June 12, 2013

Coulter: Hispanic vote overstated

Ann Coulter's been doing yeowoman's work on immigration:
IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE 
June 12, 2013 
Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.  
This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.  
It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?  
As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.  
The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House. 

Ann is referencing this article by me in VDARE.com. It features links to all the Census Bureau reports documenting these findings.

95 comments:

countenance said...

SS -- She just proved your theory that she reads your blog.

Steve Sailer said...

I know a lot of people. I just don't go out of my way to cause trouble for them by stating that I know them.

Eric said...

Elderly black women and also, you know, illegal aliens and dead people.

Alfa158 said...

Well yes, they are that stupid; that is why we call ourselves the Stupid Party. Still I don't see I have any alternative right now; I don't want to go back to the Evil Party, and the Libertarians et al can't get any traction in a system where elections are decided by people who watch Dancing with the Stars.
I think we MAY be finally in sight of real alternatives in the not too hazy future. It is possible that the GOP will cease to be relevant due to demographic changes, either with or without this amnesty being enacted. Then at some point further down the line the largely unopposed Democrats will collapse when they have sucked all the blood out of the host, and what Pat Buchanan described as "A collection of warring tribes temporarily united by the quest for plunder" falls apart. Perhaps there may be some viable alternative parties within the new alignments that will emerge from the squirrel-on-a-stick-time wreckage.

Anonymous said...

"As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out"

Oh, very nice Steve!!!!

Love you Anne! Love you Steve!

God bless America!

Anonymous said...

Steve, if you get the rub from Anne enough times, you'll be able to pull the "Panhandling" section. ;-)

Truth said...

Blogger Steve Sailer said...

"I know a lot of people..."

Stephen is connected...he's omnipotent...he attends the Bilderberg meetings...and he has his eye on YOU.

Here's One said...

I've been reading her site lately and I was like "damn! She's been reading Steve and vdare" Now there's proof

Anonymous said...

Steve is probably my favorite writer amongst the Dissident Right (Dark Enlightenment? Normal Americans? ?)...

I encourage everyone to donate now!

sunbeam said...

I think that what she said is kind of missing the point.

That election was at least theoretically winnable by the Republicans. There were also events and conditions that historically made it dicey for a sitting president to win re-election in play.

The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

1) Basically no one ran in the primaries. Pretty much all of them could be written off as general election candidates before the whole thing began. Consequently...

2) The person I consider to be the worst campaigner I have seen in a Presidential campaign in my life was nominated.

I'll semi-take that back. I saw the 88 Dukakis campaign. Wait, I dunno...

I'm so confused, how can you pick?

3) Romney ran on a platform only a millionaire or Paul Ryan could love.

More than anything, they better figure out what they stand for, and who their constituency is. My take on it is, the whole economic platform they have is just plain crazy. Unworkable. Doesn't work, never worked.

They identify the wrong problems, and consistently come up with the wrong solutions to even the wrong problems.

My take anyway.

On the bright side for you guys, you are going to do quite well in the 2014 elections. Not sure whether you'll take the Senate but it will be close.

No idea about 2016, depends on who runs. Doesn't look like there are any good candidates in the bullpen, but the Democratic Party is in the same shape.

We might get the "Battle of the Weak" in 2016. If Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden somehow worm the nomination that year, it will probably be a Republican victory.

Even with Rick Perry running.

But make no mistake, demographics didn't help him, but Mitt Romney lost that election on his own.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Republican Party needs to die to make way for a multi-party system. Multiple parties with strict party discipline could make the electoral college irrelevant, with most future Presidential elections settled in the House of Representatives with each state delegation having one vote. All these Mexicans in California and Texas would have a total of two votes out of 50, offset by Kentucky and West Virginia.

Dave Pinsen said...

"Libertarians et al can't get any traction in a system where elections are decided by people who watch Dancing with the Stars."

Libertarians are in favor of amnesty.

Sunbeam,

The problem wasn't Romney's ability as a candidate or his platform. The problems were that no-hopers dragged out the primary process too long, and that the GOP wasn't willing to fight as dirty as the Dems.

While Romney was forced to spend half the summer grinding garbage time in the GOP primary, the Dems launched an air campaign to paint an essentially decent and honorable man as a monster, and those high negatives hurt turnout among Romney's base.

And don't forget the commenters here who said they weren't going to vote because they saw no difference between Obama and Romney. I can't imagine this Gang of 8 bill having a shot in the first year of a Romney presidency.

Anonymous said...

To his eternal credit for choosing country over cheap landscaping, Rush Limbaugh is vocally on our side also.

Armageddon is coming.

Anonymous said...

lol @ 4:30 PM... I was thinking about an "on our side" comment as well

Just to provide some deniability about who's really on our side, we'll use initials...

AC
RL
LI
PB (of course ... best for last!)

Agree or disagree?

Rob said...

In all ages, there are certain things that transcend party differences and are agreed to be self-evident truths. A hundred years ago, the need to preserve the American nation would have been one of them, something both Republicans and Democrats thought to be so obvious as to be left unspoken. Now it's the exact opposite. Both parties are committed to replacing the American people, and both of them are prepared to compromise party interests to achieve it. It's only in the light of this fact that you can understand the lies about Hispanics voting Republican.

Anonymous said...

All that matters is how the votes in congress go down... which means it's up to the conservative media and our legion of angry voters to bring the fear and wrath of God down on them in the days leading up to the vote.

Anonymous said...

Dark forces are at work. I can't access her site through Chrome or IE. Steve, you shouldn't have gone after Google like that!! You won't see or heaar the drones when they come ...

