do trade/service labor with good cheer. A little on the slow side.

    Indochinese (Vietnamese/Laotians/Cambodians) = Asian Balkans, I suppose. But really Asian Salvadorans. Some of them work hard, others join violent gangs. Still others (if from the mountains) hunt people in the woods.

    Thai = Asian Mexicans. Hard working, moderate IQ folks with spicy food.

    Indians = Asian equivalents of Middle Easterners in Europe. A small subset is made up of very high IQ folks of ancient tradition, but the rest are liable to be low IQ gang-rapists.

    Indonesians/Malaysians = Asian North Africans. Most are mellow, but the religious ones are scary.

    Singaporeans = Asian Swiss. Clean, corruption-free, and oh-so-superior to everyone else around them. Don’t litter – or you will pay a fine!
     

    Nice. And also maddeningly as arguable as it is right, but how could it not be.

    The one that surprises me most, besides the not-fair-to-Italy comparison with the Philippines, is Koreans as the Irish. You would know better of course, but I think of Koreans as super East Asians, more Confucian than the Chinese, more crazy racially pure conformist than the Japanese. Messed up by successive 20th century occupations, of course, and long vassalized by China, but with a rather glorious and ancient and independent civilization.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Koreans tend toward the emotional and their pop culture reflects that, so I can definitely see the Irish comparison. I would say that they aren't as Confucian at all, there's a definitely greater streak of individualism.

    To wit a difference:

    A Korean story would have an offended hero lashing out passionately and destroy villains, perhaps to save a girl or something. A Chinese story would often involve elaborate mechanisms of trickery and deception, ultimately bringing the villain to destroy himself, shaming him to commit suicide. Indeed, regardless of anything else, Chinese stories always tend to involve far more stratagem than Korean stories. Passion is frowned upon, seen as foolish.

    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

  381. @European-American
    Nice. And also maddeningly as arguable as it is right, but how could it not be.

    The one that surprises me most, besides the not-fair-to-Italy comparison with the Philippines, is Koreans as the Irish. You would know better of course, but I think of Koreans as super East Asians, more Confucian than the Chinese, more crazy racially pure conformist than the Japanese. Messed up by successive 20th century occupations, of course, and long vassalized by China, but with a rather glorious and ancient and independent civilization.

    Koreans tend toward the emotional and their pop culture reflects that, so I can definitely see the Irish comparison. I would say that they aren’t as Confucian at all, there’s a definitely greater streak of individualism.

    To wit a difference:

    A Korean story would have an offended hero lashing out passionately and destroy villains, perhaps to save a girl or something. A Chinese story would often involve elaborate mechanisms of trickery and deception, ultimately bringing the villain to destroy himself, shaming him to commit suicide. Indeed, regardless of anything else, Chinese stories always tend to involve far more stratagem than Korean stories. Passion is frowned upon, seen as foolish.

    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

    How does that follow from what you wrote in the paragraph prior?
    , @European-American
    > they aren't as Confucian at all

    That's not what I have heard or seen.


    The teachings of Chinese philosopher Confucius have had a profound influence on South Korea. So much so, that the nation is sometimes referred to as the most Confucian society on earth.
    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120213001231

     

    https://www.quora.com/South-Korea-Why-do-some-people-say-Korean-society-is-more-Confucian-than-Chinese-society

    Etc.

    For a Korean to compare his countrymen to a bunch of drunken Irishmen may just be a little bit of self-deprecating modesty...

  382. @Daniel Chieh
    Koreans tend toward the emotional and their pop culture reflects that, so I can definitely see the Irish comparison. I would say that they aren't as Confucian at all, there's a definitely greater streak of individualism.

    To wit a difference:

    A Korean story would have an offended hero lashing out passionately and destroy villains, perhaps to save a girl or something. A Chinese story would often involve elaborate mechanisms of trickery and deception, ultimately bringing the villain to destroy himself, shaming him to commit suicide. Indeed, regardless of anything else, Chinese stories always tend to involve far more stratagem than Korean stories. Passion is frowned upon, seen as foolish.

    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

    How does that follow from what you wrote in the paragraph prior?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Directness and passion are specifically American values, according to several studies. There are parts of Continental Europe that also prioritize context-heavy, indirect approaches to life and confrontation but I don't believe those feature heavily in the US.
  383. @Opinionator
    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

    How does that follow from what you wrote in the paragraph prior?

    Directness and passion are specifically American values, according to several studies. There are parts of Continental Europe that also prioritize context-heavy, indirect approaches to life and confrontation but I don’t believe those feature heavily in the US.

  384. @Daniel Chieh
    Koreans tend toward the emotional and their pop culture reflects that, so I can definitely see the Irish comparison. I would say that they aren't as Confucian at all, there's a definitely greater streak of individualism.

    To wit a difference:

    A Korean story would have an offended hero lashing out passionately and destroy villains, perhaps to save a girl or something. A Chinese story would often involve elaborate mechanisms of trickery and deception, ultimately bringing the villain to destroy himself, shaming him to commit suicide. Indeed, regardless of anything else, Chinese stories always tend to involve far more stratagem than Korean stories. Passion is frowned upon, seen as foolish.

    Its pretty evident why Chinese assimilation is always going to be more difficult.

    > they aren’t as Confucian at all

    That’s not what I have heard or seen.

