How about Nick Fuentes? The contrasting styles and persona would be fun to watch. You could debate Jewish accomplishments/assimilation, Holocaust revisionism. May be too 3rd rail but would entertain and get huge numbers.
Nick Fuentes is more of an entertainer, not a serious person to debate. A debate is. in principle, a serious undertaking meant to make serious arguments, and should not involve "troll"-behavior and playing for laughs and cheap outrage and attention-seeking. They could do such a thing, but if so it should not be called a debate at all!
I am surprised that Steve has not commented on any of the Jubilee youtube channel debates of 20 vs 1. https://www.youtube.com/@jubilee
I would tell the 20-something that debates are about declarative states and now trying to ask a non-question rhetorical question in an vain attempt to "trap" one's opponent.
"One Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives, ft. Mehdi Hasan [as the progressive]" -- July 21, 2025, 10 million views.
---> Comment 1: If "far right," how are they "conservative"? The debate is actually "Cognitive-Elite Non-European Immigrant vs. 20 Non-Elite White-Ethnonationalists."
---> Comment 2: "Steve Sailer vs. 20 Invite-the-World supporters" then a follow-up with "Steve Sailer vs. 20 Invade-the-World supporters."
In listening to the Hasan debate on Jubilee, I quickly began to assume that the 20 were not informed of who they would be debating until they showed up at the studio. Apparently, none of them had ever seen him on MSNBC or even read his Wikipage.
A debate in writing takes weeks. A debate in a live forum takes an evening. And saying "you did not answer the question" is much more effective than writing the same phrase.
-- Sailer: "Dr. Weyl is a notorious Open Borders extremist who is an outspoken advocate of monarchism if it facilitates Open Borders."
__
A randomly taken position? Or a position taken for some other reason?
__
-- Wikipedia bio-info: "Glen Weyl was born in San Francisco [b. May 1985] and grew up in Palo Alto, California. He is Jewish. Growing up, his family favored the Democratic Party. In his youth, Weyl embraced free-market beliefs after being introduced to the works of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. [...] He [graduated from] Princeton University, where...he was valedictorian of the class of 2007."
.
-- (from Glen Weyl's personal website): On his ancestry: "My paternal grandfather K. Peter Weyl, founder of physical oceanography, fled Nazi persecution and I am thus a restored German citizen, as well as an American citizen.
.
-- (personal website): On where he's spent his adult life, after leaving Palo Alto and Princeton: "[My wife and I, since 2010,] have mostly lived in Boston and the New York City area together, but have also spent months in many Latin American countries (Colombia, Perú, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, and México). Toulouse (France) and Israel (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) and a year in the Seattle area. Today we live in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
.
-- (personal website): On his Religion and ethnopolitical identity; and strong, strong commitment to Israel and Jews near and far: "I grew up in a secular Jewish family, whose attitude towards organized Judaism ranged from mild affection to hostility. The combination of spiritual void and deep skepticism of narrow religious community drew me towards the Unitarian University church (a syncretic, inclusive and broad one, which I regularly attended until early adulthood. As I grew older, however, I came to see that my deep skepticism of organized Judaism and universalist rationalist outlook was extremely common among my social class of overeducated Jews from secular families. As such, I realized my attitudes were paradoxically more expressions, rather than rejections, of my cultural inheritance. This led me backwards towards Judaism, first as a topic of academic analysis in relation to economics, then as an impetus to a strong though often deeply critical connection to the State of Israel and finally to raising our daughter in Lab/Shui, a God-optional, everybody-friendly, artist-driven experimental pop-up Jewish community, under the leadership of Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavie. I am today a proud Jew, who wears a Star of David around his neck and encloses his Twitter handle in triple parentheses."
What's more of an impossible fantasy/delusion/fairy tale: an omnipotent sky god or univeralist rationalism? At least god comes with ritual and culture, but universalist rationalism demands more of a blind faith in things that have never existed.
The claimed universalist rationalism here, associated with post-emancipation Jews in the West is, by this man's own account, an expression of Judaic civilizational strategy.
Poor Jews! So anxious and fearful and battered by history. Blessed and cursed and doomed to create one golem after another.