Anonymous said...

Never had much use for Ms. Coulter but it really is worth pointing out that she actually cites Sailer when he's been hinting for years about the many people who steal from him while trying to keep him under wraps.


I have some experience with that kind of bs in the academic world and it disgusts me. This isn't perfectly analogous to Steve's situation but I worked with a very famous scientist who also happened to be very generous with his ideas and time while being completely uninterested in credit or praise. It shocked me to see people--often big names themselves--straight up get their ideas *directly* from him (I mean neatly polished, not just some kind of abstract inspiration) and then not even list him in the acknowledgements.

Maybe I have the problem Steve has recently discussed in that I like etiquette for the sake of etiquette but I really don't understand that kind of behavior. The scientist I worked with was more than happy to give away ideas and have other people turn them into articles/books. Why hide the source? I can't speak for Steve but I'm guessing he feels similarly in that he would be more than happy to have a NYT story introduced with "After reading Steve Sailer's blog post about [issue x] I decided to take his idea and write a NYT column about it with my name at the top..."

Steve isn't some eccentric Victorian aristocrat conducting scientific experiments at his country estate while making sure nobody has access to his data. He gives it away because he *wants* his ideas to be read. What kind of coward goes to the source for ideas he finds interesting and then tries to ensure others won't draw from the same well?

Anonymous said...

White homomania could be 70%.
It's a sick nation.
GOP will lose whites unless it celebrates fecal penetration.

Anonymous said...

Got to give Ann Coulter credit, she's got guts.

Anonymous said...

Drude has a link to Coulter story....be ready for some serious traffic Steve.

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...


Sunbeam asked:

2) The person I consider to be the worst campaigner I have seen in a Presidential campaign in my life was nominated.

I'll semi-take that back. I saw the 88 Dukakis campaign. Wait, I dunno...

I'm so confused, how can you pick?


Maybe this will help....

Romney has executive hair.

Dukakis had that photo of himself in a tank.

Anonymous said...

I know a lot of people. I just don't go out of my way to cause trouble for them by stating that I know them.

If you are going to be Emannuel Goldstein, you really need to get down in book form your own "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" type book. Nice work, Steve. :)

BTW, I was read you before you were cool.

Cail Corishev said...

I know a lot of people.

You're a cooler man than I; if I knew Ann Coulter, I'd be telling everybody.

Anonymous said...

If not the best man in America, Coulter has got to be up there.

Cail Corishev said...

I'm all for the GOP dying. I just wish I could think of a way for them to do it without taking the rest of us with them.

Anonymous said...

"But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason."

The most interesting aspect of this column is the class war rhetoric.
Cons used to be pro-rich in kneejerk way.
Now, Coulter is going where Jim Webb did. It's sounding like Hunger Game Theory.

If GOP goes, so does the Democrats. Without the GOP bogeyman, nothing can hold the 'liberal' coalition together.
Dem (pyrrhic)victory could be its very demise... just like victory in Cold War turned out to be bad for conservatives--no more reason for moderates to go with GOP cuz Dems were soft on communism.

Anonymous said...

I once read in the NYT that Vdare was a "popular" website so it's not exactly unknown in the MSM.

Liz said...

Steve- Very good to read your name in the mainstream conservative media. Well deserved. Anyway how can anyone take the GOP seriously after GWB?

Anonymous said...

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Mensa and noticed a a lot of celebrities/public personalities as members, which seems to contradict the republican caricature of the 'Hollywood liberal idiot'. Perhaps this is because scientists and other individuals in 'high IQ' professions are less inclined to join IQ societies. It would seem like dull people gravitate towards dull professions such as cashier work, busting tables, etc. Maybe you can do a write-up dispelling the notion the right wing tendency of lumping people in the entertainment industry as idiots.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Drudge and people on our side, Drudge hasn't been half bad himself. He doesn't pay as much attention to the issue as we'd like, but he's clearly anti-amnesty.

countenance said...

SS -- Drudge now links to this Coulter column. This means zillions of people are now going to read the name "Steve Sailer."

countenance said...

Romney used Kris Kobach for as long as he needed to pretend to be an immigration patriot. Once he had the nomination just about cinched, he dumped Kobach. In his heart of hearts, Romney is amnesty and open borders all the way.

Anonymous said...

"Anyway how can anyone take the GOP seriously after GWB?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg

Too Tall Jones said...

Sailer has some solid numbers on his link, but it wasn't "old black ladies" at all. The actually don't make up that heavyweight a percentage of the black electorate to form any "tipping point."

Sailer commendably packaged the numbers in one convenient place but they are no secret. Karl Rove proved that the GOP does not need any massive "outreach" effort. Instead, pump up the base to maximize turnout, and play moderate enough to split the swing voters favorably in key battle ground states. Bush got a crucial partial assist in Ohio 2004 with black voters doing just that. This ain't news.
http://jonathantilove.com/bush-black-vote/

As for whether Coulter should be citing Sailer and giving credit as some claim she should, who knows? She ain't exactly Miss consistency, and has been known to spin her share of bogus claims..
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/06/mugged-by-reality-1-white-quotas.html

Anonymous said...

@5:27

If it's in the Grey Lady, it must be true.

Wait, wut?

Too Tall Jones said...

