Source: Wikipedia.
2,185 words / 15:04
I used to edit Steve Sailer’s articles at Taki’s Mag from around 2010 to 2014. His points were always impeccably argued and perfectly sourced. I can’t ever recall running across a typo or even a wisp of illogic.
This was back in the “essayist” days of what now calls itself the “dissident Right,” when anti-Leftist and anti-egalitarian ideas were so utterly banished from public discourse that anyone who wanted to step up to the plate and take a swing at Everything the Left Was Getting Wrong took great pains to present their case with the rigor of a defense attorney trying to exonerate a client who’d wrongly been accused of murder. If they got even one minor fact wrong, it’d be amplified beyond reason and used to dismiss their entire argument. You know the routine.
Audio version: To listen in a player, use the one below or click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link/target as.”
Although I was vaguely aware back then that Steve was a Catholic, I can’t recall him ever making a point of it in his essays, because this was also back in the days when people didn’t make a habit of conflating spiritual matters with temporal ones. These topics were rightly kept separate. This was before the onset of what I’ve come to call the Great Replacement 2.0 — replacing race with religion.
This was also back when the “Culture Wars” weren’t seen as the only locus of political discussion. You may remember phenomena such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. This was back when people actually talked about economics. It was also back when the federal debt was roughly a third of what it is now and hamburgers didn’t cost $20.
It seems suspicious to me that with the economy less stable than perhaps it’s ever been, with the dollar’s global hegemony evaporating, and with automation and immigration poised to snap up not only the jobs that Americans supposedly don’t want to do, but every job that humans used to consider safe from automation, everyone’s attention seems focused on either the phantom demons of (pick one): 1) racism, sexism, and transphobia; or 2) godlessness, degeneracy, and modernity. At least with things such as economics, you could run the numbers. To a large degree, economics could be quantified objectively. But whether or not something is “racist” or “degenerate” is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore subject to histrionic hissy-fits that rely not on evidence, but on finger-pointing. People these days seem to have their heads in the clouds and have forgotten that all of our real problems are on the ground.
Whereas the political “Right,” at least as I perceived it, used to be about facts and reason, it’s lately taken on much of the shrill moralistic finger-pointing of the woke Left. Someone, somewhere decided that the best way to fight the New Church Ladies was by dragging the Old Church Ladies out of their crypt, dusting them off, and giving them their marching orders.
You can buy Jim Goad’s The Bomb Inside My Brain here.
In the last ten years, the world has taken a sharply un-Sailerlike turn.
I suspect that creeping polarization has alienated the Left and Right to such a degree that there’s a giant Gaza wall between the two camps that has made it so they don’t even talk to one another anymore because they now speak two fundamentally different languages.
If you notice, I keep emphasizing that I’m unsure about things. I’ve also noticed that these days, hardly anyone uses such qualifiers. I’ve never seen a time since I was born where people knew less but spoke with more certainty. (If you notice, I’m also using use the word “notice” a lot.)
I believe that what passes for the modern Left and Right have morphed, possibly by design, into what are essentially warring religious cults, neither of which is based on reason and both of which are founded on the premise that they are the guardians of absolute moral truth. But since morality is a subjective matter that can’t be measured, it also allows both sides to run wild with false accusations, leaps of faith, and shoddy or even non-existent research. Facts don’t matter when you’re on the Good Side.
But now, since the Left and Right don’t even talk to one another anymore, the Right has been engaged in a non-stop war with itself. Whereas the Left has its occasional trifling intersectional squabbles between, say, feminists and trannies, ever since Charlottesville, the Right is eagerly self-cannibalizing over generational pissing contests, gender wars, class issues, metaphysics v. physics, and the dizzying, migraine-inducing, and eternally unspooling quest to be ideologically purer than your twin brother.
And, of course, there’s the perpetually divisive Jewish Question. It’s a pertinent question and one that’s been buried far deeper than any other, for reasons that should be obvious. After October 7 finally unleashed the JQ as a question that you can ask without being beheaded or unpersoned, everyone is constantly accusing everyone else of either over-Jewing it or under-Jewing it, with results that are at once insane, comical, and depressing.
Now that Steve Sailer is finally getting his moment in the spotlight with the release of his anthology Noticing, people who aren’t qualified to carry his jockstrap are attacking him. But unlike ten years ago, it seems as if most if not all of his antagonists are coming from the political Right. I’m not even sure that the Left notices him anymore.
