Because they don't want to deal seriously with your ideas. As long as the issue is kept at the personality issue they will ignore the true substantitive issues.
I don't see them being honest - I don't see how they can be honest when they are working backwards from the answers they want to the explanations they need to justify those answers. Once you accept a significant component of heritability in intellience and other psychological attributes the 'woke' world view starts disintegrating.
Steve does not do policy. Steve points out issues as shown in the data but rarely goes into policy proposals.
As an example, there is a huge white-black achievement gap in education. Yet, how should that impact policy. Steve seems to imply that ignoring the achievement gap would be acceptable but that solution cannot occur in modern politics. And as an aside, Steve ignores the massive achievement gap between males (of all races) and females.
But accepting the data itself invalidates basic woke assumptions. Different subpopulation characteristics means that disparate impact does not imply improper discrimination.
The entire point of critical race theory is to accept the data and to blame de facto racism for all of it. That does not invalidate basic leftist assumptions.
Look up who majors in Chemistry or biology. Women even make up 40% of math majors. And if one is looking at grades in high school, girls outperform boys in all classes including math and physics. Try harder. Compare the percent of women in physics to the percentage of men in nursing.
In what decade? From science daily: Of undergraduate biology majors, more than 60 percent are female and about half of biosciences graduate students are women
From the association of women in math: as of 2015, women are 41% of undergraduate math majors, 28% of new math PhD's in the US, 25% of postdoctoral fellows in mathematics ...
Cmon, these people don't deal with IDEAS! They wouldn't be caught dead even sniffing an idea unless it's already been labeled GOOD or EVIL by their priesthood. The only way to become a respected establishment American writer/thinker is to DO NO THINKING under any circumstances. Their gilded degrees, titles and bylines work just like accents or cutlery in Henry James, they exist entirely to show who is IN and who is OUT, who is upper-crust and who is a gauche plebeian.
They're only auditioning Steve as a future possible Emmanuel Goldstein understudy in case they may need one in the future. Think of the NYT etc as akin to the writer's room on the old "Batman" TV show: they need a steady supply of new villains, and if there aren't any, they'll invent them.
Maybe once Charles Murray dies, Steve will take his place in the pantheon of Those Who Must Never Be Mentioned, except to denounce.
Journalists want to write pieces about the ideas behind Trump’s second term, but a problem for them is that few RW influencers have very many ideas, much less form a coherent movement, so they keep coming back to the same three names that have almost nothing else in common: BAP, Yarvin and Steve.
I had a couple suggestions on the first video ... but as usual slow in getting to them. But also a couple for the second video, which presumably tackles the race and IQ issue.
1) The main emphasis should always be the data. In this age of silliness this has to be reiterated endlessly. Things are what they are. Empirical reality is what it is, regardless of what you think it ought to be. Versions of reality which do not square with empirical reality are simply wrong.
2) If one believes in evolution--in natural selection--then there *must* be racial differences in IQ and other mental traits between various groups. Brain power is *the* human competitive advantage. It is going to be the main thing that selection is working on. When any organism has populations that are different selective environments, selection works on those populations differently. Humans have been in different environments with different productive cultures, hence different selection pressures for tens of thousands of years.
Particularly in the last ten thousand years since the neolithic agricultural revolution and the development of "civilization", various human populations have been in radically different cultural environments--kicking off a process of gene-culture co-evolution. Humans altering their environment/culture which in turn creates a new selection pressures which alter them. Evolution--natural selection--actually "speeds up", which is what we see in the DNA.
Anyone who believes "all humans are the same" is not "scientific" but anti-scientific asserting something that can not be true--not logically, mathematically nor biologically. They are essentially left-creationists.
> One argument is that evolution ends when humans started using tools. <
LOL. That doesn't even qualify as an "argument". It's just making noise.
There's nothing about using tools that impedes selection. Selection is always going on no-matter-what. Rather obviously using new tools speeds up selection by generating new selection for people good at using and building the new tools. Or rather--more precisely--people who are more reproductively successful in the new tool regime.** And this is precisely what the DNA data shows.
