Steve Sailer

[sport historian]

Steve Sailer is a controversial figure on this Forum. About a decade ago, Sailer wrote a piece in National Review titled, "Great Black Hopes," as I recall. Among other things, Sailer was hoping some black sports figures would run for office as Conservative Republicans. Black men have a "manly charisma," he said.Black men as conservatives was a preoccupation with Steve Sailer, but I doubt that he has it now. I haven't seen this from him lately.


I have exchanged emails with him, occasionally. Heonce told me that he hoped that "some black football coach" would run for office on the platform of immigration restriction. A few years ago, he wrote on his blog that he would like to see Dusty Baker run for the US Senate in California, even though he had no idea of Baker's political views.


I emailed Sailer that it's true that some black athletes do identify themselves as Republicans, but these men are Country Club Republicans, who are unlikely to take a strong stand on immigration. Sailer answered that I "was probably right." Sailer has, by the way, praised the qualties of the American Scots-Irish (which I am, by the way).


Still, we need all the allies we can get on the immigration restriction issue. Even if we do not agree on everything, we have to hang together. If we don't, as Benjamin Franklin said, "we shall certainly hang separately."

 

[Bart]

Steve Sailer is a controversial figure on this Forum. Black men have a "manly charisma," he said.

I honestly can't describe the incrediblesense of creepiness I felt while reading that statement.Yech! Is Sailer light in the loafers? I gotta flush my eyes with peroxide.

 

[Bronk]

National Review?

You lost me right there.

 

[jaxvid]

Sailer writes some interesting stuff. He is way off on race and athletics but at least he deals with it. Some of his other stuff is really good. His analyzing of the last presidential vote cycle was dead on.

 

[White_Savage]

Sailer writes some interesting stuff. He is way off on race and athletics but at least he deals with it.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Disproving the lie that Whites breed inferior MEN is a hell of alot more important than quoting statistics about I.Q. and crime rates. Whining, "Sure, but those blacks aren't bright and they commit crimes" IMO, does absolutely NOTHING for us, never has in all the years we've been doing it. As close to a big goose egg as you can imagine. So people with Sailer's attitude are race traitors, whether they know it or not.

 

[JD074]

I think the "brains or brawn" theory gives white racialists some solace. They see them dominating basketball, football, track, etc., and they think, "Okay, they can have that, and we'll take the geniuses, innovators, great civilizations, lower levels of crime, illegitimacy, etc." It's a trade-off for them.

So if you're right then we may be in big trouble. So what's new?!

On the other hand, we do know how dominant white people have been in terms of military conquests. Of course most whites feel guilty about this. I'm personally not a big military guy, but perhaps that's more of a problem than white people feeling that we're athletically inferior. What does it matter how high white people can run or jump if we have the military and technological prowess to outcompete other races when it matters most- in situations of life or death. I'm by no means a warmonger, but perhaps we should feel like a strong, able, mighty race for possessing the type of prowess that blacks, in particular, lack.

 

[White_Savage]

Yes, but Whites were were the most feared fighters on the planet in H2H combat long before we had much technological advantage. If anyone is a history buff, they can recall how large a Persian army the Greeks destroyed in H2H fighting. Or that every battle the Moores won in the Crusades was by superior numbers, anbd/or making the Crusaders chase them about, tiring them and their horses, while shooting arrows back at them (Which, due to European armor, were mostly innefectual against men but did kill horses.) The one thing the Middle Easterners knew to avoid at all cost was close combat with the Northerners. Later, the Spanish would conquer vast numbers of people from South America to the Fillipines. They had firearms, but by period accounts, they were mostly ineffectual, it was in H2H battle they prevailed. Sure they had an advantage in terms of steel weapons and armor and horses, but against such vast numbers nothing but superior fighting prowess can explain how they won the day. The Indians of North America actually feared close fighting with White settlers more than they feared shooting it out-though we certainly exceeded them there to. Sir Richard Burton, the Victorian adventurer and swordsman, writes of engaging spear@shield wielding Africans and other natives, both in battle and in fencing matches, and invariably defeating them.