Also, I think many other Jews would disagree with this supposed "Judaic civilizational strategy", which is property of the Western Left professoriate aka Marx's children. Zionists, love em or hate em, aren't so neurotic and submissive, they fight for their homes and families. At least these are men you can respect.
You would think that after the massive failure of their prior attempt at "universalist rationalism" (Marxism), book-smart yeshiva boys would have developed a better fantasy, but I guess if they're still alive it means this survival strategy worked for some of them. Yet what even the smartest never seem to learn is that once a mass of people agree on "universalism" they immediately decide to eliminate all impediments to this goal aka let's get rid of the Jews!
It makes more sense to me to simply stand up and defend and protect your own people and their rights etc, but then again I'm not a Jewish intellectual.
Clicking through from the Wiki bio we learn that in 2015 Weyl called for a boycott of Israel over the Palestinian issue, comparing it to white-ruled Rhodesia and South Africa. A universalist but not a hypocrite, it would seem.
But is he consistent? What is the difference between Qatar and white Rhodesia? Presumably that the indigenous people of a country are its exclusive proprietors and only they are entitled to offer newcomers prosperity without equality - or not to do so. If that is his position, fair enough. He is a nationalist offering his fellow German and American nationalists thoroughly bad advice.
What I do not believe for one moment is his purported concern about inequality. He is a maximiser. He wants to increase the wealth of both individuals and nations as groups, and sees no contradiction between the two aims. I would not be so certain of that.
Brit David Starkey says we have an elected monarchy. Due to the fecklessness of Congress, he could be right. You could safely debate him as a fellow cancelee, but you'd agree too much.
Anyone still for open borders/mass 3rd world migration has gone from the stupid category to the actively evil. Where will their added income go: to produce more barely-governable, low IQ, subsistence people.
Posner and Weyl seem to be advocating for a return of the British Empire, except as a crusade this time, to bring rational governance, industrialize and maybe gay-trans stuff too. (They don't seem worried about logistics.)
I would like to see Steve debate liberal supreme court justice Jackson or Sotomayor. More realistic would be an anti-Trump conservative. Liberals are too predictable these days and you've already gone head to head with Stancil plenty.
The British Empire was a crusade; this has all been tried before. But liberalism has no endpoint and is never sated, so we've got to keep trying.
The problem which Posner, Weyl and other cognitive elites can't or won't talk about is that we're running out of Anglo-Protestants and their Atlanticist vision to staff these crusades.
In 30 years, the American founding mythology will be anti-colonialism, not the Allied triumph of World War 2, and certainly not the bourgeois liberal American Founding ("stolen land!"). The mission will be reparation of the material prosperity the Global South is convinced was stolen from them, not a classical liberal crusade to bring enlightenment to the benighted wogs.
Hot take: The 1619 Project, in combo with the limiting of George Floyd, was the most revolutionary and influential piece of journalism (opinion writing?) of the century. Maybe the last century too. It didn’t convince people to back a war or hate the Hun or whatever; that’s nothing in comparison. It was even bigger than forcing a president out of office. The essays not only vastly changed how history was taught and framed (essentially overnight) but also made the intellectual case for all of the changes, large and small for all the race-based changes in U.S. society since the pandemic. Not to mention almost completely rewriting the country’s past (at least in the thought-leader imagination). Yes, Floyd was the inciting event for all this, but imo the country would not have changed as deeply as it did if 1619 had not been there to give libs a roadmap.
Yes. The 1619 Project is nothing less than the deconstruction and delegitimization of the American nation. Just like Juneteenth is being rolled out as a national holiday for the "real America," and July 4 is some museum relic for old white people.
> In 30 years, the American founding mythology will be anti-colonialism, not the Allied triumph of World War 2, and certainly not the bourgeois liberal American Founding ("stolen land!").
In other words, you're predicting the Trump-Rufo reforms will completely fail.
Demography is democracy, as the Chinese historians will write.
I'm not sure the US will be governable as a single coherent country in 30+ years. I suppose the Latinos could surprise us and embrace the Western cultural and political canon but I really don't see it. What's in it for them? And their ancestors were complete bystanders to WW2.