** An important caveat, given both that it really is a society wide effect. You can suck at personally using the new tools, but really reproductively successful in the "regime". Ex. a king. Now we have a new tool--the smartphone--and appear to be undergoing dramatic selection for women who still bother to form relationships, engage in sexual activity with men and have babies even with smartphones around.
Should not even need saying but anyone touting monarchy as the solution to anything is just a bozo. Ok, possibly not a bozo but simply an attention seeker or an agent provocateur trying to disrupt and mislead. But effectively a bozo peddling bozo ideas.
Elected kingship--as our ancestors had in some of their tribes--was a reasonable system for small tribes. Hey Joe, is the toughest and best fighter and quite shrewd, Joe should lead us. But anything resembling modern monarchy is not. It was just a parasitic grift. And it has all the problems that come with anything "mono". Just ask yourself if you'd want this Charles III clown to make decisions for your nation. LOL. Some ideas are need only the most trivial thought to debunk.
Now we--Americans--already discovered the best system of government: a republic governed by the judgement of mature, productive, responsible men.
It's pretty obvious the franchise was extended too far. To women, to young people--childless, unmarried, to welfare cases and now even criminals.
But the fundamental problem is the obvious one--minoritarianism. We allowed hostile, disloyal people to have a voice, to obtain--and even dominate--elite positions and discourse and impose a toxic, nation and civilization hostile ideology.
Responsible men must not let that happen. And republics must be designed so it simply can not happen--with being part of the nation and absolutely loyal to it an absolute necessity for anyone having a voice in the nation's affairs. But that fix is eminently do-able and with it the republican governance of mature, productive responsible men with families and children--skin in the game--is the best option.
When someone is peddling nonsense like "monarchy" are strongly suspect their intention--if not just pure attention whoring--is to confuse and disrupt the thinking of people wanting to get our nation--Western civilization--back on track.
Monarchy is a fine form of government when compared to the idiocy of one-man, one-vote democracy. But the monarchy is long gone from America and isn't coming back. A return of monarchy is as likely as a return of Jim Crow, the Confederacy or property requirements for voting(a good idea, by the way).
FWIW, Yarvin makes the observation that democracies devolve into oligarchies (re: Plato). Since we are this weird mix of democracy/republic - the jury is still out.
Yarvin’s ideas are complicated by the fact that (in British 18-19th century terms and like his influence Carlyle) he’s basically a Whig who prefers Tory aesthetics. His idea of monarchy is somewhat like the Dutch mercantilist “state-holder” idea, very unlike the romantic medieval view whose fortunes were extremely dependent upon heredity.
I think a major argument for hereditary monarchy was that at least you didn't have to fight so much over who was going to be the boss now that the old boss was dead.
I'd argue that there were brief golden ages when elected officials or monarchs were noble leaders, and other times when one, the other, or both were/are not. And monarchs in the modern era have largely not been leaders of the government.
"Here’s a suggestion for all the websites in which my name keeps popping up like the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Atlantic, and the Guardian:"
For years Steve, due to the Sauron's Eye, it didn't pop up at all. Now it steadily is. Have to take the victories when you can find them. Getting out of Twitter (X) jail has afforded you the ability to become a nano-celebrity.
"Why don’t you review my book?"
All it would take (more or less) is for someone like a well respected friend at court, say, Charles Murray, to promote your book in the NYT say, in an article, a la regarding whatever topic, and then Murray drops a timely paragraph along the lines of "And I was just discussing the other day with Steve Sailer, a friend of mine, who happens to have released his latest book Noticing. I was astounded to discover that Noticing is not only first rate and top notch, but it contains key insights regarding---so and so on whatever issue that Murray currently is discussing in his NYT piece.
Something along those lines. Someone like Charles Murray the NYT might listen to.
IF your main idea for mainstream credibility is to curry favor with the NYT, then it would take someone to promote you, a patron so to speak, who has credibiity and cache with the likes of the NYT.