Anon:
I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Mensa and noticed a a lot of celebrities/public personalities as members, which seems to contradict the republican caricature of the 'Hollywood liberal idiot'. Perhaps this is because scientists and other individuals in 'high IQ' professions are less inclined to join IQ societies. It would seem like dull people gravitate towards dull professions such as cashier work, busting tables, etc. Maybe you can do a write-up dispelling the notion the right wing tendency of lumping people in the entertainment industry as idiots.
-------------------

^^ Actually according to HBD/"biodiversity" favorite Satoshi Kanazawa, those classified as "liberal" types tend to post higher IQs than those in the conservative column. Liberals have always bragged about how they are so much more smarter than conservatives. Now they have impeccable "HBD" data in support. Ironic...

Kanazawa, S. 2010. WHy Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent. Social Science Quarterly, v73, n1, 33-57
http://secure.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf


Even right-winger Charles Murray in his "Coming Apart" book, laments how the smarter, more liberal "Quality White Folk" are doing so much better than the promiscuous, dysfunctional White Trash. Not exactly a new finding... though with some disputable points. But anyhow Hispanic vote or no, the Quality People will continue to prosper...

Anonymous said...

Would the number of celebrities/public personalities in Mensa be around 2%?

Anonymous said...

The most interesting aspect of this column is the class war rhetoric.

I don't think it's class war so much as correctly calling treason by its proper name.

Treason: "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."

Anonymous said...

"Well yes, they are that stupid; that is why we call ourselves the Stupid Party."

They're not stupid, they're bought.

Anonymous said...

"Stephen is connected...he's omnipotent...he attends the Bilderberg meetings...and he has his eye on YOU." - good thing I'm wearing pants.

Harry Baldwin said...

Today Limbaugh went back to his idea that the immigration bill isn't going to pass because it's designed to fail. The idea is that its failure would help the Democrats with Hispanics, giving them a stick to beat House Republicans with.

To me, this seems too clever by half.

If it were true, why would Rubio and Ryan be sticking their necks out supporting this pile of drek? And why would the Silicon Valley billionaires be wasting money advertising in favor of it? And aren't Democrats smart enough to realize that the House Republicans may increase their base turn-out by voting the bill down?

DPG said...

An actual namedrop of Steve Sailer. Coulter just proved that she has bigger balls than David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Sean Hannity and, well, hell, just about any other mainstream conservative.

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter talks the talk and walks the walk. On Book TV she states that one of her favorite writers is Joe Sobran and in a column she gives attribution to Steve Sailer, I don't know what her driving force is: Career Death Wish or My Admiration? Either way she is a badass.

Mr. Anon said...

"Dave Pinsen said...

The problem wasn't Romney's ability as a candidate or his platform. The problems were that no-hopers dragged out the primary process too long, and that the GOP wasn't willing to fight as dirty as the Dems."

Evidently, Romney was a no-hoper.

"And don't forget the commenters here who said they weren't going to vote because they saw no difference between Obama and Romney. I can't imagine this Gang of 8 bill having a shot in the first year of a Romney presidency."

Remember that Romney, who ran in the primary as a "hard-liner" on immigration (I use quotes, because he wasn't really hard-line), dropped the issue like yesterday's garbage as soon as he had the nomination sewed up. If Romney were President today, the Pandilla del Ocho would still be pusing their amnesty plan, and the House would be more likely to vote for it too.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm glad she finally gave you an acknowledgement after all these years of making use of your stuff...

Better late than never, I suppose...

Who will be the next "Steve Sailorite" to (ahem!) come out of the closet?

Whiskey said...

Romney lost because Obama and his Silicon Valley pals hacked his get out the vote operation; the IRS/FBI/ATF/OSHA/EPA targeted from NSA analysis key Tea Party leaders and neutralized them by making them fight off government action rather than lead voting participation; and widespread voter fraud including vote dumping and phony voting by dead people, illegals, and triple voting.

Simple as that.

However, big business wants dirt cheap labor and that is why under Obama, not a Republican (who is more vulnerable) the Amnesty will pass. Its a done deal, nothing now can stop it. Obama was always going to win on this -- because he won in 2012. Dirty, cheating, illegitimate. But he won. A Romney would have had the press, Dems, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and so on against him, and would have not been able to get Amnesty passed for Big Business.

Obama has no check. Boenher will work with Dems to pass Amnesty, he's already said he would, done deal. End of America. Open Borders forever. Which is just what the elite wants.

And on the contrary, by use of a surveillance state and intimidation of nodes, the Dems can rule forever tax-farming Whitey to pay for them and the Third World hordes that are going to be incapable of anything but welfare. Until you get inevitably violent revolution. Powell predicted it.

Jack Hanson said...

The Republican Party ran a liberal from the northeast who paid for abortions with state money, enacted an Assault Weapons Ban, and couldn't say enough nice things about illegal aliens.

The only thing Romney went to the mat for was tax breaks for the wealthy. Everything else was endlessly 'triangulated' but the Beltway Insiders.

Yet they couldn't figure out why Romney was unappealing to so many other conservatives in the rest of the country.

rob said...

Sailer, maybe you can use your Coulter-control powers to convince her to push the GOP to look a bit closer to home for new voters: white women. Think of a real party. Would you rather have a sausage party with some Mexicans, or a party with pretty white chicks?

If you answered sausage party, you might be a Republican Representative.

Anonymous said...

Um, that would be "Steve Sailerite" -- not "sailorite".

It's late, I'm tried, I apologize.

Dave Pinsen said...

Worth linking to Ann Coulter on Romney here: Don't Blame Romney. Excerpt:

" Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. It's less disheartening that a president who wrecked American health care, quadrupled gas prices, added $6 trillion to the national debt and gave us an 8 percent unemployment rate can squeak out re-election than that America will never have Romney as our president.

Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded. Blaming the candidate may be fun, but it's delusional and won't help us avoid making the same mistakes in the future."


As for Mr. Anon's belief that the Gang of 8 Bill would be working its way through the Senate now had Romney won: no way in hell. Romney's priority would have been resuscitating the US economy, and none of those four GOP Senators in the Gang of 8 would have had the temerity to get in the way of that.

Now, to be completely honest, I can't say for sure that a 2nd term President Romney wouldn't have tried to go for a grand bargain on this. But that would have been a problem for another day, and, in any case, we could have elected more restrictionist GOP Congressmen on his coattails to make that less likely.

Bottom line: we would have been better off had Romney won, no question. Always vote for the better of two candidates. Holding out for Mr. Perfect is a lost cause.

Big Bill said...

I swear to GOd, I just wish that one black leader would stop sucking up to the white boy Democrats and say the same thing that COulter did.

All we hear from the Talented Tenth is "Open the borders for all our Little Brown Brothers and get the white folks to give us ALL jobs!"

But the bruthas and sistahs on the street are all crying for no more wetbacks.

Where is the Black Sailer-loving Barbara Jordan who actually gives a sh!t about her people?

I can damn near guarantee you that a black politician who followed the "Americans First" line of Barbara Jordan or Booker T. Washington would mop the floor with gutless black pomaded fools like Sharpton and Jackson and all those tools in the Congressional Black Caucus. Whenever black folks are polled, they, like white folks, overwhelmignly vote against the illegal invasion of this country and the continuing theft of their jobs.

So tell us, Steve, where is a black politician with guts who actually gives a sh!t about his people?

Dr Van Nostrand said...

re Sailer and mainstream visibility

Gavin McInnes mentioned Steve Sailer atleast twice on Red Eye(as far as I can remember) . Once to debunk that Freakonomics myth about how abortion led to a reduction in crime and the other was the non existence of gay golfers.

I believe Hannity also mentioned Sailer (approvingly) once or twice but am not sure.

Isnt an interview on Glenn Beck the best "in" Sailer can have in the mainstream right wing media circuit?

Dr Van Nostrand said...


SS -- Drudge now links to this Coulter column. This means zillions of people are now going to read the name "Steve Sailer."

Ann had been linking and quoting Sailer on her twitter acc for atleast 6 months if not longer

Steve Sailer said...

I'm read by a lot of well-known people. The smarter they are the more likely they are to appreciate my work. But I don't publish lists of the names of readers and friends.

December hassents said...

John Cornyn Immigration Reform Amendment (for stronger fence requirement) Decried As 'Poison Pill'

Anonymous said...

"Actually according to HBD/"biodiversity" favorite Satoshi Kanazawa, those classified as "liberal" types tend to post higher IQs than those in the conservative column. Liberals have always bragged about how they are so much more smarter than conservatives. Now they have impeccable "HBD" data in support. Ironic..."

True, but if they are rich and unequally above us, doesn't that make them 'conservative'?

Anonymous said...

What Sailer needs to do write a nifty book, something like the commie manifesto, freakonomics, or parliament of whores that is funny, breezy, engaging, etc.

A work that pithily summarizes his views and ideas into something both edgy and mainstream. (And something with a better book cover than Halfass Prince; have Baloo do the cover illustration/design).

That might get him invited on a show.

It can have lists: 10 dumb ideas about race.

Anecdotes: watson, kkk ufo.

satire.



Dave Pinsen said...

Here's a video clip of Ann talking about her column on Hannity's show.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tealeafnation.com/2013/06/in-box-office-hit-american-dream-is-still-alive-in-a-maturing-china/

Anonymous said...

"I know a lot of people. I just don't go out of my way to cause trouble for them by stating that I know them."

"I'm read by a lot of well-known people. The smarter they are the more likely they are to appreciate my work. But I don't publish lists of the names of readers and friends."

Steve, I respect you but you're starting to sound like a bragging rapper. Your quest for legitimacy shouldn't come at the expense of writing clear-eyed stuff, which hasn't happened so far but I hope that doesn't change in the future.



___________________________


A few words about her column. My main gripe is that she didn't write this way back in the 1990s. Even if the GOP would magically learn these lessons it's essentially too late to turn the demographic tide. And at any rate, the GOP is a lousy vehicle for white people, it's run by elite whites whose daughters marry off Jamaican potheads or people who are bought outright by kleptocrats.

We need something that crosses parties, a supra-national organization(or rather a network of organizations). Look at the Israel lobby for an inspiration. They know that to be truly successful, you need to be knee-deep in both parties. Betting the farm on the GOP was always a stupid bet, even if the GOP would be reformed why leave the other 50% to chance?

Anonymous said...

Pat Buchanan Discusses the Relationship Between Reagan and Thatcher

Anonymous said...

"What is it about the word conspiracy that provokes the instant smirk and snicker? The world is thick with dishonest people, and they don’t always act alone. They have a way of finding each other and acting corporately. Even “the D.C. sniper” turned out to be a team. " - Joe Sobran, but could easily be Coulter or Sailer.

God, I miss that guy. Whole column.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of funny how both parties are tripping over themselves to appease a group that is pretty ambivalent about voting. You gotta wonder how the black community deals with it particularly. By any measure they are a major reason why Obama won in '12 yet they get scant credit in the press and the White House. Whenever Black issues are brought to Obama he responds by saying he is the President for everybody. He makes no such declarations when addressing Hispanic issues.

Some folks like to say Blacks stay on the Dem plantation because of government largesse. Maybe but I think it has to do with lower than average group IQ, they simply lack the intellect to make the mental break.