The Civil War is irrelevant as a founding American narrative to the Ellis Island-Americans. So too will be the founding American narrative of Allied vindication in WW2 to post-Hart Celler Act Global South-Americans. Trump's #KeepAmericaGreat is going to fall pretty flat with the USA's Afro-Caribbean, Meso-American majority that's already been born.
A rematch or semi-rematch of the 2005 Jared Taylor vs Steve Sailer "Citizenism" debate. Maybe positions have changed.
Debate topic, 2025: Immigration moratorium. And./or, What should U.S. immigration and citizenship policy be?
The Sailer vs Taylor debate is approaching its twenty-year anniversary in the pages of VDare; but this time a livestreamed, spoken-word debate seems to be wanted.
Since Steve does not really do policy, such a debate on immigration and citizenship policy would be a non-starter. How could Steve answer the statement that the only way to not have birth right citizenship would be to have a national ID card that indicates whether one is a citizen or not.
Every time Steve writes something like: "Massive indentured servitude with no civil rights — Great Idea!" one is reminded of Michael Lind's saying: "a pollical and economic system where voters do not work and workers cannot vote is something that Jefferson Davis could support."
Shouldn't that read: "A political and economic system where voters DON'T work and workers cannot vote is something that Jefferson Davis could support."
I used to quite admire Eric Posner, but have increasingly come to think of him as a crank. Although his father, Richard, is presently dementing in a nursing home somewhere in Chicago, I wonder if in his more lucid moments he looks at his son and shakes his head in repine. These are great examples of ideas that are so stupid that only a smart person could have thought of them…
Contra Steve, I regard Yglesias as an overcredentialed overpromoted doofus. He is not Steve's cognitive peer.
> "he and I were largely in agreement"
I also doubt the author of "One Billion Americans [via mass immigration]" largely agrees with Steve.
While Yglesias is a lightweight compared to Steve, he does have a glib talent for presenting something terribly stupid as if it were clever. Steve, OTOH, while much wiser, has the wise man's more plodding, laborious presentation style, leaving him vulnerable to insubstantial but costly ripostes. So it could be a modern day Retiarius-versus-Secutor contest.
Weyl's opinions may be nutty, but the fact that he is now an esteemed and well compensated public figure for promoting them suggests there are many people who at least tacitly share them.
Superficially clever but profoundly destructive opinions usually rest on an error, and in Weyl's case they rest on several. First, he confounds the national polity, for which national policy makers actually have responsibility, with the inchoate global multitudes, for whom national policymakers not only don't have responsibility but their responsibility is in fact to repel them from the national polity. If Weyl were actually concerned with global inequality, he should address himself to the United Nations or to those nations who are most economically primitive. But he does not. Most likely this is because his actual objective is overturning the First World, not helping the Third World.
Second, Weyl imagines that because it is nominally cheaper to make the equalism "line go up" using random warm bodies from alien lands, that it should done, irrespective of other considerations. This arrogantly assumes the preeminence of equalism, and naively assumes the effectuality "line go up" chartism.
Third, he erroneously assumes that "we maintain our high standard of living by giving no rights and trivial money to people who live outside our arbitrary borders" as if there were a fixed quantity of rights or even money, and as if we were arbitrarily withholding that those from outside our jurisdiction. (This is compounded by his false assumption that our borders are "arbitrary".)
Altogether, this is the footprint of a deeply naive and wildly overeducated man, and possibly one who harbors a hidden animus against civilization.
Almost Missouri wrote: "[Glen Weyl] is possibly one who harbors a hidden animus against civilization."
You are a generous man, Missouri. Generous of spirit. To this final line of appraisal of this man. you attached not one but TWO softening words (possibly; hidden). I must be less-generous of spirit, at least to this type of character: I would cut the "possibly" entirely and upgrade the "hidden" to something more overt.
The man's policy demands are not a matter of animus in some sinister sense, of course. It's an expression of civilizational strategies.