You may not have noticed, but over the past few years there’s been an extremely loud, aggressive, obnoxious, self-righteous, and reality-averse contingent of Right-wing “dissidents” who, despite their alleged savior’s admonitions, self-righteously thump their chests in public, cast stones, and judge others. And since they don’t even follow what they claim to believe, they can also be trusted to be entirely untrustworthy when it comes to matters of fact.
They are claiming that Steve Sailer is both a Satanist and a Jew who has aggressively tried to hide both facts. Neither allegation is true, but truth has never mattered to fanatics.
I first became aware of the “Satanist” allegation when my name was dragged into the fray. I stood accused of being the photographer of a picture taken in San Francisco on 8/8/88 at an event that somehow melded Satanism, Nazism, and the Manson Family.
I can positively identify most of the people in that picture. From left to right:
Zeena LaVey, daughter of Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey, who never believed in a literal Satan and was more of an accomplished huckster and proto-troll. LaVey authored The Satanic Bible, whose most gripping passages were all in the first ten pages, which were plagiarized word-for-word from the 1896 Social Darwinist book Might is Right. LaVey’s birth name was Howard Stanton Levey, and I’ve received word from an insider that he was at least part biologically Jewish.
Adam Parfrey, publisher of Feral House books, who was also Jewish and once told me that he liked hanging around “Nazis” because he heard how his parents would scream about “bigotry” in public and how they spoke about the stupid goyim in private.
You can buy Jim Goad’s ANSWER Me! here.
Boyd Rice, who performs as a one-man industrial noise music act called NON, referred to himself as an “occult fascist,” and was chummy with people such as James Mason of SIEGE infamy. After Anton LaVey died, Rice briefly attempted to take over the Church of Satan.
“Felina Byron,” whom I’m guessing was the girlfriend of “Evil Wilhelm,” who was a musician in Nikolas Schreck’s fascistic Goth band Radio Werewolf.
“Tami S.” I have no idea who that is.
Nick Bougas, an absolute prince among men and a miracle worker in the sense that I’ve known him for over 30 years and he’s never once annoyed me.
Nikolas Schreck, lead singer of Radio Werewolf and former husband of Zeena LaVey. Shreck’s real name is Barry Dubin. He is biologically Jewish.
Wendy Van Dusen, another neo-fascist noise musician.
Bob Heick, San Francisco skinhead and founder of the American Front.
I have no idea who “ToS Sailor” is, but the e-tards are accusing him of being Steve Sailer. They are also claiming that the “ToS” stands for Temple of Set, the Church of Satan’s bitter rival and whose members would probably not want to be photographed hanging out with enemies. All the “evidence” that this is Steve Sailer is predicated on the idea that, well, “Sailer” and “Sailor” are almost the same word and that they are supposedly dead ringers for one another. I can sort of see a resemblance in the eyes, despite the fact that Sailer’s are blue and Sailor’s appear to be brown, but that’s where it ends.
The sinister connection they’re attempting to make is that since I “know” both Sailer and Bougas, I must have taken the picture and that we all must be embroiled in a Satanic Jewish conspiracy.
This picture was taken on August 8, 1988. I didn’t meet Nick Bougas until the spring of 1992. I have never met Steve Sailer nor spoken with him. We’ve only communicated by e-mail when I was editing his articles.
The other allegation that the truth-averse e-Catholics are tossing around is that Steve Sailer has for years avoided the idea that he’s Jewish and has recently taken to downplaying the Jewish role in American progressivism.
Both allegations are provably untrue.
In a 2016 essay, Sailer claims that he was adopted but in his teens concluded he was probably “half-Jewish biologically”:
For an extreme example of how pro-Semitism can come about within an individual merely through genes alone, consider me. Although I’m Catholic, I became very pro-Semitic at the age of 13 when my powers of logic kicked in (and my hair turned curly). . . . Since I was adopted, a few years later I concluded that it was likely that I was half-Jewish biologically, (which indeed appears to be the case based on evidence my wife dug up when I was 30).
In a May 7 interview with the Red Scare Podcast when he was asked about the results of his 23andme DNA test, Sailer replied:
I’m not going to go into that in particular because it’s kind of tied into other people in my life. But yeah, it’s basically what I’ve assumed since I was in high school.
The usual suspects, but of course, ran with this as “evidence” that he was denying Jewish ancestry. I have no idea what he meant by “it’s kind of tied to other people in my life,” but when he said “it’s basically what I assumed since I was in high school,” and given that he hasn’t deleted the 2016 essay where he wrote that he started assuming in high school that he had Jewish genes, only an idiotic ideologue would see his statement as a denial rather than an affirmation of Jewish ancestry.