Anonymous said...

@countenance Some of you hard line immigration folks are really naive. You think a major candidate is going to advocate mass deportation of 11 million people in a general election? Oh wait Romney actually did say illegals should self-deport in a debate against Obama. Romney is a law and order guy. I firmly believe if he was elected he would have acted closer to Eisenhower than any other President since well Eisenhower.

Once Romney uttered self deportation it should have activated all those opposed to immigration to fall behind him and actively support him because if he lost amnesty would be a reality and that's what we have now.

way of the Dodo said...

If not Romney, who? Rick Perry is a Re-conquista. Newt Gingrich attacked Romney for being too anti-(Illegal, even!)immigrant. Some of you loved Rick Santorum, but if you think one of his mold is going to be competitive... I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. "Good luck" is all I'll say.

It will be very, very, VERY difficult to re-elect a Republican nationally from here on out. Things get worse by the day. The browner masses and their SWPL coalition-mates are growing by the hour; traditional white folk have unconsciously decided to do away with themselves.

Anonymous said...

Has ANYONE ever axed John Boehner about the immigration status of that convicted Rastafarian pot-head alcoholic drunk driver who will be responsible [at least ostensibly] for further propagation of the Boehner family tree?

"Speaker Boehner, could you tell us about the immigration history and the current immigration status of your new son-in-law? Has he always been in this country legally? How was he allowed to enter this country, or to remain in this country, if he had a history of convictions for driving with open containers of alcohol and possession of illegal narcotics? Have you or any of your associates ever contacted [either directly or indirectly] ICE or DHS or DOJ or the WH or any other government entity about his status in this country? Conversely, has the government or any of its associates ever contacted [either directly or indirectly] you or any of your associates about his status in this country?"

Mr. Anon said...

"Dave Pinsen said...

Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded."

A mormon hedge-fund manager? The best presidential candidate ever? Who's delusional here?

"Blaming the candidate may be fun, but it's delusional and won't help us avoid making the same mistakes in the future."

Voting for people like Romney IS the mistake. It is a mistake now, and it will be so in the future. You apparently still haven't learned from it. If Perry or Gingrich had won the nomination, you'd be saying that they were the best candidate ever. Voting for WHOMEVER the Republicans shove in your face only gets you more of the same.

"As for Mr. Anon's belief that the Gang of 8 Bill would be working its way through the Senate now had Romney won: no way in hell."

You're wrong. If anything, Romney would have learned from Bush's error in trying to get it through in his second (lame-duck) term. Amnesty is important to Republican party donors. Romney would have made it a priority too.

"Bottom line: we would have been better off had Romney won, no question. Always vote for the better of two candidates. Holding out for Mr. Perfect is a lost cause."

Always voting for the lesser of two evils is a bubble-sorting algorithm for finding the second most-evil thing. The Republican party, as a Presidential party, is worthless to us, and needs to become extinct.

rob said...

Steve Sailer said...
I'm read by a lot of well-known people. The smarter they are the more likely they are to appreciate my work. But I don't publish lists of the names of readers and friends.


You shouldn't publish that list without giving everyone on it the chance to opt out...for a small donation.

pat said...

If you are being recognized by the mainstream must I now shift further toward the fringe?

You could do worse than to mimic Coulter's revenue model. She writes a weekly blog to support her books - where she makes her real money. She's on TV all the time but only on news shows which pay tiny appearance fees. The real money in the pundit field is in traditional book sales or speaking engagements.

You may be the most economically successful individual blogger in the world. Arianna Huffington and Matt Drudge don't count.

That's like being the top earning American soccer player.

Albertosaurus

haddox said...

Great siesta line in the VDare piece.

Here's a quote from the sage Carleton Putnam about Republicans and blacks in the 1960s. It certainly could be applied to the GOP and Hispanics today:

"One of the more alarming things to me about the current political scene is the blindness and stupidity of the politician who openly seeks, and brags of capturing, the Negro vote - meaning the vote of the average Negro. This is the equivalent of saying: 'My policies have attracted the approval of a race, the degree of whose participation in public affairs has always been a measure of the deterioration of the society in which it occurs.'"

Anonymous said...

That Ann Coulter video that Dave Pinson linked to is dynamite. I have posted it on Facebook and urged my friends to repost it. Maybe it will go viral.

Steve, please give this video the same attention that you gave the "IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID" video and urge people to repost the link on Facebook.

Why is it that only liberals are able to use social media? I think it is because most Americans think of themselves as liberal, so liberal memes have an easier time spreading on social media. But on the issue of immigration, probably a majority of ordinary Americans agree with Steve. I think anti-immigration videos would have an excellent chance of spreading on social media if someone were pushing them.

Jefferson said...

Sean Hannity is pro-amnesty because he most likely employs cheap Illegal Immigrant labor to cook his meals at home, clean his house, do his laundry, and take care of his children.

Bottledwater said...

Time magazine ranked Ann coulter as one of the 100 most influential people on the planet one year, right up there with oprah and Obama . If this blog influences one of the 100 most influential people on the planet, then Steve must be at least in the top 200.

Bottledwater said...

I've seen Steve cited by name in peer reviewed academic journal..

Bottledwater said...

You could do worse than to mimic Coulter's revenue model. She writes a weekly blog to support her books - where she makes her real money. She's on TV all the time but only on news shows which pay tiny appearance fees. The real money in the pundit field is in traditional book sales or speaking engagements.

No the real money is getting your own talk show.

Dave Pinsen said...

"Sean Hannity is pro-amnesty because he most likely employs cheap Illegal Immigrant labor to cook his meals at home, clean his house, do his laundry, and take care of his children."

