For me, key revelaion in this - other than recognizing your genius, of course - is *noticing* your big readership among .the Great-N-Good. ...Probably under the sheets with a flashlight.
*I should have written 'What little girl hasn’t wanted to grow up to be master and commander of her own 28 gun man o’ war?'*
I've known quite a few Captain Blighs just smashing in stiletto heels.
Jason Richwine resigned from the Heritage Foundation in May 2013 (before he would have been fired by that bastion of conservatism) after some libtard WaPo reporter said that his PhD dissertation pointed out, correctly but impolitely, that Hispanics aren't as smart as whites.
I was at a CIS function years ago and met him and Michelle Malkin, who has since retired from the fray.
Michelle Malkin says she got tired of writing her column. Although I was not a closer follower, it had been clear for some time that she was deeply angry and hurt that mainstream Conservatism was shunning her.
Her entry-ban at C-PAC 2020 (February 2020, one of the final in-person public events before the Covid Lockdowns) was a real signal that some Rubicon had been crossed. Michelle was outraged, and hurt.
I'm not sure when the shunning of Michelle Malkin began; and cannot now recall exactly why. It was definitely true by ca.2020. It's likewise true that she had been a darling of at least large elements of the Right back ca.2005 and ca.2010.
Being blunt here, in the 2000s Michelle Malkin scooped up large numbers of easy points for being an Asian women making sorta-kinda pro-American, pro-White talking-points. (Steve Sailer was shunned, for saying things generally tamer. Very-reliable word has it that Sailer is, and always has been, a White Male.)
Malkin was not only a favored-class -- relatively-recent-immigrant-origin, female, Nonwhite, with an Israeli-citizenship-eligible husband -- she was also willing to fight on "culture war" points and draw attention to herself with provocative or incendiary rhetoric. The layers of identity and connections I just mentioned were effective shields in her long foray into politics.
Something changed in the 2010s, probably towards the latter few years of the decade. It may relate to Malkin herself (b.1970) growing a bit older. Her provocateur-cute-Asian-girl days, -- so effective when she was in her 30s and beyond -- had largely their course by ca.2020. By then, much-younger 'girls' had entered the fray in large numbers (and I submit Michelle Malkin was trading on her role as 'girl' in part). By the late 2010s, the new crop of b.1980s and b.1990s politics-girls had lucrative results, doing similar acts.
(I do not mean necessarily that Malkin, or any other specific individual, is or was not genuine in any given professed belief at any given time. I do mean there was more to their appeal -- their following(s), their attention, their star-power -- than their arguments.)
The new 'girls' on the scene were far-less-good writers than Michelle Malkin. But the typical exemplar of the new wave by the close of the 2010s was not a writer at all, not primarily. Most of them traded in video format and so forth, or (of course) social-media, a decidedly lower form of written communication.
A clue that I'm right is that Michelle Malkin (born Oct. 1970) wrote her "signing off" column -- her final published column, as of this writing in mid-2025 -- the very week of her 52nd birthday. ("'-30-': An Ending, But Not the End.") That was late-October 2022. It's a 1-in-52 coincidence that her retirement and birthday happen to have been in the same week. The good bet (51/52 chance) is it was intentional.
Twenty years earlier, in 2002, Michelle Malkin has entered the fray in a big way. She was clearly energized by the attention given towards her polemic Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (published Aug 2002). That pro-War on Terror, White-ethnonationalistic-, immigration-restrictionist-, dog-whistle-style polemic reached its height around Malkin's 32nd birthday (late 2002).
The first Trump campaign (June 2015 to Nov 2016) occurred spanning Malkin's 45th and 46th birthdays. She he was still "passing" as being a cute-attractive girl of a maybe-around-age-30 foreign girl with the Courage to Stand Up to Political Correctness. In other words, the same persona she had used to such effect throughout the 2000s. (East-Asians can successively deceive Western audiences in all manner of ways. This is one. It is one reason they like operating within Western societies.)
