Steve Sailer likes to point out people who borrow his material, without crediting him for it, as members of the steve-o-sphere. Maybe it is the steve-o-verse. I can’t recall, but the point is he has a lot of influence on the public debate, despite being banned from the public debate. As a purveyor of crime-think, I suspect Sailer has some influence on anyone trying to write sensible things about the events of the day.
I’ve started to notice my shadow growing as this blog gets more traffic. I don’t spend much time looking at the numbers or who is on line. I do notice when people link to me. The software lets you know when someone links to you. I get an e-mail and a link to the referring site. If I click on it, the site doing the linking will know that’s how I came to their site.
That’s relevant because I get to see who is linking to me, but also if anyone notices if I linked to them. The other day I linked to the British History Podcast in this post about the Eloi. Jamie Jeffers, the narrator of the podcast, uses WordPress for his site and must have got a notice that I linked to him. I saw soon after that someone referred from his site was reading my blog. A few days later he posted this episode, a rant about how girls are just as butch as boys, even in the middle ages.
In subsequent episodes, he has banged the drum about how biology, sex and ethnicity are just illusions. I’ve listened to every episode and this is the first time he has lurched into cultural Marxism. I may be guilty of hubris, but I suspect the revelation that a crime thinker like me is a fan of his podcast must have been traumatizing. His reaction was to triple down on the right-think.
I still enjoy the podcast. The episode on “gender” was a bit silly so I skipped through much of it. Otherwise, it is an excellent podcast and a fun way to survey the history of Britain. The point I’m making is that influence is not always predictable. Those deeply invested in right-think are emotionally bound to it. When they bump into crime-thinkers like me, their natural reaction is to huddle closer to their coreligionists, spiritually if not physically.
Amusing. But, a little reflection tells me that he knows very well that innocence is no defense against the Academy, because he’s a member.
I love the interwebs. I get to read incredibly insightful articles as well as some incredibly inane articles but I love that I get to read them all. For the life of me I can’t understand how educated, intelligent people can believe in the Academy output. It is as if intellectual blinders have been put on and fingers placed in ears while yelling na na na na I can’t hear you. What is it with this phenomenon? How do people like Krugman, Ezra Klein, Sharpton Hayes, Maddow, Mathews etc., even get a podium to pontificate from? They get proven wrong all the time but still keep spouting and getting paid for it. I am bewildered. Honestly, I rarely read something spewed from the Academy that even makes sense. Are we collectively going crazy?
A lot of those on the right tend to deny race-based HBD, they just don’t want to be lumped in with those types of people. too risky