"And rather than just quote-and-sputter, attempt to think of logical refutations for my evidence.''
But look how long it took just to get you to the level of quote and sputter. The next step, actually dealing with your work will come in due time, especially if a friend at court helps to promote your cause.
"After all, my anthology is a pretty good summary of why I am now this nano-celebrity. There aren’t really any other reasons why I’ve slowly built a sizable following over the decades."
I daresay that part of the reason you've built a sizable following is because the intellectual, somewhat cultured, and well respected on the right side of the Bell Curve has been in your corner, Steve. NOW would be the time that some of them stepped up, so to speak, and promote your work in their mainstream articles. Once the NYT New Yorker, et al see that you're someone who is respected, then it can proceed from there to "this nano-celebrity, maybe we should check his work out. After all, if Charles Murray likes him and just promoted him in his recent article on (such and such), then maybe we ought to know exactly where this Sailer guy stands on various issues."
Again, it would take someone along those lines.
Or perhaps Curtis Yarvin could help you out, and actually directly mention one of your works as an example of a respectable source whom he trusts and relies upon etc.
Remember the riot at Middlebury College several years ago, in which Charles Murray was the victim of heckler’s veto, chased from the campus by a riotous mob, and his faculty sponsor was assaulted and injured? That’s the press corps room at the NYT writ large. The odds of Murray getting a fair hearing are micro while Steve’s odds would be nano.
Think of Nicholas Wade. He was held in high esteem at the NYT, even in retirement. Then A Troublesome Inheritance was published. Did his views in that book get anything resembling a fair hearing? I remember only pearl clutching, pointing and sputtering. Per the Grey Lady, Wade’s views on differences in human populations had long been “debunked.” His hypotheses in the last section of the book were deemed unworthy of evaluation. Wade was guilty of thought crime.
If that was how Wade’s ideas were treated by his former colleagues, how would we expect Murray’s and Steve’s to be received?
I also stated that Steve was interviewed on Tucker Carlson. Because of DC insider connections, the NYT, while they may not like him, would more than likely give Carlson a chance to speak under the guise that he's "edgy, yet safe enough" to once in a while allow him to grace their pages. There are conservatives that the NYT does occasionally allow in their pages.
Another one would be Ross Douthat, who remains a NYT columnist. Perhaps Douthat would be the one to promote Steve in one of his articles.
So if not Tucker Carlson, focus on Ross Douthat, a current NYT columnist who is a mainstream conservative.
The Times book review quickly became a joke when they picked an unserious editor over a serious, if ideological one years ago. If only City Journal or Clairmont Review (or national Review, for that matter) had a pair between them.
And of course to follow up on my original point, perhaps Tucker Carlson could be the prominent mainstream conservative to promote your book, as he did have you on his show. Certainly the fact that you appeared on his platform before millions of viewers helped things. From there, perhaps if Carlson were to promote some ideas from your book while of course giving the proper credit, then the mainstream sources that you seem interested in would tend to follow up on giving you a more in depth look.
1. Restore a rigorous standard for civics education including testing to our schools.
2. Require all new registrants to vote to be certified graduates of said civics education.
We seem to take greater care in issuing driver’s licenses than voter’s licenses.
I’m getting tired of explaining the difference between a republic where citizens enjoy the protections of the constitution versus a pure democracy to adult college graduates who should have been taught the difference in elementary school.
If George Orwell was still alive, he would have reviewed "Noticing." He was interested in ideas and truth, however unpleasant. James Burnham fascinated Orwell and Orwell reviewed "The Managerial State." I don't know how much Orwell knew about America. He never visited. The America of 1948 is long gone.
Let's face some unpleasant facts: William F. Buckley was deplatforming conservatives in the Sixties. National Review has continued the tradition. CPAC is notorious for deplatforming. The Koch brothers used dirty tricks some union thugs wouldn't even consider to not just suppress and astroturf citizen activists by threatening lawsuits, but by sending AFP Ken Dolls to shout them down from audiences. Try talking about Al Cardenas' bag boy !Marco Rubio's! real immigration position without being shown the door throughout Conservatism, Inc.