    The teachings of Chinese philosopher Confucius have had a profound influence on South Korea. So much so, that the nation is sometimes referred to as the most Confucian society on earth.
    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120213001231

    https://www.quora.com/South-Korea-Why-do-some-people-say-Korean-society-is-more-Confucian-than-Chinese-society

    Etc.

    For a Korean to compare his countrymen to a bunch of drunken Irishmen may just be a little bit of self-deprecating modesty…

  385. @The Inscrutable Chinaman
    Steve has had an international readership for some time, going back to his pre-Unz blog. His readership is more ideologically broad than the comments section would indicate, Tiny Duck aside. I know people who veer left or stand in the center on a number of issues who nevertheless read Steve regularly and not as a form of electronic water torture. Whether or not one agrees with Steve top-to-bottom, he makes valuable contributions.

    Agreed. Steve has a wide readership politically. I’m closer to the socialist side of things and have been reading Steve for a decade now.

  386. @Corvinus
    "Don’t worry, you’ll count as an honorary White."

    What gives you this authority? Did you get formal training? Were you granted this opportunity through a prize in a Cracker Jack box?

    Or did you simply empower yourself? If that be the case, then I am able to make non-whites "honorary Whites" as well.

    I thought "white" was not a social construct, so how does your designation fall in line with "race realism" and HbD?

    Furthermore, when this race war comes to the States, will you come to his defense? I thought "race was your uniform"? Are you just begging to have your "white" card stripped from you?

    So many questions for you to answer...

    Well, if Japanese counted as honorary Whites in Apartheid Africa, I don’t see why Daniel Chieh should be deprived of this privilege in modern America. We need all the allies we can.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well, if Japanese counted as honorary Whites in Apartheid Africa, I don’t see why Daniel Chieh should be deprived of this privilege in modern America. We need all the allies we can."

    The primary factor for this designation was due to an important trade pact in the early 1960's. The South African Prime Minister stated that it would be "tactless and disadvantageous" to subject them to racial restrictions.

    Essentially, the leaders of that nation "cucked out" by abandoning its hard-core principles for cash, despite vehement protestations from the media and "true" conservatives.

    So, by your own reckoning, I don't see why hard working [insert those immigrant groups who arrived here within the past 50 years] should be deprived of their "privilege". Moderates need all the allies we can.

    Serious questions--How do you rectify supporting Asians entering our nation in light of the nativist belief that this particular group was ill-equipped to become Americans compared to Europeans in the late 1800's, especially when there was federal legislation that barred the Chinese from entering our shores? Were the nativists of the late 1800's completely wrong when they advocated for the prohibition of Asians?

  387. @Daniel Chieh
    This is where you show no knowledge of "full fash" Alt-Right, which by the way, is only one part of the movement.

    But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.

    2) You, however, are a traitor.

    3) They shoot traitors before invaders.

    They despise no one more than a traitor. Even an enemy can have honor, because he's fighting for his goals and for his family. You are basically family, trying to undermine the rest of your family. And then you express surprise why they are disgusted by your attempts at logic?

    But yes, you're still missing Steve's point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire's points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders. So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more.

    To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn't mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world.

    Well put, Daniel Chieh!

  388. @Daniel Chieh
    This is where you show no knowledge of "full fash" Alt-Right, which by the way, is only one part of the movement.

    But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.

    2) You, however, are a traitor.

    3) They shoot traitors before invaders.

    They despise no one more than a traitor. Even an enemy can have honor, because he's fighting for his goals and for his family. You are basically family, trying to undermine the rest of your family. And then you express surprise why they are disgusted by your attempts at logic?

    But yes, you're still missing Steve's point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire's points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders. So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more.

    To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn't mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world.

    “But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.
    2) You, however, are a traitor.
    3) They shoot traitors before invaders.”

    I have not engaged in any treasonous actions. Stop being overdramatic. You are grasping at straws because you have been outed for your hypocrisy. You are in essence embracing “magic dirt”, those mystical qualities back when efforts were made to break the old habits of newcomers–European newcomers. Nativists had insisted Asians in particular could NEVER properly assimilate…and here you are, front and center, stating how you are a “current shareholder” in light of your ancestors overcoming anti-Asian sentiment. What say you about those modern nativists who hold similar attitudes?

    “Nowadays, immigrants are looked upon as a source of laundered votes and cheap labor, and integration is actively discouraged.”

    They are viewed in this manner by certain groups of people. Pray tell, were not the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Assyrians, etc. viewed by nativists at some point in time as being a source of political corruption and financial finagling? Your ancestors especially were held in low regard, that they lacked the wherewithal to embrace the dominant American culture by shedding their peculiar ways. How did they transform into “proper Americans”?

    “But yes, you’re still missing Steve’s point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire’s points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders.”

    The “current shares for new shareholders” would include whites and non-whites, Europeans and non-Europeans, right? Because Vox Day, intrepid leader of the Alt Right, states that our posterity according to the Founding Fathers was only directed to the English. How would craft an argument that takes apart his position?

    “So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more.”

    Those “current stakeholders” are fake Americans according to nativists, especially non-Europeans. They generally lacked the ability to assimilate. So why are able to assume this status despite nativist protestations?

    As I have stated before, I have no problem if Congress limits immigration. I have no issues with whites and non-whites, Christians or non-Christians who have come this our nation as immigrants, provided they meet certain criteria. What I do take umbrage to is the belief that only certain groups of people are capable of being assimilated, given that those same groups of people who faced similar disdain by nativists have children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who, ironically, embrace nativism. How easy they forget what their ancestors had experienced.