He's pro-amnesty because Rupert Murdoch is pro-amnesty.

Anonymous said...

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Mensa and noticed a a lot of celebrities/public personalities as members, which seems to contradict the republican caricature of the 'Hollywood liberal idiot'. Perhaps this is because scientists and other individuals in 'high IQ' professions are less inclined to join IQ societies. It would seem like dull people gravitate towards dull professions such as cashier work, busting tables, etc. Maybe you can do a write-up dispelling the notion the right wing tendency of lumping people in the entertainment industry as idiots.

Historically the brightest blacks and brightest Jews went into entertainment because it allows pure talent to rise to the top and with little education.

Some of the greatest black minds are entertainers: Cosby, Chris rock, Oprah, Michael Jackson, Cambridge grad thandie newton.

The entertainment industry has a monopoly on the most brilliant black minds, and it's because entertainment requires lateral thinking and improvisation.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


What Sailer needs to do write a nifty book, something like the commie manifesto, freakonomics, or parliament of whores that is funny, breezy, engaging, etc.

A work that pithily summarizes his views and ideas into something both edgy and mainstream. (And something with a better book cover than Halfass Prince; have Baloo do the cover illustration/design).

That might get him invited on a show. "

Oh heck with all that. Just get Gavin McInnes and Ann coulter to push Greg Gutfeld to get Steve on Red Eye.
Shouldnt be too hard with a little bit of pressure
Steve with his acerbic wit would fit in quite well in that format

l. ron hoover said...

"Oh heck with all that. Just get Gavin McInnes and Ann coulter to push Greg Gutfeld to get Steve on Red Eye.
Shouldnt be too hard with a little bit of pressure
Steve with his acerbic wit would fit in quite well in that format"

Would love to see Steve on Red Eye but Gutfeld et al are pretty p.c. when it comes to race. Last night they had a two-minute hate about some women in Florida who made a video of herself berating Dunkin' Donuts employees using racial epithets (which were bleeped, so I have no idea what they were, and don't particularly care).

ben tillman said...

As for Mr. Anon's belief that the Gang of 8 Bill would be working its way through the Senate now had Romney won: no way in hell.

Immigration expansion is the ruling class's top priority. Mr. Anon is probably right.

Cail Corishev said...

If Romney had won, there would still be people in both parties pushing for amnesty, just as there were under Bush, and if it passed, he probably would have signed it.

But the narrative would have had to be completely different. The current push is based on the Republican loss. Republicans are supposed to support amnesty as penance for insufficient Hispandering, which supposedly lost them the election. That makes it possible for the elites and media to present is as something the GOP must do for its own good.

Had Romney won, which would have meant getting a few more percentage points of the white vote in states like Ohio, that rationale wouldn't exist. They'd be pushing a different one, but without knowing what it would be, it's impossible to say how effective it would have been. (I'm guessing it would still be based on their raciss voter demographics, but it's harder to shame winners than losers.)

At the very least, Romney wouldn't have been so anxious to import millions of welfare recipients. He may be all for bringing in cheap workers of all skill levels, but as a capitalist, he does want workers. That would have been bad enough, but not as bad as the current plan.

Svigor said...

Steve, I respect you but you're starting to sound like a bragging rapper. Your quest for legitimacy shouldn't come at the expense of writing clear-eyed stuff, which hasn't happened so far but I hope that doesn't change in the future.

Modesty is fine, but why let it get in the way of your message? That's what you seem to be suggesting to Steve; that he censor his opinions to meet a social standard for modesty. It's a blog, not a cocktail party.

Svigor said...

Meaning, I think Steve is the opposite of a braggart. He's probably lived with the fact that he's not a braggart long enough to know that he can say something like "the smart people agree with me on x" when it's true without doubting his own "not a braggart" cred.

Svigor said...

Historically the brightest blacks and brightest Jews went into entertainment because it allows pure talent to rise to the top and with little education.

Jews went into entertainment because it's the most powerful industry in the world, and Jews are obsessed with power. Blacks went into (in-front-of-the-camera) entertainment because it rewards extraversion.

Svigor said...

We need something that crosses parties, a supra-national organization(or rather a network of organizations). Look at the Israel lobby for an inspiration. They know that to be truly successful, you need to be knee-deep in both parties. Betting the farm on the GOP was always a stupid bet, even if the GOP would be reformed why leave the other 50% to chance?

You're talking about the delusion of legitimacy. White "gentiles" still largely hold the delusion of legitimacy, so they go for the "up with team A, down with team B" nonsense. They'll get the message eventually, though, and start buying off the lot, like Jews do.

You can really hear TPTB's hamster spinning the legitimacy thing hard, once you know to listen for it. They dread the loss of legitimacy among "gentile" white Americans.

@countenance Some of you hard line immigration folks are really naive. You think a major candidate is going to advocate mass deportation of 11 million people in a general election?

The smart "conservative" position is to advocate a crackdown on employers. This effectively ignores the poor, starving, brown dreamers from the 3rd world, and targets the white fat cats who employ them. The media is thus neutralized: stories about the poor, downtrodden fat cat employers don't exactly inspire "oh the humanity!" The dems are thus neutralized: whining about all the fat cats with their noses out of joint ain't exactly their bread and butter.

Obviously, either party could try to make it about the poor, starving, downtrodden brown masses. But all the conservatives would have to do is obfuscate: "that's a separate issue; we want to fix that, bla bla bla, excuses and promises here, but we have to crack down on these immoral, fat, exploiting fat cats now - enough is enough."

traditional white folk have unconsciously decided to do away with themselves.