The article where Sailer supposedly “downplayed” Jewish influence on Leftist politics was published on April 19 and called “The Roots of American Progressivism.” Sample passages:
It’s widely assumed, both by Jews and by anti-Semites, that the roots of American progressivism are heavily Jewish. . . . Yet, Jews had relatively little impact on the crucial first century of the American republic, from the Declaration of Independence through the end of Reconstruction.
But according to a 2020 review by Ricardo Duchesne, Kevin MacDonald said essentially the same thing in his most recent book:
Chapter 6, “Puritanism: The Rise of Egalitarian Individualism and Moralistic Utopianism,” of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, claims that Puritanism and the intellectual movements descending from this religion were the “most important” forces shaping the culture of the United States “from the eighteenth century down to the mid-twentieth century.” Puritanism, and the WASP culture it engendered, would cease to be hegemonic over American culture as Jews came to infiltrate “critical sectors of American life” from the early 1900s onward.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was also under the impression that the rabid Cath-tifa battalions led by E. Michael Jones have also been intensely critical of Protestant influence over American culture.
If Steve Sailer made any tactical errors in this whole debacle, it was attempting to argue with critics who don’t argue in good faith and who only see good and evil rather than true and false. It was also a logistical error for him to use the unquantifiable term “anti-Semites” and to claim that “Only morons believe the Holocaust didn’t happen” without specifying exactly what he meant by “the Holocaust.”
In summary: Is he a Satanist? No, he’s a Catholic. Is he a Jew? Not in the religious sense, but in his own words he is at least partially Jewish biologically. Is he an agent of the Deep State? Anyone’s guess. The little I know about the Deep State leads me to think that they kill the sort of people who try to unmask who’s really working for them.
Maybe if the political Right went back to focusing on race and reason rather than religion and hysteria, they’d have a chance. But for the time being, and now more than ever, they are their own worst enemy.
59 comments
Great piece, Jim.
The Fuentards did not move the dial when it came to shaping my beliefs. It was guys like you, Sailer, Jared Taylor, Gregory Hood and Greg Johnson — smart guys who don’t argue in memes.
I think there is a lot you can criticize Sailer for, but none of it is worthy of the screeching of Twitter morons.
Sailer was on Red Scare because his calm, rational, and often humorous method of argumentation is appealing enough that even leftists and centrists read him.
If any of these Very Online types argued against Sailer in an intelligent way, he would probably post it on his Twitter, as he did with Scott Greer’s critique.
Nah, he argued in bad faith on twitter vs JF on race realism. You can read the threads and judge for yourself.
Steve Sailer is a fantastic writer. My favorite Sailer moment is when Patton Oswalt got in hot water with his fellow shitlibs for quoting him approvingly (I can’t remember the exact context of it all). I guess that’s more of a Patton Oswalt moment, but whatever.
Patton quoted Sailer’s “Political correctness is a war on noticing.” Here’s Patton with me and Nick Bougas in less insanely polarized days.
Any poster with “Soros” in his screen name must be an asshole.
I have disliked Oswalt since he made that sniveling comment implying how wonderful the “musical” Hamilton was (I never saw Hamilton, nor will I, but I gather it was some kind of hip-hop theater show disrespecting the Founders). Was Oswalt ever ideologically solid, or was he just a showbiz pal of yours?
I met Patton in 1993 in LA when he offered to trade a copy of an old medical book showing gruesome pictures of tumors for a copy of my magazine ANSWER Me!, which always sold out almost immediately. There had been three issues at that point. He had copies of two and wanted the other one.
There used to be a time not really that long ago when ideology didn’t consume every fiber of everyone’s being and your worth as a human being wasn’t entirely gauged by your political beliefs. I really really miss those days. I’m not exactly sure why they’re gone or what might bring them back.
The new norm is my side right or wrong zealotry. Intractable. Don’t challenge my flimsy media-manufactured worldview. If you do, you’re a threat to democracy, a blankphobe, a hateful hater. We seek to dismiss rather than discuss. It really is too bad. There’s certainly a rotting corpse or two in my wake over the past maybe ten years or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YavThhrC1ik
Oswalt made an excellent, underrated comedy film in 2009 called Big Fan which lampoons the way many of our fellow white men are way too obsessed with sports.