    “To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn’t mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world.”

    Except the nativists were opposed to any and all “foreign children” to be adopted; rather, the parents ought to have more “biological children” of their own race. Is that not one of the tenets of Alt Right philosophy–more white people having more white children, with less “race mixing”?

    Moreover, why was that family “adopting foreign children” in the first place, especially those children deemed “troublemakers” like the Irish, Jews, and Chinese? Are not these groups still “agent provocateurs” today?

    And, Mr. Sailer, it would seem that Vox Day takes credit for “magic dirt”.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/11/derb-and-magic-dirt.html

  389. @BB753
    Well, if Japanese counted as honorary Whites in Apartheid Africa, I don't see why Daniel Chieh should be deprived of this privilege in modern America. We need all the allies we can.

    “Well, if Japanese counted as honorary Whites in Apartheid Africa, I don’t see why Daniel Chieh should be deprived of this privilege in modern America. We need all the allies we can.”

    The primary factor for this designation was due to an important trade pact in the early 1960’s. The South African Prime Minister stated that it would be “tactless and disadvantageous” to subject them to racial restrictions.

    Essentially, the leaders of that nation “cucked out” by abandoning its hard-core principles for cash, despite vehement protestations from the media and “true” conservatives.

    So, by your own reckoning, I don’t see why hard working [insert those immigrant groups who arrived here within the past 50 years] should be deprived of their “privilege”. Moderates need all the allies we can.

    Serious questions–How do you rectify supporting Asians entering our nation in light of the nativist belief that this particular group was ill-equipped to become Americans compared to Europeans in the late 1800’s, especially when there was federal legislation that barred the Chinese from entering our shores? Were the nativists of the late 1800’s completely wrong when they advocated for the prohibition of Asians?

    • Replies: @BB753
    It's the numbers that count. Select foreigners can be absorbed in small numbers but not in the millions.
  390. @Daniel Chieh
    This is where you show no knowledge of "full fash" Alt-Right, which by the way, is only one part of the movement.

    But this really simple, my dear:

    1) To the full fash Alt-Right, I am indeed an invader.

    2) You, however, are a traitor.

    3) They shoot traitors before invaders.

    They despise no one more than a traitor. Even an enemy can have honor, because he's fighting for his goals and for his family. You are basically family, trying to undermine the rest of your family. And then you express surprise why they are disgusted by your attempts at logic?

    But yes, you're still missing Steve's point on citizenship as well as Derbyshire's points on immigration as salt in the stew. At the very least, citizenship is not diluting the value of current shares for new shareholders. So ignoring all other considerations of race, you can entirely desire to defend the current shareholders without intaking even more.

    To return to the family comparison, a family may have decided to adopt one or a few foreign children. But this doesn't mean that the family should continue to 1) adopt more foreign children endlessly, outnumbering the biological children, 2)prioritize the interests of foreign children above their own, and 3)even more ridiculously, effectively dissolve the entire notion of them having a family by welcoming the entire world.

    For clarity’s sake…

    How would you craft an argument that takes apart his position?

    So why are you able to assume this status despite nativist protestations?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You're not really worth replying to, and as Opinionator has mentioned that you like to create divisions in the right. Its not going to work.

    The answer is simplistic as hell and has been repeated many times. The Alt-Right is not some sort of unified singular perspective: What Richard Spencer states is different from Jared Taylor, who is different from Derbyshire, who is different from Vox Day, who is different from Brett Stevens. My position is simply regardless of the consequences for myself, I still despise liberals like yourself even more so.

    You're attempting to play the Alinsky game. Its not going to work. The Alt-Right doesn't have a singular set of rules. It has a goal: preserve and protect the white race. How this is to be done varies.

    1) To a true nativist, I don't assume any status. I'm still an invader no matter what. The position is pretty simple - my ancestors didn't fight in the Revolutionary War, and didn't build this country. By definition I don't have any rights to it. Its not an unreasonable position, though obviously I can't be included in that vision.

    2) From the citizenship perspective, all that matters is that I currently am a citizen. This does not mean that I need to welcome any new citizens. Its like saying that if a man was thirsty and drank some water, then he needs to drink more water endlessly.

    3) There may be people here who consider me more acceptable due to my perspectives, contribution, or the like. This extents from the antebellum South view of "higher races", the later "separate but equal", the "white majoritarian view" which accepts minorities so as long as they are below 10% of the population, etc. There may also be those who believe that accepting five or a dozen people wouldn't impact the characteristic of society; accepting five or ten million would. Rate and volume matter. The exact reasoning likely varies from person to person.

    That's up to them. As for myself, I do see myself as a guest who exists at the sufferance of the kind hosts of the country, try to contribute and therefore do no need to impose more guests into it. I suppose that perspective in and of itself makes me less annoying that an invader who comes in and demands gibs.

    Ultimately, all three perspectives still have a common ground of wanting to restrict immigration, and certainly to stop illegal immigration. So regardless of any other differences, this is something in common. That you stand against it, makes you a traitor from both an Alt-Right perspective(against your race) and even from an Alt-Lite perspective(against your country).

  391. @Corvinus
    "Well, if Japanese counted as honorary Whites in Apartheid Africa, I don’t see why Daniel Chieh should be deprived of this privilege in modern America. We need all the allies we can."