Glen Weyl's views are typical of those of his ethnopolitical type, more-so than of his socioeconomic class or the geographies to which he is attached. Ah, no; "attached" is much-too-strong a word; call them the series of Big-and-Deep Blue places he's passed through. He's an "Anywhere" and not a "Somewhere," in the terminology somebody famously proposed a few years ago (often cited by Sailer-reader Dieter Kief).
See -- Weyl's own statements on his ancestry, ethnic-political and religious affiliations, and his deep commitment to Israel and his elite-diasporic group:
Israel's guest labor policies are similar to the Gulf Emirates'. By praising Qatar, Weyl backhandedly praises Israel without appearing Israelicentric.
The Gulf Monarchies and Israel are shielded from demographic inundation from their imported labor by not having automatic birthright citizenship and by a variety of less formal policies such as discouraging guest workers from procreating at all.
How about Nick Fuentes? The contrasting styles and persona would be fun to watch. You could debate Jewish accomplishments/assimilation, Holocaust revisionism. May be too 3rd rail but would entertain and get huge numbers.
Last year, I spoke to one of the great TV personalities of the 21st Century. His view was that Nick Fuentes is an absolute prodigy at TV.
Yes, it’s very clear watching the kid. I was telling ppl this in 2020. He’s funny and sort of infectious (take that either way).
Again, the contrasting styles would be fun to watch. Magic’s Lakers vs Laimbeer’s Pistons.
Ok, how many great tv personalities of the 21st century would Steve Sailer talk to? First guess would be Tucker Carlsen? Stephen Colbert?
Steve's interview by Tucker Carlson is the reason I found this site and subscribed.
Nick Fuentes is more of an entertainer, not a serious person to debate. A debate is. in principle, a serious undertaking meant to make serious arguments, and should not involve "troll"-behavior and playing for laughs and cheap outrage and attention-seeking. They could do such a thing, but if so it should not be called a debate at all!
I think you’re shortchanging his intellect. He can debate.
I am surprised that Steve has not commented on any of the Jubilee youtube channel debates of 20 vs 1. https://www.youtube.com/@jubilee
I would tell the 20-something that debates are about declarative states and now trying to ask a non-question rhetorical question in an vain attempt to "trap" one's opponent.
"One Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives, ft. Mehdi Hasan [as the progressive]" -- July 21, 2025, 10 million views.
---> Comment 1: If "far right," how are they "conservative"? The debate is actually "Cognitive-Elite Non-European Immigrant vs. 20 Non-Elite White-Ethnonationalists."
---> Comment 2: "Steve Sailer vs. 20 Invite-the-World supporters" then a follow-up with "Steve Sailer vs. 20 Invade-the-World supporters."
In listening to the Hasan debate on Jubilee, I quickly began to assume that the 20 were not informed of who they would be debating until they showed up at the studio. Apparently, none of them had ever seen him on MSNBC or even read his Wikipage.
> A debate is, in principle, a serious undertaking meant to make serious arguments
If that were the case, it would be conducted in writing.
A debate in writing takes weeks. A debate in a live forum takes an evening. And saying "you did not answer the question" is much more effective than writing the same phrase.
It's so long as to be nearly unreadable in the format, but the upshot is that Nick Fuentes is a sinister Pied Piper:
https://www.chrisbrunet.com/p/top-50-nick-fuentes-pedophile-scandals
-- Sailer: "Dr. Weyl is a notorious Open Borders extremist who is an outspoken advocate of monarchism if it facilitates Open Borders."
__
A randomly taken position? Or a position taken for some other reason?
__
-- Wikipedia bio-info: "Glen Weyl was born in San Francisco [b. May 1985] and grew up in Palo Alto, California. He is Jewish. Growing up, his family favored the Democratic Party. In his youth, Weyl embraced free-market beliefs after being introduced to the works of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. [...] He [graduated from] Princeton University, where...he was valedictorian of the class of 2007."
.
-- (from Glen Weyl's personal website): On his ancestry: "My paternal grandfather K. Peter Weyl, founder of physical oceanography, fled Nazi persecution and I am thus a restored German citizen, as well as an American citizen.
.