I had no idea there was so much drama on the Dissident Right. But then I never visit Twitter/X. Who has the time? Merely keeping up with all the great content just at CC (let alone at AR and TOO – imo, the three best prowhite sites, although Vdare, Unz, National Vanguard, Taki, etc etc, also have a lot of good stuff; why waste time with the gossip-mongers?!) is reading enough for people with jobs, families, political activities, other serious intellectual interests, etc.
Steve Sailer is an excellent thinker and writer. I don’t care if he’s part Jewish. What happened to taking serious people and ideas seriously?
I agree that we shouldn’t mix religion (or other irrelevancies) into factual discussions about race. The reality of racial differences in cognition and ability, and thus, unsurprisingly, in temperament, outlook, and behavior, is well-established empirically (scientifically and social-scientifically). Dragging religion into the discussion is needlessly divisive.
OTOH, when it comes to acting upon this factual knowledge, moral questions will inevitably arise – and for religious people, morality is inseparable from their beliefs about God and His commandments.
I further believe that, even from an atheistic standpoint, the most important metapolitical intellectual objective for white preservationists (as I’ve argued many times in comments here at CC) is persuasively demonstrating the moral compatibility between WP (which will, at this late date, require political mass white nationalism) and Christianity. If we cannot show that one can be both a good Christian and a white nationalist, our cause (and thus our race) is doomed. Most atheists are either race-egalitarian leftists, or racio-politically indifferent. Our task is to transform the rising mass Christian Middle American nationalist movement in America (go to a Trump rally, people) into a mass white Christian Middle American nationalist movement.
Yes, I agree with your 3 best pro-white websites. But I would add Vdare
AR = amren.com
TOO = ?
The Occidental Observer, Kevin macdonald’s website
The Right has always had more than its fair share of conspiratards who see gay satanic pedos pulling the strings everywhere. I’ve learned to ignore them over the years — which is just about all you can do.
As for Sailer, he can be an intro to dissident talking points for some people, but beyond that I’ve never found him that interesting.
If Catholics are more concerned with pretentious moralizing than with the economics of multiracialism, then maybe Prostestants could be convinced that they are more capable of rendering unto Caeser what is Caeser’s by examing the sort of data that would be conducive to a secure and prosperous state.
“ Maybe if the political Right went back to focusing on race and reason rather than religion and hysteria, they’d have a chance.”
The problem is, the political Right is currently doing just this and Steve Sailer himself is getting it wrong. His May 22nd X comment on Charles Murray’s post is as follows: “Average IQ scores around 70 in Africa suggest that nurture matters as well as nature, since those scores are much lower than among African-Americans.” So it’s just America’s amazing “nurture” that has improved the average IQ of blacks in N. America, rather than the white admixture most of their descendants received once they arrived on this continent. Sailer’s “nurture” is simply “nature” yet again.
Of course Steve is challenged on this, by JF Gariepy among others, and Sailer’s responses get worse as the thread continues. So I can’t speak to the other claims you mention have been lodged against him, but Sailer’s understanding of biology is not as impressive as his knowledge of baseball stats.
There’s a 15-20 point gap between African and African-American IQs, which I think is simply too large to be explained by an average of 15% European admixture in the latter. When you sit down and crunch the numbers I think white admixture only raises African-American IQs by a few points. The rest has to be something else, i.e. nurture.
White admixture may not be the only factor here, though I think it’s the dominant one. There are other selection pressures in North America. The flora and fauna differ, but also the decisions of the slave owners regarding the lives of their slaves must have acted as selection events in and of themselves.
These are good points. One other thing I should’ve mentioned is that I’m assuming the average IQ of slave-holding whites who mixed with blacks was the white average of 100, but it’s possible they had to be significantly above that in order to get into the economic position to buy slaves in the first place. So we might have been leaking better-than-average genes into the slaves’ gene pool, which would have raised IQs a bit more.
I myself think the “too wide” gap is explained by the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect has more impact in undeveloped countries and it is slowing down in more developed countries, correct? African Americans are more affected by the Flynn effect than Africans from Africa, therefore, meaning they have seen more of the finite gains of the Flynn effect than black Africans. My own theory of the Flynn effect is that the act of taking abstract tests with pencil and paper, such as IQ tests, aptitude tests, like the SAT, is something of a learned skill and industrialized, developed countries that approach schooling in that way tend to do better on IQ tests. In other words, IQ tests have some thing a learned component, which I suppose, means nurture, a certain component of nurture, but it really has more to do with the utility of an IQ test as a tool in a given population than with an actual improvement in the natural ability of the subjects, I would think. IQ is not identical with intelligence. Meaning that an IQ test can only be used as a tool on populations that have similar backgrounds and upbringings. I mean grossly as in between an industrialized country with a system of primary and secondary education versus people running around in breechclouts, lol. I’m not being lefty here; I believe in the utility of IQ and aptitude tests and that most of intelligence is genetic.