    The primary factor for this designation was due to an important trade pact in the early 1960's. The South African Prime Minister stated that it would be "tactless and disadvantageous" to subject them to racial restrictions.

    Essentially, the leaders of that nation "cucked out" by abandoning its hard-core principles for cash, despite vehement protestations from the media and "true" conservatives.

    So, by your own reckoning, I don't see why hard working [insert those immigrant groups who arrived here within the past 50 years] should be deprived of their "privilege". Moderates need all the allies we can.

    Serious questions--How do you rectify supporting Asians entering our nation in light of the nativist belief that this particular group was ill-equipped to become Americans compared to Europeans in the late 1800's, especially when there was federal legislation that barred the Chinese from entering our shores? Were the nativists of the late 1800's completely wrong when they advocated for the prohibition of Asians?

    It’s the numbers that count. Select foreigners can be absorbed in small numbers but not in the millions.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It’s the numbers that count. Select foreigners can be absorbed in small numbers but not in the millions."

    There are several million Asians in our nation. Do you propose to send them back?

    Besides, did not nativists in the mid-1800's make this same claim about how "numbers count" regarding the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Slavs? Why do they get to stay in light of nativist arguments that each group possessed distinct undesirable traits that would ruin the character of the United States?
  392. @Corvinus
    For clarity's sake...

    How would you craft an argument that takes apart his position?

    So why are you able to assume this status despite nativist protestations?

    You’re not really worth replying to, and as Opinionator has mentioned that you like to create divisions in the right. Its not going to work.

    The answer is simplistic as hell and has been repeated many times. The Alt-Right is not some sort of unified singular perspective: What Richard Spencer states is different from Jared Taylor, who is different from Derbyshire, who is different from Vox Day, who is different from Brett Stevens. My position is simply regardless of the consequences for myself, I still despise liberals like yourself even more so.

    You’re attempting to play the Alinsky game. Its not going to work. The Alt-Right doesn’t have a singular set of rules. It has a goal: preserve and protect the white race. How this is to be done varies.

    1) To a true nativist, I don’t assume any status. I’m still an invader no matter what. The position is pretty simple – my ancestors didn’t fight in the Revolutionary War, and didn’t build this country. By definition I don’t have any rights to it. Its not an unreasonable position, though obviously I can’t be included in that vision.

    2) From the citizenship perspective, all that matters is that I currently am a citizen. This does not mean that I need to welcome any new citizens. Its like saying that if a man was thirsty and drank some water, then he needs to drink more water endlessly.

    3) There may be people here who consider me more acceptable due to my perspectives, contribution, or the like. This extents from the antebellum South view of “higher races”, the later “separate but equal”, the “white majoritarian view” which accepts minorities so as long as they are below 10% of the population, etc. There may also be those who believe that accepting five or a dozen people wouldn’t impact the characteristic of society; accepting five or ten million would. Rate and volume matter. The exact reasoning likely varies from person to person.

    That’s up to them. As for myself, I do see myself as a guest who exists at the sufferance of the kind hosts of the country, try to contribute and therefore do no need to impose more guests into it. I suppose that perspective in and of itself makes me less annoying that an invader who comes in and demands gibs.

    Ultimately, all three perspectives still have a common ground of wanting to restrict immigration, and certainly to stop illegal immigration. So regardless of any other differences, this is something in common. That you stand against it, makes you a traitor from both an Alt-Right perspective(against your race) and even from an Alt-Lite perspective(against your country).

  393. @BB753
    Don't worry, you'll count as an honorary White.

    Should he say, “Me so lucky lucky long time. Me so honorary, me so honorary”?

  394. Corvinus says:

    “You’re not really worth replying to, and as Opinionator has mentioned that you like to create divisions in the right.”

    The right is doing quite fine by sowing their own seeds of discord without help from little old me.

    “The answer is simplistic as hell and has been repeated many times. The Alt-Right is not some sort of unified singular perspective: What Richard Spencer states is different from Jared Taylor, who is different from Derbyshire, who is different from Vox Day, who is different from Brett Stevens.”

    Indeed.

    “You’re attempting to play the Alinsky game. Its not going to work.”

    It is working since you are talking to me and trying to justify why you are a “guest” who is able to stay here in the United States.

    “The Alt-Right doesn’t have a singular set of rules. It has a goal: preserve and protect the white race. How this is to be done varies.”

    That is one of many goals. Remember, you are not white. You don’t get to play in their sandbox. Again, it is not about you, it is about the movement. Why are you allying yourself with them when they ultimately have utter disdain for you and your people?

    “1) To a true nativist, I don’t assume any status. I’m still an invader no matter what.** The position is pretty simple – my ancestors didn’t fight in the Revolutionary War, and didn’t build this country. By definition I don’t have any rights to it. Its not an unreasonable position, though obviously I can’t be included in that vision.”

    **Exactly, you must leave. It’s that simple given the overall goal of the Alt Right. Why do you insist you are a guest who is allowed to remain here?

    Remember, your ancestors found a way to stay here by overcoming nativist hostility. Furthermore, your ancestors did help build this nation, as did scores of other immigrants. Why are you selling them short?

    Remember, there were white people who opposed nativism. Undoubtedly, your ancestors were grateful for their assistance. Somehow along the way, you lost that gratitude.

    “2) From the citizenship perspective, all that matters is that I currently am a citizen.

    No, that is NOT what matters. How did you get this citizenship status? Via paperwork. By “magic dirt”. Exactly why you are a hypocrite.