By the end of her 40s, though, Michelle Malkin had started to be shunned. Perhaps especially in calendar-year 2019 (her 49th birthday was in Oct 2019). The storm surely gathering in the preceding few years. What I assess happened is that Malkin assumed the protective ring around her, that she'd known in the 2000s and most of the 2010s, would last forever.
Many East-Asian-origin people assume this kind of amulet-like protection simply exists for them in the West by default (which they like, as they benefit from it; even if concurrently seeing it as naive and over-trusting, at least viewed by standards anything near their own cultures' standards). By around 2018-19, she was increasingly positioning herself in actually-correct positions but positions over which AIPAC and others were willing to toss her overboard.
The turn against the long-self-confident Michelle Malkin wounded her. Especially so when she knew well her positions were right, and on the majority side, and that she still had all the checkbox-layers of protection. She had traded in controversy, successfully shielding herself with her various places in the U.S.-administered quasi-imperial system's racial-spoils system.
By the 2010s, however, Malkin's fame, her public profile, meant she couldn't quite be fully Cancelled (meaning fired from a prestige-perch; life-banned from respectful employment; shunned). Much in the same way, Ann Coulter was never destroyed, despite emerging as a defacto White-ethnonationalist by the mid-2010s (and, at times, as an outright Israel critic).
For Malkin, year after year of negative pressure, I think, got to her. Being "turned against" would hurt for anyone. But especially for one who'd done so well for so long in a self-made (or self-made-seeming) writing and speaking career, a kind of miniature political-nexus in her own right. Impressive, in its way.
Along came the 20th-anniversary milestone of her first book (2002); and her 52nd-birthday milestone (October 2022). A good-enough place to take her exit. We haven't heard from her since.
The crucifixion of Jason Richwine in 2013 was one of the "classic 2010s moments" in political terms. The ostracization of Michelle Malkin, a few years later, bears much similarity. (A strange decade it was, the 2010s, in many ways. It reached its climax, inconveniently for our historical-period numbering system, in the early 2020s.)
If someone reading this can identify a cross-over point for Michelle Malkin, let us know.
________
EDIT: Revised and added as a free-standing post at my website:
You mentioned Ann Coulter, which reminded me that I've barely heard her name recently. This may be because I'm a Brit who doesn't follow American politics so closely, though you seem to suggest that she too was cancelled, in her case for being a white ethnonationalist.
According to her Takimag archive, Michelle Malkin hasn't written for TakiMag since May 2011.
Interestingly, her second-to-last Taki column was titled "Donald Trump's Eminent-Domain Empire" (April 2011, at the time Trump entered politics by questioning the Obama birth-certificate).
She wrote -- presciently, I think -- at the time (April 2011):
"Don’t be fooled by The Donald. Take it from one who knows: I’m a South Jersey gal who was raised on the outskirts of Atlantic City in the looming shadow of Trump’s towers. [...]"
Tucker's shunning -- occurring in the late 2010s and capping off with his life-ban from Fox News (late-April 2023) -- by the people who liked him and among who he had hitherto circulated for his whole life, was a psychic trauma for Tucker.
His regret, we hope, was that he failed to get Steve Sailer on the air while still on Fox (overruled by higher-ups every time it came up).
Entertainingly, the Heritage foundation had a hilarious excuse/defense for having hired such a wrongthinker: none of them had read his writing before hiring him, so how were they to know what a wicked bad evil wrongthinker he was?
$50 was a generous acknowledgment back in the day. With no inflation adjustment, it looks like cheaply bought insurance against a plagiarism claim. But of course, the coin of the realm that mainstream journalism trades in is citation--sending readers to the source of a striking turn of phrase or insight. Sailer's banishment from polite discourse allows the Great n' Good to pilfer him. Steve has been an important silent influencer, for which he may be honored. Hopefully, Noticing and his public events will bring him and his heirs something a bit more tangible in the meantime.