The first major political organization to desegregate, before the Dems, GOP, or even the military was the John Birch Society. Buckley was still mocking them decades later.
I love old libertarians, but the present Libertarian Party is run by leftitarians who took those Reason Magazine dolts by the shorties. Another type of deplatforming, when one might just argue their current platform and behavior is idiotic, only they won't argue. Too stoned.
Steve, you are also mentioned in the latest issue of Matthew Walther’s “The Lamp” magazine by the British writer Sam Kriss in his long piece on the Trump inauguration.
“Their main stock-in-trade, though, is publishing physical editions of blog posts by Nick Land, Steve Sailer, and Curtis Yarvin. Nick Land, the most interesting of the bunch, is a British philosopher who took so much speed at jungle raves that it turned him racist. Steve Sailer is a former data analyst who dedicated his life to pointing out aggregate statistical differences between racial groups.”
But judging by his recent Substack posts on Kamala and Saxon family structures, Kriss is a secret Sailer reader. The entire piece is worth a read, especially for the “Loved One”-esque remarks on plastic surgery. Kriss himself seems to have committed a noticing by pointing out that expensive plastic surgeons are often Armenian:
Steve becoming a hip New York personality is perhaps more surprising than Steve's policy prescriptions making their way into mainstream political discourse.
Affordable family formation is not a policy prescription. No is citizenism. They are hand waves. How does not government make family formation cheaper in NYC or Los Angeles? How does the country function with no immigrants, legal or illegal?
Encourage citizens only to form families through real, national ID and deportation of illegals. Encourage citizen families to be productive, not a permanent dependent underclass. Require birth certificates to register fathers using DNA, and make them pay child support so we don't have to support their offspring. Outlaw birthright-citizenship for the offspring of anyone except citizens Prioritize citizens over legal immigrants for SBA grants, etc.
I could go on. But why bother? You're not asking a serious question.
Yes, I am. Steve never bothers with policy. The elimination of birthright citizenship would required a constitutional amendment that will probably never pass. The DNA requirement also probably violates civil rights laws. And there are many child support orders today that do not generate any income.
And one should read the work on Lyman Stone on encouraging fertility in the middle class and higher. Steve should read and write more about Stone's work but he does not just like Steve never addresses the achievement gap between males and females.
I'd say welcome to No Man's Land, Steve, but you've been here longer than I. Having a talent for observation --noticing, if you will-- might have formed the basis for a successful career in comedy if you'd been willing to restrict yourself to the personal (up till the last 20 years, anyway). Big picture politics and economics, not so much: Mel Brooks' History of The World to the contrary notwithstanding, there never has been much of a market for stand-up philosophy. Yarvin is getting coverage in the NYT and New Yorker precisely because he has a taste for the kind of Teutonic Grand Theorizing (another commenter pointed out his unfortunate Carlyle intoxication) that you seem almost genetically averse to. He's useful as a bogeyman, you're dangerous. Take it as the tribute that I do.
Because they don't want to deal seriously with your ideas. As long as the issue is kept at the personality issue they will ignore the true substantitive issues.
Agreed. How can that be a win for them? Do you think they’d be an honest broker?
I don't see them being honest - I don't see how they can be honest when they are working backwards from the answers they want to the explanations they need to justify those answers. Once you accept a significant component of heritability in intellience and other psychological attributes the 'woke' world view starts disintegrating.
Steve does not do policy. Steve points out issues as shown in the data but rarely goes into policy proposals.
As an example, there is a huge white-black achievement gap in education. Yet, how should that impact policy. Steve seems to imply that ignoring the achievement gap would be acceptable but that solution cannot occur in modern politics. And as an aside, Steve ignores the massive achievement gap between males (of all races) and females.
But accepting the data itself invalidates basic woke assumptions. Different subpopulation characteristics means that disparate impact does not imply improper discrimination.