Some of them, anyway. The sooner we can get them to succeed, the better. There are many white "gentiles" with the raciss gene, but the idiots far outnumber us. We need to move them on to racial Elysium sooner than later.

A mormon hedge-fund manager? The best presidential candidate ever? Who's delusional here?

He seems like an extremely high-quality human being. I just don't see "Mormon" or "hedge-fund manager" moving him out of that category, in and of themselves. Any details? I'm willing to listen.

Voting for WHOMEVER the Republicans shove in your face only gets you more of the same.

You're preaching to the choir, here. I get it. Really. But how was Romney not a head-and-shoulders-better choice vs. 0bama? I don't see how there's even a comparison to be made here.

You're wrong. If anything, Romney would have learned from Bush's error in trying to get it through in his second (lame-duck) term. Amnesty is important to Republican party donors. Romney would have made it a priority too.

Did Romney really seem to be in it for the donors, to you?

Why is it that only liberals are able to use social media? I think it is because most Americans think of themselves as liberal

If that's true, most Americans are liars. Libs self-identify at a very low percentages in polls. 20-30% or so, if memory serves?

so liberal memes have an easier time spreading on social media.

It's true that most Americans are liberal, though. Even most conservatives are liberal, IMO. Liberal-liberals, liberal-moderates, and liberal-conservatives. That's the vast majority of white Americans, right there.

Svigor said...

The entertainment industry has a monopoly on the most brilliant black minds, and it's because entertainment requires lateral thinking and improvisation.

I'm going to forgo the insults I instinctively wanted to hurl here. Entertainment has a monopoly on the most brilliant black minds because that's where the money is. A smart black can make far more money in entertainment than he can anywhere else because there aren't enough smart blacks to go around, and the entertainment biz offers better money and more prestige than anyone else, in return for less intellectually-demanding work. Plus, blacks are suited to the work (extraverted, low neuroticism, short time horizons, etc.).

Svigor said...

The smart "conservative" position is to advocate a crackdown on employers. This effectively ignores the poor, starving, brown dreamers from the 3rd world, and targets the white fat cats who employ them.

And yes, the dems can start playing the fiddle for the "middle class" people who need yard work, nannies, etc. But then the cons can just go back to gun control; the majority of Americans support background checks for Joe trying to sell his gun to his neighbor, Bob. Right? Surely they don't oppose Joe or Bob having their prospective employees going through a quick background check, too. Right? No one has the right to enter America illegally; the right to keep and bear arms is an expressly protected right, one free from infringement. So if background checks are a good idea for Americans' Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms (free from infringement), then surely they're a good idea for prospective employees, who have no right to enter America illegally. Right?

Dr Van Nostrand said...


A mormon hedge-fund manager? The best presidential candidate ever? Who's delusional here?"

He was a venture capitalist not a hedge fund manager. Very different things. You seem to be the type who subscribes to 1/99 % narrative!
Only they would make such elementary mistakes in describing HNWI financial vocations

Romney did have the Mormon thing and businessman tag going against him.To say nothing of a Teflon incumbent black President.

I believed he could win but the Obama machine was too strong to overcome. Sigh

Svigor is right ,he is a decent man and his loss is the nation's.

Dave Pinsen said...

"Last night they had a two-minute hate about some women in Florida who made a video of herself berating Dunkin' Donuts employees using racial epithets (which were bleeped, so I have no idea what they were, and don't particularly care)."

The epithet was "sand n*gger"; the girl presumably thought the employees were Arab but they appeared south Asian. She was angry that she hadn't been given a receipt or something the night before and demanded a bunch of free stuff in her video.

One of the websites reporting this story touted it as an example of a woman ruining her life with a stupid, racist rant. Coincidentally, the next day John Galiano was on Charlie Rose, and I was struck by the juxtaposition. Galiano was able to recover from his antisemitic rant by blaming it on addiction and going into rehab, then offering mea culpas on the celebrity interview circuit; this 18 year old Florida woman doesn't get a mulligan like that.

Mr. Anon said...

"Dr Van Nostrand said...

""A mormon hedge-fund manager? The best presidential candidate ever? Who's delusional here?""

He was a venture capitalist not a hedge fund manager. Very different things."

My mistake. You are right about that. However - regardless - to most Americans: hedge-fund manager, VC, whatever - it can all just be summarized as "rich financial f**k" ...... not exactly the humble log-cabin story which usually leads to the white-house. Than there was his strategic non-availability for service in Vietnam. Ordinarily, I wouldn't hold that against him, but for a candidate who supports the permanent warfare-state, I most certainly do.

Mr. Anon said...

Svigor said...

""A mormon hedge-fund manager? The best presidential candidate ever? Who's delusional here?""

""He seems like an extremely high-quality human being. I just don't see "Mormon" or "hedge-fund manager" moving him out of that category, in and of themselves. Any details? I'm willing to listen.""

Mormons are a somewhat bizarre religious minority. I have nothing against them myself, and would vote for one, if I believed he agree with me. However, if you want to win the largest popularity contest in America, it is probably better not to go with someone so much on the fringes of American society. As to my characterization of him being a "hedge-fund manager", Dr. Van Nostrand has already corrected me about that. Still, it doesn't matter. He's a financial guy. A money man. He doesn't have that "man of the people" vibe that Americans like to fool themselves with.

""Voting for WHOMEVER the Republicans shove in your face only gets you more of the same.""

You're preaching to the choir, here. I get it. Really. But how was Romney not a head-and-shoulders-better choice vs. 0bama? I don't see how there's even a comparison to be made here."