    “This does not mean that I need to welcome any new citizens. Its like saying that if a man was thirsty and drank some water, then he needs to drink more water endlessly.”

    Of course. But you are using the same rationale as white nativists back when your ancestors
    were being labeled as incapable of assimilating. Ironic, is it not?

    So, what made the Chinese so special in being able to embrace American ideals compared to other groups given that nativists, then and now, make the argument that non-whites just do not have the “proper mindset” to immerse themselves in our society? Why are you a special snowflake compared to Hondurans or Kenyans?

    You are drowning in your own hypocrisy.

    “3) There may be people here who consider me more acceptable due to my perspectives, contribution, or the like. This extents from the antebellum South view of “higher races”, the later “separate but equal”, the “white majoritarian view” which accepts minorities so as long as they are below 10% of the population, etc. There may also be those who believe that accepting five or a dozen people wouldn’t impact the characteristic of society; accepting five or ten million would. Rate and volume matter. The exact reasoning likely varies from person to person.”

    Asians make up 5.6% of the current American population, over 18 million people. Indeed, rate and volume matter to the Alt Right. By their metrics, there are too many Asians. They must leave. You, too.

    Again, why should you stay in light of the nativist contention, then and now, that your race is other than desirable to the stated goal of the Alt Right as you acknowledged?

    “That’s up to them. As for myself, I do see myself as a guest who exists at the sufferance of the kind hosts of the country, try to contribute and therefore do no need to impose more guests into it.”

    No, there are tens of millions of white people like myself who do not believe we suffer because there are non-whites in our nation. Stop being dramatic. We are kind because we believe in God and our nation and in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for immigrants who came here, worked hard, and assimilated regardless of their race or ethnicity.

    “I suppose that perspective in and of itself makes me less annoying that an invader who comes in and demands gibs.”

    Annoying nonetheless. Remember, you are using “magic dirt” to justify your existence here. Ergo, today’s immigrants are also able to make that case. You are no different than them in this particular regard. You are a pest, not a guest, in the eyes of the Alt Right.

    “Ultimately, all three perspectives still have a common ground of wanting to restrict immigration, and certainly to stop illegal immigration. So regardless of any other differences, this is something in common.”

    You are conveniently forgetting a key point–they want to restrict immigration by keeping out nonwhites AND are concerned that nonwhites who are here will further damage America’s “whiteness”.

    “That you stand against it, makes you a traitor from both an Alt-Right perspective(against your race) and even from an Alt-Lite perspective(against your country).”

    I just stated that I have no issues if Americans want to limit immigration. We agree on this matter, thus I am not a “traitor”. What we disagree on is over the nature and character of those immigrants who have arrived or who will arrive and whether they are a barrier to our nation moving forward.

  395. @BB753
    It's the numbers that count. Select foreigners can be absorbed in small numbers but not in the millions.

    “It’s the numbers that count. Select foreigners can be absorbed in small numbers but not in the millions.”

    There are several million Asians in our nation. Do you propose to send them back?

    Besides, did not nativists in the mid-1800’s make this same claim about how “numbers count” regarding the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Slavs? Why do they get to stay in light of nativist arguments that each group possessed distinct undesirable traits that would ruin the character of the United States?

    • Replies: @BB753
    I do not propose a solution to anything. I fact, I don't believe the harm done by decades of unfettered can be undone, but only mitigated by strengthening traditional national culture and character, and made worse by multiculturalism. That's the lesson you can take away from the 1924-1965 cut-off, regardless of the ethnic composion of 19th Century immigrants.
    Remember, we were only discussing the status of Daniel Chieh.
  396. You know Steve if that’s a flattering photograph I don’t feel so bad looking in the mirror .

  397. BB753 says:
    @Corvinus
    "It’s the numbers that count. Select foreigners can be absorbed in small numbers but not in the millions."

    There are several million Asians in our nation. Do you propose to send them back?

    Besides, did not nativists in the mid-1800's make this same claim about how "numbers count" regarding the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Slavs? Why do they get to stay in light of nativist arguments that each group possessed distinct undesirable traits that would ruin the character of the United States?

    I do not propose a solution to anything. I fact, I don’t believe the harm done by decades of unfettered can be undone, but only mitigated by strengthening traditional national culture and character, and made worse by multiculturalism. That’s the lesson you can take away from the 1924-1965 cut-off, regardless of the ethnic composion of 19th Century immigrants.
    Remember, we were only discussing the status of Daniel Chieh.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I[n] fact, I don’t believe the harm done by decades of unfettered can be undone..."

    Harm done by whom? What specific immigrant groups are responsible for this "harm"? What harm are we talking about? Please be specific.

    "but only mitigated by strengthening traditional national culture and character, and made worse by multiculturalism."

    That "tradition" was established initially by the English, then by non-English groups like the French, Dutch, and Swedish. Enter the Irish and Germans, followed by the Italians, the Chinese, Assyrians, Mexicans, and we end up with Nigerians and Ecuadoreans. In other words, traditions change. In each period of time, "old" immigrant groups were upset when this "character" was debased by "new" immigrant groups.

    Regarding "multiculturalism", son, America's history is predicated upon different races and ethnic groups coming here. Think about the history of England--the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Jutes. Different groups of people who came together to create a culture by overcoming their own suspicions.

    "That’s the lesson you can take away from the 1924-1965 cut-off, regardless of the ethnic composion of 19th Century immigrants."

