Source: Bigstock

One of the funnier aspects of the articles denouncing my recently restored freedom to speak in public, such as The Atlantic’s and now The Guardian’s, is that they can’t think of any good reasons why I should ever have been censored from making public appearances by threats for the entire decade of the Great Awokening, so all they can do is point and sputter at things I’ve written. But quoting me at length just gets my ideas out there.

For example, consider The Guardian’s 3000-plus-word diatribe by Portland-based, antifa-adjacent doxxing specialist Jason Wilson:

Florida university to host extremist after DeSantis-led lurch to right

Next month, New College of Florida will welcome activist and writer Steve Sailer, a “proponent of scientific racism.”

What is the world coming to when a college can invite Steve Sailer to get up on stage and cite CDC statistics on homicides and traffic fatality trends? Whatever happened to the Good Old Days of 2017 when antifa ski bums beat up a lady professor at Middlebury College for interviewing Charles Murray?…

Sailer’s invitation to speak is likely to stir controversy for his extremist views, especially on race.

I am appearing on Tuesday, Oct. 8, at New College of Florida in Sarasota (an hour south of Tampa) with professors Wilfred Reilly of Kentucky St. and Marvin Dunn of Florida International to discuss crime in the 21st century. Tickets are free but finite, so reserve ahead of time. The event starts at 6 p.m., Sarasota being an early to bed, early to rise kind of place.

My wife worried that leftist hoodlums might try to smash up the event. I reassured her that Sarasota, unlike Wilson’s Portland, doesn’t appear to be prime antifa breeding grounds. And Black Bloc thugs don’t really get their violence on until after midnight.

(As part of my Noticing anthology book tour, I will also speak on Thursday, Oct. 10, in Washington, D.C., with Amy Wax and Jack Posobiec. Buy tickets here. And I will likely be appearing in the San Francisco Bay Area in the first half of November.)

The Guardian continues:

In Sailer’s newly published anthology, Noticing, one essay claims that an “African population explosion” is related to a “primal African cult of fertility.”

In these articles about how deplorable it is that I am allowed to do a book tour, they never link to where you can buy my book, much less review it.

The usual practice is to quote me so abruptly that context is lost. E.g., if I were to ever write “Hitler was good for nothing,” I’d be quoted somewhere as saying “Hitler was good…” But The Guardian’s article is so exhaustive that it winds up quoting some of my bangers at length. For example,

In another essay collected in Noticing, “Our New Planet Is Going to Be Great!,” Sailer weaves a luridly apocalyptic narrative around the late Tanzanian president John Magufuli’s policy of promoting population growth, and claims Africans’ behavior arises from a “primal” and “primitive” nature.

No, I attributed the rapid population growth in parts of sub-Saharan Africa to nurture, not nature, and called for the world to help Africans socially construct a more environmentally and economically sustainable culture:

Sailer writes: “Many African leaders continue in thrall to the primal African cult of fertility. Sub-Saharan Africa has traditionally had such high death rates that the culture compensates by trying at all costs to maximize birth.”

Sailer adds: “We need elites with the courage to make clear to African politicians like Magufuli that their cultural backwardness will not be allowed to swamp the rest of the world. I suspect that many Africans would respond favorably to a Western crusade for more sustainable African fertility levels.”

He then claims that “contemporary white culture’s worship of blacks as holy will keep us from criticizing Africans for their more primitive traits, such as their fertility obsession, and instead indulge them by letting them dispatch their surplus population to our lands.”

Indeed.

Or, there’s this:

Many [essays] offer variations on the claim that “Blacks have higher average levels of violent crime and lower average levels of intelligence.”

Of course, that’s not a “claim,” it’s an “observation” of what are probably the two most thoroughly documented findings in American social science.

In an essay in Noticing called “America’s Black Male Problem,” he wrote: “Lately, we’ve declared that all empirical evidence of bad behavior by blacks must be proof of white malevolence. Not surprisingly, this cultural collapse is inducing blacks to behave even worse.”

In one part of his email response, Sailer condensed these claims into a comment on recent history: “It’s impossible to blame the African American homicide problem wholly on genetic differences because there was a huge explosion in the black-on-black murder rate in the days following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, when America’s progressive establishment declared it was time for the ‘racial reckoning’ and prudent police retreated to the donut shop.”

In the same Noticing essay, he wrote: “I’ve been arguing since the 1990s that blacks average more masculinity than other races. This has its upsides where maleness is a plus, such as blacks playing more on Super Bowl-winning teams. But it also has its downsides, such as blacks committing more felonies.”

In his email response, he repeated this claim: “Masculinity is very good for some things (eg, playing cornerback in the NFL) and not as good for other things (eg, avoiding engaging in violent crime).”

By the way, this fall has seen the first white NFL player, Riley Moss of the Denver Broncos, to regularly start at cornerback since 2003.

Or:

In a panel discussion at anti-immigrant VDare’s conference this year, which was also framed by Sailer as a promotional event for Noticing, he first claimed that “the Democrats and their allies in the media” unite their diverse coalition “by having them all resent and demonize the core Americans,” meaning white people.

In his email response, he made a similar claim, but added a claim resembling the “great replacement” conspiracy theory and a sideswipe at LGBTQ+ people.

“The Grand Strategy of the Democratic Party is to be the Party of Diversity and thus to profit from America’s increasing diversity, such as by promoting DEI affirmative action for blacks, amnesty and more open borders to increase the number of Democratic-leaning Hispanics and Asians, and sponsoring new forms of identity such as the transgender frenzy of the last decade,” he said.

Don’t forget, kids, when nice people like Tim Walz praise the Democrats for doing these things, they are telling the truth. But when nasty people like Steve Sailer point out that Democrats are doing this, it’s just some lunatic conspiracy theory.

Or:

In an essay in Noticing, Sailer asserts a ranking of races by intelligence:

“Ashkenazi (European) Jews appear to average the highest—maybe around 110–112—followed by Northeast Asians (105), and then by gentile white Europeans and North Americans (100). The world mean is around 90, Hispanic-Americans are at 89. African-Americans traditionally average around 85 and Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa around 70.”

You can’t get much more white supremacist than to “assert” that Ashkenazis are the smartest on average, followed by Northeast Asians.

In the seventeen years since I wrote that, there has been much more research. See, for example, the World Bank’s database ranking 174 countries by school achievement test scores. But, researchers keep on replicating the same patterns.

But that’s not The Guardian’s appreciation of this century’s scientific findings. Instead, its Science Denialists have fallen increasingly into ignorance.