First of all, I wasn't preaching to you, but to a non-choir member. Sure, I agree that Romney is a better man than Obama, and would be marginally better than Obama had he won. But that margin in the term "marginally" gets narrower all the time. Romney would have been no different than G.W. Bush - absolutely no different. So what would that have meant? Obama-Care would stand (Romney already indicated he had no intent to challenge it, and he had already approved a state-mandated healthcare plan as govenor of Massachusetts). Romney would likely have tried to shove an amnesty through, just as Obama is doing now. Romney would probably be pushing us into Syria, just as Obama is doing now - moreover Romney would be pushing for a war with Iran too. Romney would expand the national-security/surveillance state, just as every President does. He might not have pursued gun-control, but that's the only sailient difference I can think of.

""You're wrong. If anything, Romney would have learned from Bush's error in trying to get it through in his second (lame-duck) term. Amnesty is important to Republican party donors. Romney would have made it a priority too.""

Did Romney really seem to be in it for the donors, to you?"

Yes. They listen to the donors a lot more than the listen to mere voters. Are you really that naive, Svigor?

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Would love to see Steve on Red Eye but Gutfeld et al are pretty p.c. when it comes to race. Last night they had a two-minute hate about some women in Florida who made a video of herself berating Dunkin' Donuts employees using racial epithets (which were bleeped, so I have no idea what they were, and don't particularly care)."

Comrade one doesnt have to PC to see that the infamous woman who went on that bizarre extended racist rant was clearly deranged nasty individual.
And she was so stupid that she even got the race wrong- they were Indian not Arab. She kept referring to them as sand n**gers.

Contrary to what the loons here think most racists are not red pill Buddhas who found enlightenment about how the world works. They are simply stupid and noxious. Im talking about full on racist and not those having mild prejudices or indulging in stereotypes (positve or negative)

If you see nothing wrong in what she said and dismiss their mocking her as PC hysteria,then you need help.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


My mistake. You are right about that. However - regardless - to most Americans: hedge-fund manager, VC, whatever - it can all just be summarized as "rich financial f**k" ...... not exactly the humble log-cabin story which usually leads to the white-house. Than there was his strategic non-availability for service in Vietnam. Ordinarily, I wouldn't hold that against him, but for a candidate who supports the permanent warfare-state, I most certainly do.


DVN: It is not neccesary for an individual to have served in combat for him to be eligible as commander in chief.
Desirable? Perhaps.
Romney may have been seen as the 1% as the meme caught on with OWS in Fall '11 but that if the American voters thinks Obama had a tough upbringing they were deluded.
Of all the last few Presidents only Carter,Reagan and Bill Clinton had humble origins but the latter two especially had also the force of personality that appealed to people.

6/14/13, 7:13 AM
Mr. Anon said...
Svigor said...


""Voting for WHOMEVER the Republicans shove in your face only gets you more of the same.""

You're preaching to the choir, here. I get it. Really. But how was Romney not a head-and-shoulders-better choice vs. 0bama? I don't see how there's even a comparison to be made here."

First of all, I wasn't preaching to you, but to a non-choir member. Sure, I agree that Romney is a better man than Obama, and would be marginally better than Obama had he won. But that margin in the term "marginally" gets narrower all the time. Romney would have been no different than G.W. Bush - absolutely no different. So what would that have meant? Obama-Care would stand (Romney already indicated he had no intent to challenge it, and he had already approved a state-mandated healthcare plan as govenor of Massachusetts). Romney would likely have tried to shove an amnesty through, just as Obama is doing now. Romney would probably be pushing us into Syria, just as Obama is doing now - moreover Romney would be pushing for a war with Iran too. Romney would expand the national-security/surveillance state, just as every President does. He might not have pursued gun-control, but that's the only sailient difference I can think of."

Of course ,the program that Bush put in is on auto pilot with Obama and would continue with Romney but which other Republican candidates besides Ron Paul wouldve done things differently.That in itself is no reason to dismiss Romney.
Plus even the neocon have been humbled and you can see this by the fact that they are at best passive aggressive on Syria.

""You're wrong. If anything, Romney would have learned from Bush's error in trying to get it through in his second (lame-duck) term. Amnesty is important to Republican party donors. Romney would have made it a priority too.""

Did Romney really seem to be in it for the donors, to you?"

Yes. They listen to the donors a lot more than the listen to mere voters. Are you really that naive, Svigor?

DVN: Any politician has to do a balancing act with his base and the donors.The two may not always be mutually exclusive though they are to some extent on immigration.
You know politicans can be bastards with the donors as well ,especially Presidents. These days there are rarely one term Presidents. The power of the incumbency is so strong is that once you are in ,you are pretty much guaranteed 8 years even if you are Republican with the media biting at your heels.
So you can safely turn your back on your donors or better yet achieve some compromise with them.
Politics is nothing but compromise.

Mr. Anon said...

"Dr Van Nostrand said...

It is not neccesary for an individual to have served in combat for him to be eligible as commander in chief.

Desirable? Perhaps."

I very much agree with you. I don't think that military service ought to be a pre-requisite for Presidents. The notion that it somehow should be is a modern aberation, only really dating back to the beginning of the post-WWII era.

I also don't think that Presidents should be in the business of involving us in needless foreign wars. During the debates, Romney was baying for war with Iran - all but challenging the Iranian leadership to a knife-fight, mano-a-mano. If he chooses to display such blow-hard neo-con posturing, then - yes - I will call him a chickenhawk. He then deserves the label.