-- (personal website): On where he's spent his adult life, after leaving Palo Alto and Princeton: "[My wife and I, since 2010,] have mostly lived in Boston and the New York City area together, but have also spent months in many Latin American countries (Colombia, Perú, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, and México). Toulouse (France) and Israel (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) and a year in the Seattle area. Today we live in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
.
-- (personal website): On his Religion and ethnopolitical identity; and strong, strong commitment to Israel and Jews near and far: "I grew up in a secular Jewish family, whose attitude towards organized Judaism ranged from mild affection to hostility. The combination of spiritual void and deep skepticism of narrow religious community drew me towards the Unitarian University church (a syncretic, inclusive and broad one, which I regularly attended until early adulthood. As I grew older, however, I came to see that my deep skepticism of organized Judaism and universalist rationalist outlook was extremely common among my social class of overeducated Jews from secular families. As such, I realized my attitudes were paradoxically more expressions, rather than rejections, of my cultural inheritance. This led me backwards towards Judaism, first as a topic of academic analysis in relation to economics, then as an impetus to a strong though often deeply critical connection to the State of Israel and finally to raising our daughter in Lab/Shui, a God-optional, everybody-friendly, artist-driven experimental pop-up Jewish community, under the leadership of Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavie. I am today a proud Jew, who wears a Star of David around his neck and encloses his Twitter handle in triple parentheses."
https://glenweyl.com/personal/
DR Weyl apparently checks off all the boxes that the right uses to criticize prominent Jewish Americans starting with being a raving hypocrite.
What's more of an impossible fantasy/delusion/fairy tale: an omnipotent sky god or univeralist rationalism? At least god comes with ritual and culture, but universalist rationalism demands more of a blind faith in things that have never existed.
The claimed universalist rationalism here, associated with post-emancipation Jews in the West is, by this man's own account, an expression of Judaic civilizational strategy.
Poor Jews! So anxious and fearful and battered by history. Blessed and cursed and doomed to create one golem after another.
Also, I think many other Jews would disagree with this supposed "Judaic civilizational strategy", which is property of the Western Left professoriate aka Marx's children. Zionists, love em or hate em, aren't so neurotic and submissive, they fight for their homes and families. At least these are men you can respect.
You would think that after the massive failure of their prior attempt at "universalist rationalism" (Marxism), book-smart yeshiva boys would have developed a better fantasy, but I guess if they're still alive it means this survival strategy worked for some of them. Yet what even the smartest never seem to learn is that once a mass of people agree on "universalism" they immediately decide to eliminate all impediments to this goal aka let's get rid of the Jews!
It makes more sense to me to simply stand up and defend and protect your own people and their rights etc, but then again I'm not a Jewish intellectual.
Yeah, I was going to mention the “Early Life” citation….😃
Clicking through from the Wiki bio we learn that in 2015 Weyl called for a boycott of Israel over the Palestinian issue, comparing it to white-ruled Rhodesia and South Africa. A universalist but not a hypocrite, it would seem.
But is he consistent? What is the difference between Qatar and white Rhodesia? Presumably that the indigenous people of a country are its exclusive proprietors and only they are entitled to offer newcomers prosperity without equality - or not to do so. If that is his position, fair enough. He is a nationalist offering his fellow German and American nationalists thoroughly bad advice.
What I do not believe for one moment is his purported concern about inequality. He is a maximiser. He wants to increase the wealth of both individuals and nations as groups, and sees no contradiction between the two aims. I would not be so certain of that.
When is the long-delayed debate on Black Crime and Its Causes with Wilfred Reilly?
He should debate King Charles. 😁
Brit David Starkey says we have an elected monarchy. Due to the fecklessness of Congress, he could be right. You could safely debate him as a fellow cancelee, but you'd agree too much.
Anyone still for open borders/mass 3rd world migration has gone from the stupid category to the actively evil. Where will their added income go: to produce more barely-governable, low IQ, subsistence people.
Yes, Matty Yglesias’s push for a billion people in our country seems almost moderate in comparison.
Posner and Weyl seem to be advocating for a return of the British Empire, except as a crusade this time, to bring rational governance, industrialize and maybe gay-trans stuff too. (They don't seem worried about logistics.)