The entire point of critical race theory is to accept the data and to blame de facto racism for all of it. That does not invalidate basic leftist assumptions.
But the increasing amount of inheritance and polygenetic data truly does contradict leftist assumptions of environmental causation.
Massive? Large in STEM. But in humanities, no difference.
Look up who majors in Chemistry or biology. Women even make up 40% of math majors. And if one is looking at grades in high school, girls outperform boys in all classes including math and physics. Try harder. Compare the percent of women in physics to the percentage of men in nursing.
As a math/physics major myself I have direct experience. My classes were heavily male. I was often the only woman.
In what decade? From science daily: Of undergraduate biology majors, more than 60 percent are female and about half of biosciences graduate students are women
From the association of women in math: as of 2015, women are 41% of undergraduate math majors, 28% of new math PhD's in the US, 25% of postdoctoral fellows in mathematics ...
Men do not dominate STEM has much as many older people believe. https://swe.org/research/2024/employment/
1969-73.
Most cheerful boogeyman ever. The Passage video is great. PBS has a new hit show - "Bill Nye the Noticing Guy".
Cmon, these people don't deal with IDEAS! They wouldn't be caught dead even sniffing an idea unless it's already been labeled GOOD or EVIL by their priesthood. The only way to become a respected establishment American writer/thinker is to DO NO THINKING under any circumstances. Their gilded degrees, titles and bylines work just like accents or cutlery in Henry James, they exist entirely to show who is IN and who is OUT, who is upper-crust and who is a gauche plebeian.
They're only auditioning Steve as a future possible Emmanuel Goldstein understudy in case they may need one in the future. Think of the NYT etc as akin to the writer's room on the old "Batman" TV show: they need a steady supply of new villains, and if there aren't any, they'll invent them.
Maybe once Charles Murray dies, Steve will take his place in the pantheon of Those Who Must Never Be Mentioned, except to denounce.
Journalists want to write pieces about the ideas behind Trump’s second term, but a problem for them is that few RW influencers have very many ideas, much less form a coherent movement, so they keep coming back to the same three names that have almost nothing else in common: BAP, Yarvin and Steve.
I had a couple suggestions on the first video ... but as usual slow in getting to them. But also a couple for the second video, which presumably tackles the race and IQ issue.
1) The main emphasis should always be the data. In this age of silliness this has to be reiterated endlessly. Things are what they are. Empirical reality is what it is, regardless of what you think it ought to be. Versions of reality which do not square with empirical reality are simply wrong.
2) If one believes in evolution--in natural selection--then there *must* be racial differences in IQ and other mental traits between various groups. Brain power is *the* human competitive advantage. It is going to be the main thing that selection is working on. When any organism has populations that are different selective environments, selection works on those populations differently. Humans have been in different environments with different productive cultures, hence different selection pressures for tens of thousands of years.
Particularly in the last ten thousand years since the neolithic agricultural revolution and the development of "civilization", various human populations have been in radically different cultural environments--kicking off a process of gene-culture co-evolution. Humans altering their environment/culture which in turn creates a new selection pressures which alter them. Evolution--natural selection--actually "speeds up", which is what we see in the DNA.
Anyone who believes "all humans are the same" is not "scientific" but anti-scientific asserting something that can not be true--not logically, mathematically nor biologically. They are essentially left-creationists.
One argument is that evolution ends when humans started using tools.
> One argument is that evolution ends when humans started using tools. <
LOL. That doesn't even qualify as an "argument". It's just making noise.
There's nothing about using tools that impedes selection. Selection is always going on no-matter-what. Rather obviously using new tools speeds up selection by generating new selection for people good at using and building the new tools. Or rather--more precisely--people who are more reproductively successful in the new tool regime.** And this is precisely what the DNA data shows.
** An important caveat, given both that it really is a society wide effect. You can suck at personally using the new tools, but really reproductively successful in the "regime". Ex. a king. Now we have a new tool--the smartphone--and appear to be undergoing dramatic selection for women who still bother to form relationships, engage in sexual activity with men and have babies even with smartphones around.