My impression is that there’s been a slow consensus forming among intelligence testers that the Flynn Effect is the result of familiarity with test taking (just like you said) so you may be dead on here.
Most race-realist researchers agree that environment plays an important role in abysmal ss African IQ. Emil Kierkegaard and iirc Lynn place the phenotypic maximum IQ of African blacks at around 80. Steve Sailer is not dissenting on this.
It is an oversimplification to just lump all Africans together. Eritreans & Ethiopians even look a lot different than Nigerians and west Africans. Geneticists frequently point out that the differences between Africans is greater than the average difference between Africans and Eurasians (though what is defined as ‘differences’ gets murky). African-Americans descended from slaves come heavily from west & central Africa (think the Congos, Angola, Guinea, and more). Even within the many groups of Nigeria you hear jockying between the Igbos, Yoruba and Hausa about who has the best work ethic and likelihood for success.
This is relevant for the west and immigration as ‘diversity’ mandates leave companies and universities scrambling for capable candidates and many seek African immigrants rather than descendants of slaves. Blacks at Harvard skew to immigrants as well. Despite all the cheering for descendants of slaves, they get lumped in as “people of color” and frequently left behind when competing with immigrants.
Thanks for this explanation.
I’d been wondering what the story was behind the photo, so I Googled “Temple of Set”. Turns out that Kerry Bolton – of this parish (!) – was once a member. He’s also written for the Church of Satan.
Small world, huh?
Moron me. I thought Bolton was a Christian. Dr. Bolton is, however, whether he be on the side of Jesus or Lucifer, an indefatigable researcher and very interesting writer. I wish he’d contribute more often here.
I’m not too familiar with Sailer, though I do note that he doesn’t always bat 1000. I recall one of his articles in which he basically said that the Great Replacement is no big deal (though in other words, since we weren’t calling it that back then). There’s too many White people for that to be possible! Why worry?
Anyway, that was a long time ago, so I’ll let him have a mulligan on that. Still, I hope he’s sharpened up his game since then.
Like a comedian, Sailer has bits. One of his more famous recent bits is the “World’s Most Important Graph” where it shows Africa’s skyrocketing population over the next century.
He’s not a self-declared white nationalist, but he is certainly against the GR now.
Other anti-immigration phrases of his include “invade the world, invite the world” about US foreign policy and “Merkel’s Mistake,” which alludes to the 2015 migrant crisis in Europe.
Also, numbers alone don’t really mean as much as we might like to think. We had a pretty large white majority to start with and that certainly didn’t stop any of the current shit from happening. I’d call it one of those necessary but not sufficient conditions of victory.
The way I see it, the numbers mean a lot. Once the White population drops below 50%, we lose even the potential ability to regain control over our destiny, short of the country balkanizing. Our enemies know this too. That’s why the head of one of those wormy (((watchdog groups))) keeps a running tally of census numbers pinned to the wall of his office, much like a CEO tracking gross revenue of his company. As for what’s next, most likely the population replacement will keep going well past the point of usefulness, from sheer inertia and The System’s monomaniacal fear and hatred of real Americans.
To answer your question, in rough figures, ’cause I’m too lazy to dig up exact census results, this is how it went down between the Evil Party and the Stupid Party:
1965 – 90% – Ted Kennedy: “I swear on a stack of Bibles that the Hart-Celler-Javits immigration act will not change America’s ethnic composition.”
1970s – 85% – Everyone: “It’s only a few of them. What’s the big deal? Besides, you don’t want lettuce costing $10 a head, do you?”
1980s – 80% – Reagan: “We’ll legalize illegal aliens who’ve been here a while, and then, boy howdy, we’ll crack down on immigration once and for all.”
1990s – 75% – Republicans: “Once we regain control, we’ll crack down on immigration once and for all. And don’t listen to Buchanan – we need to nominate Bob Dole, because only he can beat Clinton.”
2000s – 70% – Bush the Younger: “Boy howdy, they’ll be our natural conservative allies.”
2010s – 65% – Obama: “Embrace your doom, Whitey.”
2020 – 55% – Trump: “When I get reelected, I’m going to crack down on immigration once and for all.”