I would like to see Steve debate liberal supreme court justice Jackson or Sotomayor. More realistic would be an anti-Trump conservative. Liberals are too predictable these days and you've already gone head to head with Stancil plenty.
The British Empire was a crusade; this has all been tried before. But liberalism has no endpoint and is never sated, so we've got to keep trying.
The problem which Posner, Weyl and other cognitive elites can't or won't talk about is that we're running out of Anglo-Protestants and their Atlanticist vision to staff these crusades.
In 30 years, the American founding mythology will be anti-colonialism, not the Allied triumph of World War 2, and certainly not the bourgeois liberal American Founding ("stolen land!"). The mission will be reparation of the material prosperity the Global South is convinced was stolen from them, not a classical liberal crusade to bring enlightenment to the benighted wogs.
Hot take: The 1619 Project, in combo with the limiting of George Floyd, was the most revolutionary and influential piece of journalism (opinion writing?) of the century. Maybe the last century too. It didn’t convince people to back a war or hate the Hun or whatever; that’s nothing in comparison. It was even bigger than forcing a president out of office. The essays not only vastly changed how history was taught and framed (essentially overnight) but also made the intellectual case for all of the changes, large and small for all the race-based changes in U.S. society since the pandemic. Not to mention almost completely rewriting the country’s past (at least in the thought-leader imagination). Yes, Floyd was the inciting event for all this, but imo the country would not have changed as deeply as it did if 1619 had not been there to give libs a roadmap.
Yes. The 1619 Project is nothing less than the deconstruction and delegitimization of the American nation. Just like Juneteenth is being rolled out as a national holiday for the "real America," and July 4 is some museum relic for old white people.
And the writer of the 1619 project is herself part white. Nothing like self-hatred mixed with guilt and shame about not being black enough.
> In 30 years, the American founding mythology will be anti-colonialism, not the Allied triumph of World War 2, and certainly not the bourgeois liberal American Founding ("stolen land!").
In other words, you're predicting the Trump-Rufo reforms will completely fail.
Demography is democracy, as the Chinese historians will write.
I'm not sure the US will be governable as a single coherent country in 30+ years. I suppose the Latinos could surprise us and embrace the Western cultural and political canon but I really don't see it. What's in it for them? And their ancestors were complete bystanders to WW2.
And the Ellis islanders were bystanders during the Civil War. Your point?
The Civil War is irrelevant as a founding American narrative to the Ellis Island-Americans. So too will be the founding American narrative of Allied vindication in WW2 to post-Hart Celler Act Global South-Americans. Trump's #KeepAmericaGreat is going to fall pretty flat with the USA's Afro-Caribbean, Meso-American majority that's already been born.
Some of us have been waiting years and years for you to debate Malcolm G, but of course he's never going to go for it.
Could you do Nate Silver?
A rematch or semi-rematch of the 2005 Jared Taylor vs Steve Sailer "Citizenism" debate. Maybe positions have changed.
Debate topic, 2025: Immigration moratorium. And./or, What should U.S. immigration and citizenship policy be?
The Sailer vs Taylor debate is approaching its twenty-year anniversary in the pages of VDare; but this time a livestreamed, spoken-word debate seems to be wanted.
Since Steve does not really do policy, such a debate on immigration and citizenship policy would be a non-starter. How could Steve answer the statement that the only way to not have birth right citizenship would be to have a national ID card that indicates whether one is a citizen or not.
You could debate Bryan Caplan on immigration.
Make the topic "Immigration Moratorium or no moratorium." Get a serious immigration moderate not a wacko.
Every time Steve writes something like: "Massive indentured servitude with no civil rights — Great Idea!" one is reminded of Michael Lind's saying: "a pollical and economic system where voters do not work and workers cannot vote is something that Jefferson Davis could support."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lind
Shouldn't that read: "A political and economic system where voters DON'T work and workers cannot vote is something that Jefferson Davis could support."
Corrected.