It’s disturbing to read a complimentary review of your book outside of Taki. Here I thought that we were down for the struggle yet we are careening into the mainstream. Perhaps there will be a place for truth telling in a witty way.
I agree to a point, not those leftist rags but not Taki either, where I was introduced to Steve’s work. NAS is more acceptable than Taki to the mainstream.
Excellent review from a contemporary academic with a stellar reputation.
Regarding why hypermasculine men sometimes transition to women, the one thing that I would hope that Steve would spell out is exactly....why do they do it? Why do some hyper masculines with a John Wayne complex transition while other hyper masculines do not? What is the tipping point for Johnny Lake to become Joanne Lake, while John Wayne remained, well, John Wayne?
Also, in the situation regarding gay men, it would appear that very few of them, while they may not be hypermasculine in temperment, decline any inward urges to take the final plunge and transition into female? Why is that? What prevents say, a Richard Simmons from becoming a Rowina Simmons when by temperment some gay men are almost as feminine as women? Why don't they simply join the club and transition to female? And yet for some reason, they don't seem to do so and thus remain outwardly male.
In other words, is there a specific mental trait (or traits) that would cause someone, who outwardly would appear to be as masculine as possible and so greatly desire to become a woman? On one level, it is most baffling as becoming outwardly feminine would seem to be the last thing that a hypermasculine male would ever desire for one's self to become.
And also, Steve hasn't ever (that I'm aware of) discussed the opposite: namely, what causes women to transition to males? Chastity/Chaz Bono for instance? What causes the likes of them to want to become males when clearly they were born female? It's not as if Chastity grew up playing masculine games, studied war and military tactics, etc. So something else must be going on regarding women's desire to transition to male. And Chastity didn't transition until well into adulthood, so it cannot be blamed specifically on her receiving puberty blockers during adolescence.
One incentive is they can probably attract more and hotter women as a outward male than as a butch lesbian.
Tranny hookers appeared frequently on NYPD Blue and other cops shows in the 90s, thanks to Eddie Murphy and The Crying Game. They've been pushed out of the limelight by the autogynephiles since then.
“One incentive is they can probably attract more and hotter women as a outward male than as a butch lesbian“
Nah.
Because that never works. No matter how much they think they resemble a man they don’t—Chaz Bono isn’t fooling any hottie, least of all the likes of Sydney Sweeney.
It’s best they remain as they are, and hope like Ellen Degeneres they can land a Portia Rossi (but granted Ellen bears more then a striking resemblance to Bing Crosby)
And, why should hotties go for pretend males when they clearly can get the real deal instead? Women transitioned into males aren’t giving real males serious competition for landing hotties.
So the question remains. Why do adult women who did not go through all the propaganda during school suddenly decide to transition into males, like the example of Chaz Bono?
They may think they can do better as fake men. There simply aren't many feminine lesbians compared to heteros at any degree of hotness. Just as with the effeminate gay ex-men, it doesn't occur to them that the few people attracted to them aren't quite straight themselves. Maybe that's why so many seem so angry.
It's the conservative or at any rate neutral/apolitical alternative to all the politicized, usually field-specific scholarly organizations like the MLA and the APSA.
Is it @realMichaelAnton? Anyway, from reading the fair review I thought Jason Richwine and National Academy of Scholars were nat con, somewhere along the lines of Clairemont Review of Books...
@MichaelAnton2: If you use the handle "Michael Anton," everyone will assume you to be the very same as the intrepid scholar who wrote "The Flight 93 Election" in 2016; and who, at last word, had been appointed to Director of Policy Planning.
Whether this be that famous Michael Anton or not, I assume that the real one is, like most of us, disappointed with Trump-II. For basically predictable reasons.