Evolution is built on the idea of reproductive advantage. Once humans started using tools, the biological advantages became less important.
"Nano-celebrity"?!?! Dude, you're at least micro- !
Should not even need saying but anyone touting monarchy as the solution to anything is just a bozo. Ok, possibly not a bozo but simply an attention seeker or an agent provocateur trying to disrupt and mislead. But effectively a bozo peddling bozo ideas.
Elected kingship--as our ancestors had in some of their tribes--was a reasonable system for small tribes. Hey Joe, is the toughest and best fighter and quite shrewd, Joe should lead us. But anything resembling modern monarchy is not. It was just a parasitic grift. And it has all the problems that come with anything "mono". Just ask yourself if you'd want this Charles III clown to make decisions for your nation. LOL. Some ideas are need only the most trivial thought to debunk.
Now we--Americans--already discovered the best system of government: a republic governed by the judgement of mature, productive, responsible men.
It's pretty obvious the franchise was extended too far. To women, to young people--childless, unmarried, to welfare cases and now even criminals.
But the fundamental problem is the obvious one--minoritarianism. We allowed hostile, disloyal people to have a voice, to obtain--and even dominate--elite positions and discourse and impose a toxic, nation and civilization hostile ideology.
Responsible men must not let that happen. And republics must be designed so it simply can not happen--with being part of the nation and absolutely loyal to it an absolute necessity for anyone having a voice in the nation's affairs. But that fix is eminently do-able and with it the republican governance of mature, productive responsible men with families and children--skin in the game--is the best option.
When someone is peddling nonsense like "monarchy" are strongly suspect their intention--if not just pure attention whoring--is to confuse and disrupt the thinking of people wanting to get our nation--Western civilization--back on track.
I am an American, and we Americans haven't done kings for 249 years.
We haven't done patriarchy in 125 years. Good luck with that.
Monarchy is a fine form of government when compared to the idiocy of one-man, one-vote democracy. But the monarchy is long gone from America and isn't coming back. A return of monarchy is as likely as a return of Jim Crow, the Confederacy or property requirements for voting(a good idea, by the way).
FWIW, Yarvin makes the observation that democracies devolve into oligarchies (re: Plato). Since we are this weird mix of democracy/republic - the jury is still out.
Yarvin’s ideas are complicated by the fact that (in British 18-19th century terms and like his influence Carlyle) he’s basically a Whig who prefers Tory aesthetics. His idea of monarchy is somewhat like the Dutch mercantilist “state-holder” idea, very unlike the romantic medieval view whose fortunes were extremely dependent upon heredity.
I think his attraction to an aristocracy pushes him a little more to the Tories.
But does he want an aristocracy comprised of the children of aristocrats of bygone generations? Or more of a Napoleonic “career open to talent”?
Good point.
I think a major argument for hereditary monarchy was that at least you didn't have to fight so much over who was going to be the boss now that the old boss was dead.
Tell that to the Plantagenets and Tudors and Stuarts. There's only no fuss when there's little power and much bother.
Agree. Can’t understand the appeal of Yarvin.
I'd argue that there were brief golden ages when elected officials or monarchs were noble leaders, and other times when one, the other, or both were/are not. And monarchs in the modern era have largely not been leaders of the government.
"Here’s a suggestion for all the websites in which my name keeps popping up like the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Atlantic, and the Guardian:"
For years Steve, due to the Sauron's Eye, it didn't pop up at all. Now it steadily is. Have to take the victories when you can find them. Getting out of Twitter (X) jail has afforded you the ability to become a nano-celebrity.
"Why don’t you review my book?"
All it would take (more or less) is for someone like a well respected friend at court, say, Charles Murray, to promote your book in the NYT say, in an article, a la regarding whatever topic, and then Murray drops a timely paragraph along the lines of "And I was just discussing the other day with Steve Sailer, a friend of mine, who happens to have released his latest book Noticing. I was astounded to discover that Noticing is not only first rate and top notch, but it contains key insights regarding---so and so on whatever issue that Murray currently is discussing in his NYT piece.