Hilarious, depressing, brilliant.
You’ve summed it up ‘poetically’, if not perfectly numerically. That’s what happened. Technically, I’ve lived through that whole period (which is still ongoing, worse then ever). But my 92 year old, still-cognizant mother has lived through the whole Replacement Era as an ethnoculturally aware adult. (She’s not a WN, but she opposes immigration for the correct ethnocultural preservationist reasons.) I recall her and my late father complaining about the “invasion” as far back as the early 70s. My dad thought maybe I should study Spanish instead of French, which my mother (a French lit major in college) favored for me, because it would one day become “America’s second language”, as he put it half a century ago. (Right again, Dad!)
In my dad’s last years, during the Obama disaster, he remained (like me) incredulous that mass immigration was still chugging along. “What’s wrong with people?” he would wonder aloud (he meant white people). And my mother brings up the subject almost every weekend I visit her at the nursing home. She hates Biden’s border treason, and is horrified for the future (I think she means my future).
Once below 50% we simply do away with universal suffrage democracy.
Indeed, though unfortunately that’ll get quite complicated if we’re outnumbered and outvoted. Anyway, where I was going with it is that Richard had a serious observation, and then I described how the “boil the frog slowly” strategy played out in history.
It is worth looking into how after Reconstruction the voter rolls in the South were purged of nonwhites.
It is my understanding that Mestizo invasion to the US is not nearly as calamitous on a social level as MENA filth in Europe. Graphs I see shared on social media tend to show a crime rate around twice as high for “Hispanics” compared to White Americans. (at least, this was the situation thus far) Meanwhile, the trash we get in Europe have as much as 80x the prevalence for certain crimes compared to Europeans.
Sailer almost exclusively comments on the situation in the US.
I don’t doubt that your welfare tourists are worse. Still, things aren’t exactly peachy keen with ours. For one thing, gangs and organized crime are a serious problem. We’re not talking about the Sharks and the Jets from West Side Story these days.
Also, some of them believe that the Southwest belongs to them. The history here is that Texas staged a successful revolution and, about a decade later, joined the USA in 1845. Soon after, a border raid by Mexico ignited a war. Then in 1848, the American government bought the Southwest from Mexico as part of a peace settlement. Now the Mexican irredentists would like to overturn all that long after the fact, claiming we “stole” it. Despite their peculiar ideas about where the border really is, they’re colonizing lots of other parts of the country too. Lately, the Bidet junta is doing everything it can to encourage this as part of a demographic warfare strategy against real Americans.
Other than that, there’s the matter of fiscal impact. This is how much someone over a lifetime puts into the treasury through taxation, minus services consumed. The following figures were from several years ago, so goodness knows what it is now after Bidet’s inflation!
For Whites, this averages at close to a positive quarter million per person. For Hispanics, this averages at close to a negative half million per person. Many of them work under the table, especially illegals. They therefore don’t pay income taxes, but have no visible income and thus qualify for lots of freebies. In other words, the way things average out, it takes two Whites to foot the bill for one Hispanic. Diversity is our greatest strength!
As for Blacks, their average fiscal impact is about negative nine hundred million. We feed, they breed. Anyway, I’m curious as to the fiscal impact of your own imported “pension-payers” there; I’m guessing it’s considerably worse.
Jim, didn’t Nick win a defamation lawsuit against someone years ago who claimed he was A. Wyatt Mahan?
No, he got a small private settlement from BuzzFeed because their moron “journalist” Joe Bernstein kept harassing Patton Oswalt on Twitter for hanging out with “the house cartoonist for the Ku Klux Klan.”
Bernstein was the same guy whose dogged reporting helped get Sam Hyde fired from Adult Swim.
It is news to me that anyone on the DR would have anything negative to say about Steve Sailer. You can disagree with him on occasion, of course, but he’s always worth reading.
How could anyone be so crazy to help the Far-Left with false accusations against one of their most effective critics? By noticing the facts and writing the truth, Sailer has done more for WN than almost anyone else. His critiques of political correctness and on-going exposures of Hate Hoaxes are notable examples. I also like his movie reviews, which effectively skewer loony-left “culture”.
Agree, Sailer is a towering figure in the dissident right.
Steve Sailer’s greatest contribution was coining the phrase “Invade-the-world / invite-the-world”.
Any serious immigration restrictionist must necessarily also support a non-interventionist foreign policy, because overseas military intervention always causes immigration blow back.