Those staffing the Trump-II admin, hunkered down there in Washington, likely won't express their disappointment because of the mercurial, petty, unfocused, distressingly pro-Israel, and vindictive nature of the man, a man who rules by decrees based on mood-swings and, apparently, Mossad directives. The great Trump-era "waste of time and political capital" continues. The spell continues, too, for a great portion of the original Trump coalition, but less than ever.
On the one hand, I kind of agree with Flight 93 election line - this is the point I was raising implicitly. On the other hand - isn't it a bit conspiratorial thinking to think Mossad is under every bed? As far as I know, China and all the Arab Emirates together (including the Saudis), make a far greater contribution to DC and university lobbying.
"Needless to say, the fact that most men who dress as women do so because of a sex fetish is not the story that transgender activists wish to tell. They insist on the “woman on the inside” narrative—unbelievable as it may be for men such as Jenner, Donnelly, et al.—because it evokes more sympathy for their condition."
An irony for hyper masculine males so bent on transitioning to female, is that the last thing that they would so desire is for the public would be to feel sympathy much less pity for their plight to transition.
Re: the male nerdish fantasy of the Wachowski brothers, hopefully nerd uber alles Elon Musk doesn't latch on to this and one day desire to become Elaine Musk. But something suggests that Elon will always remain who is inside, namely Elon.
> I know a few superstar professional comedy writers
Do you still talk to Jeff Martin? For those who don't know, he is famous in the world of sitcom writing and also created Listen Up, a sitcom based on the life of Tony Kornheiser starring Jason Alexander and the late Malcolm-Jamal Warner
The transgender one has never been more relevant. I’ve tried arguing with a certain type of progressive that males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports. They go nuts. Why is this so important?
I have a relative who considers himself a liberal and hates hates hates! Donald Trump. I've shared many things from Steve with him and he agrees with almost all of them. He told me that based on science no man who transitioned after puberty should be allowed to compete in women's sport. He's my age and I told him I got some bad news buddy--the political ground shifted under your feet while you were distracted. You're considered a conservative now.
I know other people my age who have gone whole hog into nodding along with all things transgender. I think on some level, it's to fight the nausea that results when they find themselves bumping up against the above revelation.
Did you notice the Dec 16, 2025 reference in the Unz Review, on trimming the First Amendment to save the Zeroth Amendment? I guess that year’s wrong.
Please keep on noticing T truth, especially the politically incorrect ones.
Which reminds me of many pundits talking about how the loss of trust in our institutions happened, and none of them seem to mention “Politically Correct”. Truths have long been suppressed when not politically correct.
The funniest bit was that Thomas Donnelly called himself 'Giselle'. It may be that inside Thomas Donnelly there was not merely a woman waiting to break free but a woman who was an unbearable exhibitionist.
I had a Lesbian friend named Siobhan in Minneapolis who loved those Patrick O'Brien books. Her Avatar was dressed in a Napoleonic English Ships Captains uniform. She loved to make recreations of maps that look like old maps from the period.
Reading Steve Sailer over the years has imbued my worldview with a sense of absurdism. So many of the beliefs of our educated elites can be demolished so easily with a little bit of noticing. You get the sense that no one really knows what’s going on.
For me, key revelaion in this - other than recognizing your genius, of course - is *noticing* your big readership among .the Great-N-Good. ...Probably under the sheets with a flashlight.
*I should have written 'What little girl hasn’t wanted to grow up to be master and commander of her own 28 gun man o’ war?'*
I've known quite a few Captain Blighs just smashing in stiletto heels.
Jason Richwine resigned from the Heritage Foundation in May 2013 (before he would have been fired by that bastion of conservatism) after some libtard WaPo reporter said that his PhD dissertation pointed out, correctly but impolitely, that Hispanics aren't as smart as whites.
I was at a CIS function years ago and met him and Michelle Malkin, who has since retired from the fray.
Yes, whatever happened to Michelle Malkin? I liked her.