    The lesson learned is that current nativists wreak in solipsism and hypocrisy.

    "Remember, we were only discussing the status of Daniel Chieh."

    Does not his presence, along with millions of his brethren, upset this "traditional national culture and character"? So why he is the exception? Did he and his ancestors not employ Magic Dirt and "paper citizenship" at the expense of whites?
  398. @BB753
    I do not propose a solution to anything. I fact, I don't believe the harm done by decades of unfettered can be undone, but only mitigated by strengthening traditional national culture and character, and made worse by multiculturalism. That's the lesson you can take away from the 1924-1965 cut-off, regardless of the ethnic composion of 19th Century immigrants.
    Remember, we were only discussing the status of Daniel Chieh.

    “I[n] fact, I don’t believe the harm done by decades of unfettered can be undone…”

    Harm done by whom? What specific immigrant groups are responsible for this “harm”? What harm are we talking about? Please be specific.

    “but only mitigated by strengthening traditional national culture and character, and made worse by multiculturalism.”

    That “tradition” was established initially by the English, then by non-English groups like the French, Dutch, and Swedish. Enter the Irish and Germans, followed by the Italians, the Chinese, Assyrians, Mexicans, and we end up with Nigerians and Ecuadoreans. In other words, traditions change. In each period of time, “old” immigrant groups were upset when this “character” was debased by “new” immigrant groups.

    Regarding “multiculturalism”, son, America’s history is predicated upon different races and ethnic groups coming here. Think about the history of England–the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Jutes. Different groups of people who came together to create a culture by overcoming their own suspicions.

    “That’s the lesson you can take away from the 1924-1965 cut-off, regardless of the ethnic composion of 19th Century immigrants.”

    The lesson learned is that current nativists wreak in solipsism and hypocrisy.

    “Remember, we were only discussing the status of Daniel Chieh.”

    Does not his presence, along with millions of his brethren, upset this “traditional national culture and character”? So why he is the exception? Did he and his ancestors not employ Magic Dirt and “paper citizenship” at the expense of whites?

    • Replies: @BB753
    The missing word was of course "immigration". It seems it's a dirty word to be censured by the software I use.

    Unfettered immigration since the late 70's, particularly of Hispanics, Indians and Muslims, has been harmful for the average American. East Asians are a mixed lot. Some integrate better than others. But there's no way any of these groups are ever gonna integrate, not only because of their large number, which makes full integration optional, but because there's no unitary monocultural society to integrate them into.
    Cultural Marxists like yourself, Corvinus, by waging war against mainstream American culture, and I must admit by being largely successful in nuking traditional America, have denied present and future immigrants not only access to genuine American culture but also any chance of eventually integrating.
    And yes, I believe the 1924-1965 immigration cut-off was a good thing in nearly succeeding to integrate 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants.
    Lastly, I understand that societies change and that most countries on earth are the result of slow cultural and ethnic blending.
    My question for you, Corvinus, is why try to engineer and rush the process in America, just when the country seemed to have reached an optimal balance 5 decades ago between the North and South, Catholics and Protestants and Jews, and the ever troublesome black population? Why add more people back then, and now and seemingly for ever, as if there was a chronic shortage of population in America; why import millions of people from wildly different cultures who aren't likely to make governance or living better? Diversity, you'll say. When I need diversity, I travel or surf the web. It's called technical progress.
    If you were in the agribusiness I'd understand, ok, you want to make more money by paying lower wages. But what's your skin in the game? (other than power for the likes of you, but I know you'll never admit it).
  399. BB753 says:
    @Corvinus
    "I[n] fact, I don’t believe the harm done by decades of unfettered can be undone..."

    Harm done by whom? What specific immigrant groups are responsible for this "harm"? What harm are we talking about? Please be specific.

    "but only mitigated by strengthening traditional national culture and character, and made worse by multiculturalism."

    That "tradition" was established initially by the English, then by non-English groups like the French, Dutch, and Swedish. Enter the Irish and Germans, followed by the Italians, the Chinese, Assyrians, Mexicans, and we end up with Nigerians and Ecuadoreans. In other words, traditions change. In each period of time, "old" immigrant groups were upset when this "character" was debased by "new" immigrant groups.

    Regarding "multiculturalism", son, America's history is predicated upon different races and ethnic groups coming here. Think about the history of England--the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Jutes. Different groups of people who came together to create a culture by overcoming their own suspicions.

    "That’s the lesson you can take away from the 1924-1965 cut-off, regardless of the ethnic composion of 19th Century immigrants."

    The lesson learned is that current nativists wreak in solipsism and hypocrisy.

    "Remember, we were only discussing the status of Daniel Chieh."

    Does not his presence, along with millions of his brethren, upset this "traditional national culture and character"? So why he is the exception? Did he and his ancestors not employ Magic Dirt and "paper citizenship" at the expense of whites?

    The missing word was of course “immigration”. It seems it’s a dirty word to be censured by the software I use.

