Saturday, August 27, 2016

Is Steve Sailer Undercutting Himself?

Sometimes I think he does, but in the sense of being too subtle with irony and/or sarcasm. Let me explain. This from here [link]:
Steve quotes the LA Times, replies to it, and then I comment:
In the letter, Taylor denies the notion that “the things you love about America…are rooted in certain principles.” Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?”
That’s pretty much the argument of Federalist Paper #2, but then you can’t get more anti-American than Federalist Paper #2.
me: Here, unless you  read Steve all the time, you might very well take seriously his "Anti-American" comment.
Elsewhere, another quote from same paper, Steve's reply, my reply, doubled:
Paper:  But it is the underlying ideology of the Alt-Right, rather than its controversial policy positions, that is truly sinister.
Steve:  Those evil bastards don’t believe in the Zeroth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, as Founding Father Emma Lazarus carved on the Statue of Liberty in 1787.
Paper:  Alt-Right thought is based on white nationalism and anti-Americanism. 
Steve:  It’s almost as if the American Revolution had been about Americans demanding “the rights of Englishmen.”
me: Here's the same situation. Steve's being ironic instead of literal. He's pretending that  Emma Lazarus is a Founding Father and that her "Huddled Masses" is as valid a concept as those of the real Founders.
And, of course, our revolution was based on the Rights of Englishmen, not on the Rights of Saracens and/or whatever to immigrate. The revolution was fought for "ourselves and our posterity," not for "huddled masses" from anywhere. And if you look Lazarus up, BTW, you'll find these masses were mainly intended to be Jews, yearning to be free here for awhile, till they could get their ducks in a row and go create a Jewish ethnostate, throwing all the goyim the hell out, and so much for any ideas about "diversity."
But then Steve gets less subtle with:
One of the patterns you notice more and more these days is the descendants of Ellis Island huddled masses reasoning, “Boy those stupid WASPs shouldn’t have let us in way back then because, even though they are too stupid to have figured it out yet, we’ve taken over. But eventually they might figure it out … so we’d better punish them now so they can’t ever do anything about it in case they ultimately wake up. Hmmhhhmm … I know let’s rub their noses in diversity by letting in a hundred million or so Muslims! Yeah, then those idiot WASPs will finally notice they are being insulted and humiliated like they deserve. If that’s not enough to finally get their attention, we could let in two hundred million Muslims. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?”
That "what could possibly go wrong?” phrase is one of Steve's most common, itself of course always sarcastic/ironic. But here Steve Makes it clear that he's parroting what a nonWasp might be thinking/saying about our disposession.
All this is from a post of Steve's here [link]by the way.
So does Steve undercut himself with his irony? Answer: Maybe. Thing is, I'm sarcastic or ironic myself sometimes, and it spices things up. It adds immensely to the humor content of Steve's work, too.
There are damned few writers, especially political writers, out there who are both insightful and funny, and Steve is one of them. Oh, I try, but if you'll notice, just as in this post, most of my material is not original (Steve's is), and Steve blogs about six times as much material as I do anyway.
So the answer is, you simply have to real all of Steve all the time so you can get into the rhythm of his writing and know when he's being straightforward and when he's not. I'm reminded of the fellow who read Gulliver's Travels when it first came out and denounced it as a bunch of "damned lies." He just didn't get it. So, to make sure you get it, do at least go to Steve's site [link] every morning and skim his headlines. If you're like me, you'll probably go ahead and read his first post. Then the second. Then all. Then you'll be a Steve reader, and very much more likely to pick up on what's really going on out there.
Quibcags: Only the first is a new one, and it's a weirdo. I found the Viking girl somewhere on the net, and when I came across the "Africa Screams" Abbott and Costello still I just had to use it. The second quibcag uses a girl from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta), the third the "Italy" girl from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア), I believe, and the last a kind of generic I found on the net. All good Steve quotes, but you'll notice, all but the last are ironic, and could be misinterpreted by someone new to Steve's work.


  1. If a nation shouldn't primarily serve its citizens, then why have national elections? Why not have the entire world vote? And if US should truly be global, its tax dollars should go equally to black Africans to black Americans.

    If US government spends more on black Americans than on all black Africans combined, then surely it is being 'unfair'.

    What I don't get is why the US has to spend so much on Israel. But then, Zionists choose our leaders.

  2. The America corrupted by the “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians" isn't anything like the American created by my British colonist ancestors. We should have closed the borders in 1800.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Steve aims at fairly high IQ readers, 125+ I guess. I don't think his irony here is at all hard to get.

  5. I think the only way Sailer can get away with writing the stuff he does is that he phrases everything in his characteristically wry sardonic manner. That said, I refrain from recommending him as a read to friends and family because the new reader would be missing salient points right and left - one would have to read at least several weeks of his material to appreciate his peculiarly aloof tone and style of communication; simply put, most of his work is not "stand alone" - it regrettably must be placed in a context. I think that limits his appeal.

  6. Steve is rather old. He still remembers days when politics involved humor and satire. His wit is far too dry to appeal to hipsters, but I doubt they would be there at all. He's the kind who National Review would have hired if they had stayed true to principles and not jettisoned everyone but the AIPAC approved neo-conmen.

    1. Steve, eh? Guess how old _I_ am, or my Baloo half, that is... 70. And funny you should bring that up, because recently NR said no more cartoons, so they sort of fired _me_, make of that what you will.