EDIT: This comment revised and added as a free-standing post at my website:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2025/08/06/why-did-michelle-malkin-retire-from-politics/
**********
Michelle Malkin says she got tired of writing her column. Although I was not a closer follower, it had been clear for some time that she was deeply angry and hurt that mainstream Conservatism was shunning her.
Her entry-ban at C-PAC 2020 (February 2020, one of the final in-person public events before the Covid Lockdowns) was a real signal that some Rubicon had been crossed. Michelle was outraged, and hurt.
I'm not sure when the shunning of Michelle Malkin began; and cannot now recall exactly why. It was definitely true by ca.2020. It's likewise true that she had been a darling of at least large elements of the Right back ca.2005 and ca.2010.
Being blunt here, in the 2000s Michelle Malkin scooped up large numbers of easy points for being an Asian women making sorta-kinda pro-American, pro-White talking-points. (Steve Sailer was shunned, for saying things generally tamer. Very-reliable word has it that Sailer is, and always has been, a White Male.)
Malkin was not only a favored-class -- relatively-recent-immigrant-origin, female, Nonwhite, with an Israeli-citizenship-eligible husband -- she was also willing to fight on "culture war" points and draw attention to herself with provocative or incendiary rhetoric. The layers of identity and connections I just mentioned were effective shields in her long foray into politics.
Something changed in the 2010s, probably towards the latter few years of the decade. It may relate to Malkin herself (b.1970) growing a bit older. Her provocateur-cute-Asian-girl days, -- so effective when she was in her 30s and beyond -- had largely their course by ca.2020. By then, much-younger 'girls' had entered the fray in large numbers (and I submit Michelle Malkin was trading on her role as 'girl' in part). By the late 2010s, the new crop of b.1980s and b.1990s politics-girls had lucrative results, doing similar acts.
(I do not mean necessarily that Malkin, or any other specific individual, is or was not genuine in any given professed belief at any given time. I do mean there was more to their appeal -- their following(s), their attention, their star-power -- than their arguments.)
The new 'girls' on the scene were far-less-good writers than Michelle Malkin. But the typical exemplar of the new wave by the close of the 2010s was not a writer at all, not primarily. Most of them traded in video format and so forth, or (of course) social-media, a decidedly lower form of written communication.
A clue that I'm right is that Michelle Malkin (born Oct. 1970) wrote her "signing off" column -- her final published column, as of this writing in mid-2025 -- the very week of her 52nd birthday. ("'-30-': An Ending, But Not the End.") That was late-October 2022. It's a 1-in-52 coincidence that her retirement and birthday happen to have been in the same week. The good bet (51/52 chance) is it was intentional.
Twenty years earlier, in 2002, Michelle Malkin has entered the fray in a big way. She was clearly energized by the attention given towards her polemic Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (published Aug 2002). That pro-War on Terror, White-ethnonationalistic-, immigration-restrictionist-, dog-whistle-style polemic reached its height around Malkin's 32nd birthday (late 2002).
The first Trump campaign (June 2015 to Nov 2016) occurred spanning Malkin's 45th and 46th birthdays. She he was still "passing" as being a cute-attractive girl of a maybe-around-age-30 foreign girl with the Courage to Stand Up to Political Correctness. In other words, the same persona she had used to such effect throughout the 2000s. (East-Asians can successively deceive Western audiences in all manner of ways. This is one. It is one reason they like operating within Western societies.)
By the end of her 40s, though, Michelle Malkin had started to be shunned. Perhaps especially in calendar-year 2019 (her 49th birthday was in Oct 2019). The storm surely gathering in the preceding few years. What I assess happened is that Malkin assumed the protective ring around her, that she'd known in the 2000s and most of the 2010s, would last forever.
Many East-Asian-origin people assume this kind of amulet-like protection simply exists for them in the West by default (which they like, as they benefit from it; even if concurrently seeing it as naive and over-trusting, at least viewed by standards anything near their own cultures' standards). By around 2018-19, she was increasingly positioning herself in actually-correct positions but positions over which AIPAC and others were willing to toss her overboard.