    Unfettered immigration since the late 70’s, particularly of Hispanics, Indians and Muslims, has been harmful for the average American. East Asians are a mixed lot. Some integrate better than others. But there’s no way any of these groups are ever gonna integrate, not only because of their large number, which makes full integration optional, but because there’s no unitary monocultural society to integrate them into.
    Cultural Marxists like yourself, Corvinus, by waging war against mainstream American culture, and I must admit by being largely successful in nuking traditional America, have denied present and future immigrants not only access to genuine American culture but also any chance of eventually integrating.
    And yes, I believe the 1924-1965 immigration cut-off was a good thing in nearly succeeding to integrate 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants.
    Lastly, I understand that societies change and that most countries on earth are the result of slow cultural and ethnic blending.
    My question for you, Corvinus, is why try to engineer and rush the process in America, just when the country seemed to have reached an optimal balance 5 decades ago between the North and South, Catholics and Protestants and Jews, and the ever troublesome black population? Why add more people back then, and now and seemingly for ever, as if there was a chronic shortage of population in America; why import millions of people from wildly different cultures who aren’t likely to make governance or living better? Diversity, you’ll say. When I need diversity, I travel or surf the web. It’s called technical progress.
    If you were in the agribusiness I’d understand, ok, you want to make more money by paying lower wages. But what’s your skin in the game? (other than power for the likes of you, but I know you’ll never admit it).

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Unfettered immigration since the late 70′s, particularly of Hispanics, Indians and Muslims, has been harmful for the average American."

    Again, in what specific ways?

    "But there’s no way any of these groups are ever gonna integrate, not only because of their large number, which makes full integration optional, but because there’s no unitary monocultural society to integrate them into."

    Probably because the United States is NOT a "unitary monocultural society", but a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society. Furthermore, non-English and non-white groups have been able to successfully assimilate into our society.

    "Cultural Marxists like yourself, Corvinus, by waging war against mainstream American culture..."

    Insert .25. Default button pressed--Cultural Marxist. Thanks for your virtue signaling. Goodbye.

    "and I must admit by being largely successful in nuking traditional America, have denied present and future immigrants not only access to genuine American culture but also any chance of eventually integrating."

    Traditional America, what is that?
    "genuine American culture", what is that?

    Does not Daniel Chieh's presence, along with millions of his brethren, decidedly transform "traditional America" and "genuine American culture”? So why he is the exception? Did he and his ancestors not employ Magic Dirt and “paper citizenship” at the expense of whites?

    "And yes, I believe the 1924-1965 immigration cut-off was a good thing in nearly succeeding to integrate 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants."

    Except there were also the Chinese, Japanese, as well as the Jews, the Lebanese, and Assyrians.

    "My question for you, Corvinus, is why try to engineer and rush the process in America, just when the country seemed to have reached an optimal balance 5 decades ago between the North and South, Catholics and Protestants and Jews, and the ever troublesome black population?"

    Yes, those damn Negroes. Except I seem to remember that they were doing just fine where they were. But then came those Europeans and their need for slave labor. Invade the world, invite the world.

    Praytell, this "optimal balance" you say, is there some immigration cookbook you referred to? Is it three parts white, one part Jew, and a sprinkle of non-white?

    "...why import millions of people from wildly different cultures who aren’t likely to make governance or living better?"

    The English said the same thing about the Irish and Germans when they arrived.
    The Irish and Germans said the same thing about the Italians when they arrived.
    The Italians said the same thing when the Mexicans arrived.
    The Mexicans said the same thing when the Vietnamese arrived.
    Etc. etc. etc.
  400. @Jack D

    Our young people in particular undervalue the power of unions.
     
    Or maybe the unions undervalue them - too many two tier wage settlements. Too focused on protecting the wages and benefits of the existing workforce rather than increasing employment.

    One of the two Boston hospitals with union nurses just offered a buyout to 1,600 of its longest-serving nurses.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/04/27/nurses-union-agrees-to-brigham-buyouts-but-vows-to.html

    Left unstated in the article was that new hires will be making 60% of what the retiring nurses earn.

    My girlfriend’s hospital is the other union shop in town, and they’ve been able to handle this same policy through attrition. The current highly-paid staff approved the two-tier approach in the last contract. Because they’ve been hiring a good percentage of “island girls” (Haitian, Jamaican, Filipino), they’ve felt free to start them at about HALF the salary as the veteran staff. According to the girl, that’s pretty much all they’re worth.

  401. @BB753
    The missing word was of course "immigration". It seems it's a dirty word to be censured by the software I use.

    Unfettered immigration since the late 70's, particularly of Hispanics, Indians and Muslims, has been harmful for the average American. East Asians are a mixed lot. Some integrate better than others. But there's no way any of these groups are ever gonna integrate, not only because of their large number, which makes full integration optional, but because there's no unitary monocultural society to integrate them into.
    Cultural Marxists like yourself, Corvinus, by waging war against mainstream American culture, and I must admit by being largely successful in nuking traditional America, have denied present and future immigrants not only access to genuine American culture but also any chance of eventually integrating.
    And yes, I believe the 1924-1965 immigration cut-off was a good thing in nearly succeeding to integrate 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants.
    Lastly, I understand that societies change and that most countries on earth are the result of slow cultural and ethnic blending.
    My question for you, Corvinus, is why try to engineer and rush the process in America, just when the country seemed to have reached an optimal balance 5 decades ago between the North and South, Catholics and Protestants and Jews, and the ever troublesome black population? Why add more people back then, and now and seemingly for ever, as if there was a chronic shortage of population in America; why import millions of people from wildly different cultures who aren't likely to make governance or living better? Diversity, you'll say. When I need diversity, I travel or surf the web. It's called technical progress.
    If you were in the agribusiness I'd understand, ok, you want to make more money by paying lower wages. But what's your skin in the game? (other than power for the likes of you, but I know you'll never admit it).