Something along those lines. Someone like Charles Murray the NYT might listen to.
IF your main idea for mainstream credibility is to curry favor with the NYT, then it would take someone to promote you, a patron so to speak, who has credibiity and cache with the likes of the NYT.
"And rather than just quote-and-sputter, attempt to think of logical refutations for my evidence.''
But look how long it took just to get you to the level of quote and sputter. The next step, actually dealing with your work will come in due time, especially if a friend at court helps to promote your cause.
"After all, my anthology is a pretty good summary of why I am now this nano-celebrity. There aren’t really any other reasons why I’ve slowly built a sizable following over the decades."
I daresay that part of the reason you've built a sizable following is because the intellectual, somewhat cultured, and well respected on the right side of the Bell Curve has been in your corner, Steve. NOW would be the time that some of them stepped up, so to speak, and promote your work in their mainstream articles. Once the NYT New Yorker, et al see that you're someone who is respected, then it can proceed from there to "this nano-celebrity, maybe we should check his work out. After all, if Charles Murray likes him and just promoted him in his recent article on (such and such), then maybe we ought to know exactly where this Sailer guy stands on various issues."
Again, it would take someone along those lines.
Or perhaps Curtis Yarvin could help you out, and actually directly mention one of your works as an example of a respectable source whom he trusts and relies upon etc.
Remember the riot at Middlebury College several years ago, in which Charles Murray was the victim of heckler’s veto, chased from the campus by a riotous mob, and his faculty sponsor was assaulted and injured? That’s the press corps room at the NYT writ large. The odds of Murray getting a fair hearing are micro while Steve’s odds would be nano.
Think of Nicholas Wade. He was held in high esteem at the NYT, even in retirement. Then A Troublesome Inheritance was published. Did his views in that book get anything resembling a fair hearing? I remember only pearl clutching, pointing and sputtering. Per the Grey Lady, Wade’s views on differences in human populations had long been “debunked.” His hypotheses in the last section of the book were deemed unworthy of evaluation. Wade was guilty of thought crime.
If that was how Wade’s ideas were treated by his former colleagues, how would we expect Murray’s and Steve’s to be received?
I also stated that Steve was interviewed on Tucker Carlson. Because of DC insider connections, the NYT, while they may not like him, would more than likely give Carlson a chance to speak under the guise that he's "edgy, yet safe enough" to once in a while allow him to grace their pages. There are conservatives that the NYT does occasionally allow in their pages.
Another one would be Ross Douthat, who remains a NYT columnist. Perhaps Douthat would be the one to promote Steve in one of his articles.
So if not Tucker Carlson, focus on Ross Douthat, a current NYT columnist who is a mainstream conservative.
I disagree. Douthat couldn't do it, and if he could, he wouldn't do it.
I also mentioned Tucker Carlson, who could do it, plus Steve has already appeared on Carlson's show.
The Times book review quickly became a joke when they picked an unserious editor over a serious, if ideological one years ago. If only City Journal or Clairmont Review (or national Review, for that matter) had a pair between them.
And of course to follow up on my original point, perhaps Tucker Carlson could be the prominent mainstream conservative to promote your book, as he did have you on his show. Certainly the fact that you appeared on his platform before millions of viewers helped things. From there, perhaps if Carlson were to promote some ideas from your book while of course giving the proper credit, then the mainstream sources that you seem interested in would tend to follow up on giving you a more in depth look.
Well, when you're dead maybe you're going to be "Steve Sailer, austere IQ scholar"?
> a cheerful but not outgoing old man who spends his days in his closet
lol
Here’s an idea:
1. Restore a rigorous standard for civics education including testing to our schools.
2. Require all new registrants to vote to be certified graduates of said civics education.
We seem to take greater care in issuing driver’s licenses than voter’s licenses.
I’m getting tired of explaining the difference between a republic where citizens enjoy the protections of the constitution versus a pure democracy to adult college graduates who should have been taught the difference in elementary school.