The turn against the long-self-confident Michelle Malkin wounded her. Especially so when she knew well her positions were right, and on the majority side, and that she still had all the checkbox-layers of protection. She had traded in controversy, successfully shielding herself with her various places in the U.S.-administered quasi-imperial system's racial-spoils system.
By the 2010s, however, Malkin's fame, her public profile, meant she couldn't quite be fully Cancelled (meaning fired from a prestige-perch; life-banned from respectful employment; shunned). Much in the same way, Ann Coulter was never destroyed, despite emerging as a defacto White-ethnonationalist by the mid-2010s (and, at times, as an outright Israel critic).
For Malkin, year after year of negative pressure, I think, got to her. Being "turned against" would hurt for anyone. But especially for one who'd done so well for so long in a self-made (or self-made-seeming) writing and speaking career, a kind of miniature political-nexus in her own right. Impressive, in its way.
Along came the 20th-anniversary milestone of her first book (2002); and her 52nd-birthday milestone (October 2022). A good-enough place to take her exit. We haven't heard from her since.
The crucifixion of Jason Richwine in 2013 was one of the "classic 2010s moments" in political terms. The ostracization of Michelle Malkin, a few years later, bears much similarity. (A strange decade it was, the 2010s, in many ways. It reached its climax, inconveniently for our historical-period numbering system, in the early 2020s.)
If someone reading this can identify a cross-over point for Michelle Malkin, let us know.
________
EDIT: Revised and added as a free-standing post at my website:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2025/08/06/why-did-michelle-malkin-retire-from-politics/
Wow, you certainly know more about MM than I do.
You mentioned Ann Coulter, which reminded me that I've barely heard her name recently. This may be because I'm a Brit who doesn't follow American politics so closely, though you seem to suggest that she too was cancelled, in her case for being a white ethnonationalist.
she writes for takimag still
According to her Takimag archive, Michelle Malkin hasn't written for TakiMag since May 2011.
Interestingly, her second-to-last Taki column was titled "Donald Trump's Eminent-Domain Empire" (April 2011, at the time Trump entered politics by questioning the Obama birth-certificate).
She wrote -- presciently, I think -- at the time (April 2011):
"Don’t be fooled by The Donald. Take it from one who knows: I’m a South Jersey gal who was raised on the outskirts of Atlantic City in the looming shadow of Trump’s towers. [...]"
https://www.takimag.com/contributor/michellemalkin/215/
I was talking about AC
Thanks for that. I mentioned up thread that I met her and Richwine at a CIS event in 2017 or so. MM looked like she was in her late 20s.
On a completely unrelated topic. Tucker Carlson has gone completely off the rails.
Tucker has embraced contrarianism. It happens.
Tucker's shunning -- occurring in the late 2010s and capping off with his life-ban from Fox News (late-April 2023) -- by the people who liked him and among who he had hitherto circulated for his whole life, was a psychic trauma for Tucker.
His regret, we hope, was that he failed to get Steve Sailer on the air while still on Fox (overruled by higher-ups every time it came up).
Entertainingly, the Heritage foundation had a hilarious excuse/defense for having hired such a wrongthinker: none of them had read his writing before hiring him, so how were they to know what a wicked bad evil wrongthinker he was?
$50 was a generous acknowledgment back in the day. With no inflation adjustment, it looks like cheaply bought insurance against a plagiarism claim. But of course, the coin of the realm that mainstream journalism trades in is citation--sending readers to the source of a striking turn of phrase or insight. Sailer's banishment from polite discourse allows the Great n' Good to pilfer him. Steve has been an important silent influencer, for which he may be honored. Hopefully, Noticing and his public events will bring him and his heirs something a bit more tangible in the meantime.
It's not standard procedure to insert footnotes into stand-up comedy routines.
