The zeitgeist is very powerful and has tremendous momentum. One semi-fair article in the NYT won't make a dent in it.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
12 comments:
#2 in most emailed on the times site! And all people who read the article online link to GNXP and half sigma, who also mention you too.
I've asked this question here before, but wouldn't it be easier to accomplish certain policy goals without spotlighting invidious genetic distinctions between racial groups? I'm thinking of two policy areas specifically: affirmative action and immigration.
On affirmative action, the most successful opponent of it so far has been Ward Connelly, who got it officially banned in California and Michigan. He didn't get it banned by highlighting the IQ gap between WaAs and NAMs; on the contrary, he used appeals to egalitarianism.
On immigration, countries that currently select for higher-IQ immigrants (e.g., Canada and Australia) do so without basing this explicitly on IQ differences between races.
So what benefit is there to rubbing egalitarians' noses in the average IQ difference between NAMs and WaAs? What does it accomplish?
Except Steve, information is power.
Suppose you were an Insurance Company. And suppose you could require for coverage for life, auto, or other types of insurance a full genetic profile from your DNA?
I would expect knowledge and use of knowledge of genetic differences to proceed in the private sector, largely unregulated, because those who use it wisely can make more money than others.
Particularly in places outside the US. Europe, Japan, and much of Asia will probably use DNA knowledge to their advantage.
"Suppose you were an Insurance Company. And suppose you could require for coverage for life, auto, or other types of insurance a full genetic profile from your DNA?"
The military is already doing this. When I was trying to decide whether or not to do a DNA Ancestry test I read that military personnel who have a genetic predisposition to a disease like cancer have been refused coverage for it.
"Genetic Testing Used As Basis For Denial Of Military Disability Benefits"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80229.php
I strongly second Steve's analysis of the likely media impact.
Remember, although the NYT does have an important impact on elite opinion, one or two articles is hardly very significant. The primary role of the NYT is as a leading organ of the "meta-media", namely the generator of a cascading series of additional stories in the lesser print papers and (especially) electronic broadcasting. My guess is that such follow-through will be negligible in the case of this particular NYT article, meaning no real impact. Basically, 95% of the ignorant public get their information from TV, and if it doesn't go on TV it doesn't really exist.
As Fred's view of Connerly, I hate to shatter his illusions, but the fellow is a complete and total joke. Anyone who believes that AA has been "banned" in CA is smoking something very illegal. And last I saw, Connerly was paying himself about $1M/year from his fundraising---something like 60% of all the dollars that that wealthy conservative morons give his organization go straight into his personal bank account, a ratio so extraordinarily egregious (even by the standards of corrupt non-profits) that there's actually been some talk of prosecuting him for criminal fraud.
It seems to me that for $1M/year, conservatives could easily hire Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or maybe even both to go around denouncing AA as "vile racism." They'd certainly have much more media visibility and stature.
I am Lugash.
Off topic post here about the conflict between lending standards and NAM borrowers:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/11/that-was-then-and-this-is-now.html
I am Lugash.
Wade's book did sell alot though, what's the deal?
I agree, Steve, and I've posted my thoughts here.
Thanks, Steve, for a bit of pragmatic realism to counter-balance the self-congratulatory fever dreams of some folks over at GNXP. Even Auster was getting overly worked up over it. Newsflash: nothing significant has changed, and it seems the entire NYT article was an attempt by the left to position themselves to "spin away" any future findings - and to label as "racist discrimination" any political implications that the great unwashed may derive from such findings.
The idea that this article means that "we won" is as grotesquely absurd as that KKK chapter that closed down after Reagan's first election because "we won." Right. Did they re-open that chapter after Reagan gave amnesty to millions of nonwhite illegal aliens?
No, you "win" when you actually win, not when someone writes an article that refrains from openly and relentlessly bashing your position.
Speaking of "political implications", interesting that some people stressed Feldman's postulating the possibility of IQ differences, but, of course, they ignored:
"There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries"
In other words, specific characteristics such as IQ, we can discuss and "celebrate", but acknowledged differences in kinship, well......
Yes, the zeitgeist is powerful, but there is one critical new element: an increasing number of important persons now believe that genetics accounts for the racial gap in IQ. These beliefs are now held in secret, but it is nevertheless very important.
Agreed, Steve. A long march through the institutions is what it'll probably take.
Reasonable people (a distinct minority vastly overrepresented in HBD and race-realist circles) erroneously attribute their rationality to humanity at large.
Is there a place that lists all of the races? I'm especially interested in how people in border areas are treated. Ethiopians, Eskimos, etc. It has always seemed odd to me that people from England are considered the same race as people from Serbia. Someone must have broken down people from every region of the world by race. It seems beyond belief that it could be done just by looking at someone's skin color since that is just one genetic variant.
Post a Comment