Unfortunately, the old Steve Sailer, the bane of Neocons, the outspoken opponent of the Iraq war, has been missing in action since October 7. Israel is pretty obviously trying to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Gaza (and using American taxpayer dollars to do so). If they succeed, most or all of the refugees will probably be dumped in the USA.
Why hasn’t Sailer spoken out against this? Is it because of pressure from his publisher? This is a valid question. His publisher is a Jew, as are some of the other top talent he publishes such as Curtis Yarvin and Bronze Age Pervert. These writers are on record saying “If you really cared about the Palestinians, you would move them to a better place to live (and then Israel could redevelop all that beautiful beachfront property in Gaza).” Curtis Yarvin suggested Thailand as a possible destination, but I think we all know that isn’t really where the Palestinians would go if Israel successfully ethnically cleanses them.
I just want to clarify that I oppose all immigration and all refugees.
I am not singling out the Palestinians as if they were somehow worse than other immigrants or refugees.
It is important to make this point, because there is a Zionist talking point which says “No one wants to take Palestinian refugees because Palestinians are the worst people in the world.”
Jewish supremacist Zionists say this as a form of psychological warfare to try to break the spirit of the Palestinian people.
I don’t want them to succeed, because these same Jewish supremacists also want to break the spirit of my people, White Americans.
Hey, that quote you gave from Sailer is not in the 2016 essay you linked. It’s actually posted in a comment to that 2016 essay from a guy claiming that Sailer wrote it in 1999 on his HBD mailing list. But I cannot find the original anywhere. I’m very confused. Did Sailer actually write this? If so, where is the original?
This is a very good question.
The advantage of being a foreigner is sometimes the absence of preconceived ideas, and I must say that this Steve sailer was totally unknown to me. But I immediately disliked him, with his childish narcissism, his philosemitism and his outdated views.
Or is it self- derision? Again, when you’re a stranger it’s difficult to know.
I was therefore very surprised to see – and this article reminds this again – that this Steve Sailer was held in the highest esteem.
It reminds me of Alain de Benoist in France, who enjoys genuine veneration but is secretly regarded as a fossile, and an insufferable old narcissist who is completely out of touch.
When I was in the mood to troll on unz.com, this Sailer was one of my favorite targets, and I never lost an opportunity to remind him of his narcissism, his senility and that he was completely out of touch.
Now, in all shame, I realize that I’ve trolled a Monument!
Jews did not have to wait for their numbers to increase in the late 19th century before having a decisive influence on the USA. Many, from academic scholars to e-Catholic activists, would point out that Protestantism, especially Puritanism, is a return to a supposedly “purer” form of Christianity, which is necessarily crypto-Jewish. (In the same way, evangelical Protestants will condemn Catholicism as crypto-Pagan). America was the sort of place where newcomers gave their towns names like Babylon or Shiloh and gave their children names like Jedidiah or Nimrod.
Once could argue that Puritanism, with its basis in the OT, inculcated a Jewish mentality (e.g., exterminate the natives, enslave the sons of Ham, etc.) as well as a respect for “God’s Chosen” (vs. the “anti-Semitism” supposedly promoted by the Catholic Church back in the day) which enabled the arriving Jews more easily to claim a place at the table from the WASP’s (as in the Christian Zionism we see today).
Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t critique Puritanism directly; otherwise, you have another version of the Liberal’s “root causes” diversion. People attacking Sailer for this seem to be surreptitiously slipping in the religious critique they’re really more interested in. They should really be attacking Moldberg’s “Cathedral” idea, where the problem isn’t Jewish control of elite institutions but “Boston Brahmins,” as if it’s 1875 still and the Jews are still in the shtetls.
Exactly.
And not all influence requires demographic weight: There was August Belmont (Rothschild agent) playing a big role in Democrat party politics in the 1860s. Plus the little-known fact that half the founders of Scottish Rite Masonry in America were Sephardi!
https://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=JewishMasons
I suspect Steve Sailer’s stupidity goes far beyond the Holohoax and covers the broader subject of WW II. I would not be surprised if Winston Churchill is one of his biggest heroes.
I bet you he believes what we think but has to pander to donors.
So he lacks guts and integrity? Isn’t pandering to donors what enabled the Jews to own Congress?