A loophole we lawyers could soon close, if someone were to make it worth our while.
It’s disturbing to read a complimentary review of your book outside of Taki. Here I thought that we were down for the struggle yet we are careening into the mainstream. Perhaps there will be a place for truth telling in a witty way.
I think national academy of scholars is way out of mainstream, sorry! NYT or WaPo will never in a 1k years have them as a positive reference.
I agree to a point, not those leftist rags but not Taki either, where I was introduced to Steve’s work. NAS is more acceptable than Taki to the mainstream.
I kind of agree.
Excellent review from a contemporary academic with a stellar reputation.
Regarding why hypermasculine men sometimes transition to women, the one thing that I would hope that Steve would spell out is exactly....why do they do it? Why do some hyper masculines with a John Wayne complex transition while other hyper masculines do not? What is the tipping point for Johnny Lake to become Joanne Lake, while John Wayne remained, well, John Wayne?
Also, in the situation regarding gay men, it would appear that very few of them, while they may not be hypermasculine in temperment, decline any inward urges to take the final plunge and transition into female? Why is that? What prevents say, a Richard Simmons from becoming a Rowina Simmons when by temperment some gay men are almost as feminine as women? Why don't they simply join the club and transition to female? And yet for some reason, they don't seem to do so and thus remain outwardly male.
In other words, is there a specific mental trait (or traits) that would cause someone, who outwardly would appear to be as masculine as possible and so greatly desire to become a woman? On one level, it is most baffling as becoming outwardly feminine would seem to be the last thing that a hypermasculine male would ever desire for one's self to become.
And also, Steve hasn't ever (that I'm aware of) discussed the opposite: namely, what causes women to transition to males? Chastity/Chaz Bono for instance? What causes the likes of them to want to become males when clearly they were born female? It's not as if Chastity grew up playing masculine games, studied war and military tactics, etc. So something else must be going on regarding women's desire to transition to male. And Chastity didn't transition until well into adulthood, so it cannot be blamed specifically on her receiving puberty blockers during adolescence.
One incentive is they can probably attract more and hotter women as a outward male than as a butch lesbian.
Tranny hookers appeared frequently on NYPD Blue and other cops shows in the 90s, thanks to Eddie Murphy and The Crying Game. They've been pushed out of the limelight by the autogynephiles since then.
“One incentive is they can probably attract more and hotter women as a outward male than as a butch lesbian“
Nah.
Because that never works. No matter how much they think they resemble a man they don’t—Chaz Bono isn’t fooling any hottie, least of all the likes of Sydney Sweeney.
It’s best they remain as they are, and hope like Ellen Degeneres they can land a Portia Rossi (but granted Ellen bears more then a striking resemblance to Bing Crosby)
And, why should hotties go for pretend males when they clearly can get the real deal instead? Women transitioned into males aren’t giving real males serious competition for landing hotties.
So the question remains. Why do adult women who did not go through all the propaganda during school suddenly decide to transition into males, like the example of Chaz Bono?
They may think they can do better as fake men. There simply aren't many feminine lesbians compared to heteros at any degree of hotness. Just as with the effeminate gay ex-men, it doesn't occur to them that the few people attracted to them aren't quite straight themselves. Maybe that's why so many seem so angry.
Don't know anything about The National Association of Scholars; that is a very positive and fair review.
It's the conservative or at any rate neutral/apolitical alternative to all the politicized, usually field-specific scholarly organizations like the MLA and the APSA.
Thx.
Is it @realMichaelAnton? Anyway, from reading the fair review I thought Jason Richwine and National Academy of Scholars were nat con, somewhere along the lines of Clairemont Review of Books...
I don't know what you're asking. My (real) name is Michael Anton.
@MichaelAnton2: If you use the handle "Michael Anton," everyone will assume you to be the very same as the intrepid scholar who wrote "The Flight 93 Election" in 2016; and who, at last word, had been appointed to Director of Policy Planning.