I used to quite admire Eric Posner, but have increasingly come to think of him as a crank. Although his father, Richard, is presently dementing in a nursing home somewhere in Chicago, I wonder if in his more lucid moments he looks at his son and shakes his head in repine. These are great examples of ideas that are so stupid that only a smart person could have thought of them…
Richard Hanania on Elite Human Capital vs. Citizenism.
> "A cognitive peer like Matthew Yglesias"
Contra Steve, I regard Yglesias as an overcredentialed overpromoted doofus. He is not Steve's cognitive peer.
> "he and I were largely in agreement"
I also doubt the author of "One Billion Americans [via mass immigration]" largely agrees with Steve.
While Yglesias is a lightweight compared to Steve, he does have a glib talent for presenting something terribly stupid as if it were clever. Steve, OTOH, while much wiser, has the wise man's more plodding, laborious presentation style, leaving him vulnerable to insubstantial but costly ripostes. So it could be a modern day Retiarius-versus-Secutor contest.
No, dress up as Yarvin and debate Weyl yourself. The man is enough of an imbecile that he probably couldn’t tell you two apart anyway.
Weyl's opinions may be nutty, but the fact that he is now an esteemed and well compensated public figure for promoting them suggests there are many people who at least tacitly share them.
Superficially clever but profoundly destructive opinions usually rest on an error, and in Weyl's case they rest on several. First, he confounds the national polity, for which national policy makers actually have responsibility, with the inchoate global multitudes, for whom national policymakers not only don't have responsibility but their responsibility is in fact to repel them from the national polity. If Weyl were actually concerned with global inequality, he should address himself to the United Nations or to those nations who are most economically primitive. But he does not. Most likely this is because his actual objective is overturning the First World, not helping the Third World.
Second, Weyl imagines that because it is nominally cheaper to make the equalism "line go up" using random warm bodies from alien lands, that it should done, irrespective of other considerations. This arrogantly assumes the preeminence of equalism, and naively assumes the effectuality "line go up" chartism.
Third, he erroneously assumes that "we maintain our high standard of living by giving no rights and trivial money to people who live outside our arbitrary borders" as if there were a fixed quantity of rights or even money, and as if we were arbitrarily withholding that those from outside our jurisdiction. (This is compounded by his false assumption that our borders are "arbitrary".)
Altogether, this is the footprint of a deeply naive and wildly overeducated man, and possibly one who harbors a hidden animus against civilization.
Almost Missouri wrote: "[Glen Weyl] is possibly one who harbors a hidden animus against civilization."
You are a generous man, Missouri. Generous of spirit. To this final line of appraisal of this man. you attached not one but TWO softening words (possibly; hidden). I must be less-generous of spirit, at least to this type of character: I would cut the "possibly" entirely and upgrade the "hidden" to something more overt.
The man's policy demands are not a matter of animus in some sinister sense, of course. It's an expression of civilizational strategies.
Glen Weyl's views are typical of those of his ethnopolitical type, more-so than of his socioeconomic class or the geographies to which he is attached. Ah, no; "attached" is much-too-strong a word; call them the series of Big-and-Deep Blue places he's passed through. He's an "Anywhere" and not a "Somewhere," in the terminology somebody famously proposed a few years ago (often cited by Sailer-reader Dieter Kief).
See -- Weyl's own statements on his ancestry, ethnic-political and religious affiliations, and his deep commitment to Israel and his elite-diasporic group:
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/who-should-debate-me/comment/142675359
He's Jewish and pro-Israel? Why is he licking Qatar's scrotum with such enthusiasm?
Israel's guest labor policies are similar to the Gulf Emirates'. By praising Qatar, Weyl backhandedly praises Israel without appearing Israelicentric.
The Gulf Monarchies and Israel are shielded from demographic inundation from their imported labor by not having automatic birthright citizenship and by a variety of less formal policies such as discouraging guest workers from procreating at all.
Qatar is behind the anti-Israeli propaganda that they are having such trouble with recently.
What is behind most of the anti-Israel 'propaganda' is public distaste for mass killing of civilians.
If 'Qatar' (presumably you mean Al Jazeera) is effective, it's because Israel is making the job easy.
Nope. You're falling for it too. I get it. We all pick the BS we fall for. A balanced view of the real situation is hard work.