If George Orwell was still alive, he would have reviewed "Noticing." He was interested in ideas and truth, however unpleasant. James Burnham fascinated Orwell and Orwell reviewed "The Managerial State." I don't know how much Orwell knew about America. He never visited. The America of 1948 is long gone.
Let's face some unpleasant facts: William F. Buckley was deplatforming conservatives in the Sixties. National Review has continued the tradition. CPAC is notorious for deplatforming. The Koch brothers used dirty tricks some union thugs wouldn't even consider to not just suppress and astroturf citizen activists by threatening lawsuits, but by sending AFP Ken Dolls to shout them down from audiences. Try talking about Al Cardenas' bag boy !Marco Rubio's! real immigration position without being shown the door throughout Conservatism, Inc.
The first major political organization to desegregate, before the Dems, GOP, or even the military was the John Birch Society. Buckley was still mocking them decades later.
I love old libertarians, but the present Libertarian Party is run by leftitarians who took those Reason Magazine dolts by the shorties. Another type of deplatforming, when one might just argue their current platform and behavior is idiotic, only they won't argue. Too stoned.
Steve, you are also mentioned in the latest issue of Matthew Walther’s “The Lamp” magazine by the British writer Sam Kriss in his long piece on the Trump inauguration.
“Their main stock-in-trade, though, is publishing physical editions of blog posts by Nick Land, Steve Sailer, and Curtis Yarvin. Nick Land, the most interesting of the bunch, is a British philosopher who took so much speed at jungle raves that it turned him racist. Steve Sailer is a former data analyst who dedicated his life to pointing out aggregate statistical differences between racial groups.”
But judging by his recent Substack posts on Kamala and Saxon family structures, Kriss is a secret Sailer reader. The entire piece is worth a read, especially for the “Loved One”-esque remarks on plastic surgery. Kriss himself seems to have committed a noticing by pointing out that expensive plastic surgeons are often Armenian:
https://thelampmagazine.com/issues/issue-28/to-welcome-the-new-king
Steve becoming a hip New York personality is perhaps more surprising than Steve's policy prescriptions making their way into mainstream political discourse.
What policy prescriptions?
Affordable Family Formation, Citizenism...seems to me Steve has been using these terms for quite some time
Affordable family formation is not a policy prescription. No is citizenism. They are hand waves. How does not government make family formation cheaper in NYC or Los Angeles? How does the country function with no immigrants, legal or illegal?
You can say they are hand waves, but they seem to be having some influence
Encourage citizens only to form families through real, national ID and deportation of illegals. Encourage citizen families to be productive, not a permanent dependent underclass. Require birth certificates to register fathers using DNA, and make them pay child support so we don't have to support their offspring. Outlaw birthright-citizenship for the offspring of anyone except citizens Prioritize citizens over legal immigrants for SBA grants, etc.
I could go on. But why bother? You're not asking a serious question.
Yes, I am. Steve never bothers with policy. The elimination of birthright citizenship would required a constitutional amendment that will probably never pass. The DNA requirement also probably violates civil rights laws. And there are many child support orders today that do not generate any income.
And one should read the work on Lyman Stone on encouraging fertility in the middle class and higher. Steve should read and write more about Stone's work but he does not just like Steve never addresses the achievement gap between males and females.
Can't wait for the new book, may have to get the leather bound one this time.
I'd say welcome to No Man's Land, Steve, but you've been here longer than I. Having a talent for observation --noticing, if you will-- might have formed the basis for a successful career in comedy if you'd been willing to restrict yourself to the personal (up till the last 20 years, anyway). Big picture politics and economics, not so much: Mel Brooks' History of The World to the contrary notwithstanding, there never has been much of a market for stand-up philosophy. Yarvin is getting coverage in the NYT and New Yorker precisely because he has a taste for the kind of Teutonic Grand Theorizing (another commenter pointed out his unfortunate Carlyle intoxication) that you seem almost genetically averse to. He's useful as a bogeyman, you're dangerous. Take it as the tribute that I do.