This whole Church of Satan cringefest is about as awkward as the pretend-Catholic zoomers who praise Jesus with one hand and goon to anime with another. I don’t understand it. I suppose I will chalk it up to rootless white and Jewish Americans who felt like outsiders in a system where no race is truly at home, making their own little club where they got to wear black, drink blood wine and be a bunch of nerdy goths. Sad thing is, these Satan larpers appear to be a more prominent part of the bedrock of the New Right in America than the TradCaths will ever be. How embarrassing. I suppose this is an indictment on millennials TradCathd being even more useless and sedentary than even the most odious of gen X’er nerds.
Whilst one might decry the conspiratorial treatment of Sailor and scold the intellectually deficient youths on the right for their failure to engage Sailor in the refined discourse we cherish on this platform, the spectacle of this witch hunt serves to sharpen our focus, revealing race as the paramount and most influential force at play. The deficiency in the youths’ superego is compensated by their keenly racially aware ID, which can swiftly sniff the presence of foreign blood swimming in our waters.
(ironically for Sailor): the shenanigans of the Fuentian herd are a strong argument for the case of race realism. It comes as no surprise that pure blooded race realists that shun the JQ like Jared Taylor are spared this treatment.
You might not like the groypers, but it’s undeniable that these individuals possess a strong racial awareness, readily identifying and reacting to perceived threats to their racial identity.
Steve’s related to Popeye! It’s all a cartoon conspiracy, goshdarnit Olive! Ugugug!
Modernity is not a “phantom demon.” The fact that the ills of modernity are not all quantifiable or empirically observable does not mean they are unimportant or do not exist.
And as much as I respect and admire Sailer as a writer, “facts and reason” alone won’t get us out of this mess.
Great essay. It’s why I’m ‘on the White’ rather than ‘on the Right’.
I like Jim Goad because he is a stickler for the truth, but the above sentence, ‘In a 2016 essay, Sailer claims that he was adopted but in his teens concluded he was probably “half-Jewish biologically”’ is not true. Sailer did not make that claim in the 2016 essay linked above or in any 2016 essay — or in any of the 30 years of Sailer essays hosted at Unz.com. That claim is in a comment to the 2016 essay linked above and it’s by some random anonymous commenter on Unz.com, it was not written by Steve Sailer. The anon commenter claims it’s from a mailing list post made by Sailer in 1999, but provides no actual evidence for that. Did nobody else click on the link that Goad provided? The claimed admission is not in the linked essay, it’s in a comment to the essay. And it’s not written by Sailer, it’s written by some anon claiming it was written by Sailer.
This is very sloppy. And I’m confused why nobody else seems to have noticed. I’m especially confused why Jim didn’t notice, since he has a deservedly strong reputation for diligence and not passing along fake news. If there’s no evidence that Sailer wrote the original “admission” then the whole argument falls apart, since Sailer’s comment on Red Scare only confirms the earlier admission if he actually wrote it — which we have no actual evidence he did.
Sailer believes that Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone, I have not read anything more by him after that…
Here are the facts on Sailer’s self-identification as Jewish from his own mouth:
https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/1cmimb0/comment/l3ts3fs/?rdt=43841
I don’t follow the smaller figures so I’m frequently shaking my head ‘Who cares?’ when there is mention that someone with a name like WaffleBatterer is bashing one of the more thoughtful writers out there.
Any movement with a hope for success needs to be careful about declaring war on too many fronts simultaneously. There are plenty of centrists, Jews and homos that can be useful allies… or at least just ignore them and not incite them to be enemies. No one should be above criticism, but Sailer’s calm data driven style (when possible) is worthy of… observation. Notice I didn’t use the n word.
I completely agree regarding the lack of focus on ideas. But your account of Sailer’s self-described Jewish racial consciousness despite being adopted into Catholicism seem to only vindicate the “lazy” racist/antisemitic heuristic—even more so than if he were raised Jewish. And let’s be honest, Sailer’s remarks about the holocaust and protestant origins of woke sound like they were verbatim lifted from Moldberg.
The Satanism stuff is obviously just sensationalist slop for the Fuentards. But I can’t take his position on Jewish influence on progressive politics seriously if a) he is scared to say outright his ethnicity and b) does not acknowledge that he might not be a totally disinterested commentator. KMac states what his biases are in CoC and it would be good if people on the other side of the debate could do the same.
By the way, I have read very little of Sailer. I respect that he stood up for Ukraine when it was unpopular, but other than that I know little of his work.
Also, I think it is clear there are mischlings on the right who have something of value to offer, and it would be wrong to attack them based on their ancestry past the point at which it bears relevance to the argument.
To paraphrase Russel Kirk: “Steve Sailer isn’t a Satanist, he’s a golfer!”
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.