Whether this be that famous Michael Anton or not, I assume that the real one is, like most of us, disappointed with Trump-II. For basically predictable reasons.
Those staffing the Trump-II admin, hunkered down there in Washington, likely won't express their disappointment because of the mercurial, petty, unfocused, distressingly pro-Israel, and vindictive nature of the man, a man who rules by decrees based on mood-swings and, apparently, Mossad directives. The great Trump-era "waste of time and political capital" continues. The spell continues, too, for a great portion of the original Trump coalition, but less than ever.
See: https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2025/07/26/evaluating-trump-ii-at-its-six-month-mark-do-they-really-believe-in-or-want-immigration-restrictionism/
On the one hand, I kind of agree with Flight 93 election line - this is the point I was raising implicitly. On the other hand - isn't it a bit conspiratorial thinking to think Mossad is under every bed? As far as I know, China and all the Arab Emirates together (including the Saudis), make a far greater contribution to DC and university lobbying.
"Needless to say, the fact that most men who dress as women do so because of a sex fetish is not the story that transgender activists wish to tell. They insist on the “woman on the inside” narrative—unbelievable as it may be for men such as Jenner, Donnelly, et al.—because it evokes more sympathy for their condition."
An irony for hyper masculine males so bent on transitioning to female, is that the last thing that they would so desire is for the public would be to feel sympathy much less pity for their plight to transition.
Re: the male nerdish fantasy of the Wachowski brothers, hopefully nerd uber alles Elon Musk doesn't latch on to this and one day desire to become Elaine Musk. But something suggests that Elon will always remain who is inside, namely Elon.
> I know a few superstar professional comedy writers
Do you still talk to Jeff Martin? For those who don't know, he is famous in the world of sitcom writing and also created Listen Up, a sitcom based on the life of Tony Kornheiser starring Jason Alexander and the late Malcolm-Jamal Warner
The transgender one has never been more relevant. I’ve tried arguing with a certain type of progressive that males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports. They go nuts. Why is this so important?
Excellent review. Glad you’re getting recognition.
I have a relative who considers himself a liberal and hates hates hates! Donald Trump. I've shared many things from Steve with him and he agrees with almost all of them. He told me that based on science no man who transitioned after puberty should be allowed to compete in women's sport. He's my age and I told him I got some bad news buddy--the political ground shifted under your feet while you were distracted. You're considered a conservative now.
I know other people my age who have gone whole hog into nodding along with all things transgender. I think on some level, it's to fight the nausea that results when they find themselves bumping up against the above revelation.
You’re right. Your relative is now a right wing nut job! Dissent is not permitted.
Poor guy. I'd get him something but he remains in denial.
Glad you’re getting your props Steve. You’ve earned it.
Did you notice the Dec 16, 2025 reference in the Unz Review, on trimming the First Amendment to save the Zeroth Amendment? I guess that year’s wrong.
Please keep on noticing T truth, especially the politically incorrect ones.
Which reminds me of many pundits talking about how the loss of trust in our institutions happened, and none of them seem to mention “Politically Correct”. Truths have long been suppressed when not politically correct.
Actually, it is a glowing review. But I assume, national academy of scholars (a play on the national academy of science?) is a nat con institution?
The funniest bit was that Thomas Donnelly called himself 'Giselle'. It may be that inside Thomas Donnelly there was not merely a woman waiting to break free but a woman who was an unbearable exhibitionist.
I had a Lesbian friend named Siobhan in Minneapolis who loved those Patrick O'Brien books. Her Avatar was dressed in a Napoleonic English Ships Captains uniform. She loved to make recreations of maps that look like old maps from the period.
Reading Steve Sailer over the years has imbued my worldview with a sense of absurdism. So many of the beliefs of our educated elites can be demolished so easily with a little bit of noticing. You get the sense that no one really knows what’s going on.
Glad to see that Richwine made it.