    “Unfettered immigration since the late 70′s, particularly of Hispanics, Indians and Muslims, has been harmful for the average American.”

    Again, in what specific ways?

    “But there’s no way any of these groups are ever gonna integrate, not only because of their large number, which makes full integration optional, but because there’s no unitary monocultural society to integrate them into.”

    Probably because the United States is NOT a “unitary monocultural society”, but a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society. Furthermore, non-English and non-white groups have been able to successfully assimilate into our society.

    “Cultural Marxists like yourself, Corvinus, by waging war against mainstream American culture…”

    Insert .25. Default button pressed–Cultural Marxist. Thanks for your virtue signaling. Goodbye.

    “and I must admit by being largely successful in nuking traditional America, have denied present and future immigrants not only access to genuine American culture but also any chance of eventually integrating.”

    Traditional America, what is that?
    “genuine American culture”, what is that?

    Does not Daniel Chieh’s presence, along with millions of his brethren, decidedly transform “traditional America” and “genuine American culture”? So why he is the exception? Did he and his ancestors not employ Magic Dirt and “paper citizenship” at the expense of whites?

    “And yes, I believe the 1924-1965 immigration cut-off was a good thing in nearly succeeding to integrate 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants.”

    Except there were also the Chinese, Japanese, as well as the Jews, the Lebanese, and Assyrians.

    “My question for you, Corvinus, is why try to engineer and rush the process in America, just when the country seemed to have reached an optimal balance 5 decades ago between the North and South, Catholics and Protestants and Jews, and the ever troublesome black population?”

    Yes, those damn Negroes. Except I seem to remember that they were doing just fine where they were. But then came those Europeans and their need for slave labor. Invade the world, invite the world.

    Praytell, this “optimal balance” you say, is there some immigration cookbook you referred to? Is it three parts white, one part Jew, and a sprinkle of non-white?

    “…why import millions of people from wildly different cultures who aren’t likely to make governance or living better?”

    The English said the same thing about the Irish and Germans when they arrived.
    The Irish and Germans said the same thing about the Italians when they arrived.
    The Italians said the same thing when the Mexicans arrived.
    The Mexicans said the same thing when the Vietnamese arrived.
    Etc. etc. etc.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Corvinus, you're not arguing in good faith, so I won't reply to your sophisms anymore.
  402. @Corvinus
    "Unfettered immigration since the late 70′s, particularly of Hispanics, Indians and Muslims, has been harmful for the average American."

    Again, in what specific ways?

    "But there’s no way any of these groups are ever gonna integrate, not only because of their large number, which makes full integration optional, but because there’s no unitary monocultural society to integrate them into."

    Probably because the United States is NOT a "unitary monocultural society", but a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society. Furthermore, non-English and non-white groups have been able to successfully assimilate into our society.

    "Cultural Marxists like yourself, Corvinus, by waging war against mainstream American culture..."

    Insert .25. Default button pressed--Cultural Marxist. Thanks for your virtue signaling. Goodbye.

    "and I must admit by being largely successful in nuking traditional America, have denied present and future immigrants not only access to genuine American culture but also any chance of eventually integrating."

    Traditional America, what is that?
    "genuine American culture", what is that?

    Does not Daniel Chieh's presence, along with millions of his brethren, decidedly transform "traditional America" and "genuine American culture”? So why he is the exception? Did he and his ancestors not employ Magic Dirt and “paper citizenship” at the expense of whites?

    "And yes, I believe the 1924-1965 immigration cut-off was a good thing in nearly succeeding to integrate 19th century and early 20th century European immigrants."

    Except there were also the Chinese, Japanese, as well as the Jews, the Lebanese, and Assyrians.

    "My question for you, Corvinus, is why try to engineer and rush the process in America, just when the country seemed to have reached an optimal balance 5 decades ago between the North and South, Catholics and Protestants and Jews, and the ever troublesome black population?"

    Yes, those damn Negroes. Except I seem to remember that they were doing just fine where they were. But then came those Europeans and their need for slave labor. Invade the world, invite the world.

    Praytell, this "optimal balance" you say, is there some immigration cookbook you referred to? Is it three parts white, one part Jew, and a sprinkle of non-white?

    "...why import millions of people from wildly different cultures who aren’t likely to make governance or living better?"

    The English said the same thing about the Irish and Germans when they arrived.
    The Irish and Germans said the same thing about the Italians when they arrived.
    The Italians said the same thing when the Mexicans arrived.
    The Mexicans said the same thing when the Vietnamese arrived.
    Etc. etc. etc.

    Corvinus, you’re not arguing in good faith, so I won’t reply to your sophisms anymore.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus, you’re not arguing in good faith, so I won’t reply to your sophisms anymore."

    See, your conduct here is SJW-esque. A person challenges your assertions through a combination of rhetoric and dialectic, and what do you do? You characterize them as being "sophist" and run away from discourse. Typical.
  403. @BB753
    Corvinus, you're not arguing in good faith, so I won't reply to your sophisms anymore.

    “Corvinus, you’re not arguing in good faith, so I won’t reply to your sophisms anymore.”

    See, your conduct here is SJW-esque. A person challenges your assertions through a combination of rhetoric and dialectic, and what do you do? You characterize them as being “sophist” and run away from discourse. Typical.

  404. @tyrone
    NYT article about Steve,now will they publish one by Steve? that would be Trumpian magic.

    That has long been my dream.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2