All of which simply proves the venerable Robert E. Howard to be correct:

"Above them all stands the Aryan barbarian, cold-eyed, pale-skinned, dominant, the supreme fighting man of Earth"-REH</font>

 

[White Shogun]

Savage, do you have any references regarding H2H combat between Indians and White settlers? I'd really like to read about that if you can point me in the right direction.

One thing that might be overlooked when it comes to H2H combat is tenacity and determination. A smaller, weaker man who is more determined can destroy a larger man who lacks the will to fight.

From what I've read, observed, and experienced personally, it is (or used to be anyway) the White man's willingness to fight and take on all comers, at all costs, which made him a vicious, deadly opponent, more than sheer physical prowess.

White men will stand alone against seemingly insurmountable odds to defend such things as ideas, let alone hearth and kin. Others may need numbers, assurances, and guarantees of victory before finding courage, that courage which flees the moment the guarantee is snatched away by a man willing to give his all to destroy you.

Courage, a willingness to take pain and receive injury in order to give pain and injury in return, I believe is what made (ancient) White men the foremost warriors and conquerors on the planet.

Inherent in such courage is the belief that one is capable of such feats. It would have never entered the minds of the great white warriors of the past that they would EVER be deemed inferior to an African or an Arab, or anyone else for that matter.

I believe that this lack of belief in white man as warrior is a Western phenomena, particularly in the present day United States. I don't know any Russians personally, but I'd hazard a guess that they do not think themselves inferior to Africans, Asians, or Arabs one.

The rest of us would do well to recapture that belief before its too late.

 

[White_Savage]

True, the warrior spirit is important. But most of the people we've defeated also had warrior spirit. The Muslims, the Indians, even the Africans. The Japanese thought with their martial arts they'd easily destroy soft Americans in close combat in WWII...didn't turn out to be the case. And they certainly had fighting spirit. So the same physical prowess that lets Whites dominate 98% of all sports must signifigant.

You know, to me it's funny. You've got a very narrow set of physical advantages that allow Africans to exceed Whites in running and achieve parity in boxing. Smaller, thicker skulls debatably allow them to take more blows to the head, average longer arms give them an advantage all other things being equal, and those same smaller skulls allow African to have narrower hips, which in turn helps them outrun Whites and Asians. But admitting these particular differences would apparently be un-PC, so we've got people making up crap about fast-twitch muscle fibers and all that.

So you put one well-trained White and one well-trained black in a boxing ring under MOQ rules. History has shown the black may do very well. Or he may end up like Klitschko's opposition.

Now you put the same pair in the NHB ring...oh no! for the black guy, 90% of the time.

Now you've put them on the battlefield with anything from a club to a battle-rifle, and as history has shown, it's oh #$%@#$%! for the black guy.

It's something to think about.

 

[White Shogun]

True, the warrior spirit is important. But most of the people we've defeated also had warrior spirit. The Muslims, the Indians, even the Africans. The Japanese thought with their martial arts they'd easily destroy soft Americans in close combat in WWII...

I agree with you concerning the Japanese. Without a doubt a superb warrior culture.

The others? I'm not so sure. Can you recite the tales of any battles these men fought against insurmountable odds? Any stories like those of Thermopylae? Antietam? Normandy? Dien Bien Phu? The Alamo??? I can't think of many.

Make no mistake; I'm not saying that white warriors are not imposing physical specimens in their own right. I just feel that there is more to what has made him what he is as a warrior than sheer physical prowess. Its a combination of that prowess; along with tenacity, fierceness, the ability and willingness to absorb punishment, and dare I say it? Love of fighting for its own sake.

 

[sport historian]

Many years ago, I was reading about the Colonial wars in Africa during the 19th Century. The writer remarked on the fact that the Tribesmen couldn't stand up to a British Tommy or French Foreign Legionarre wielding rifle and bayonet.


In the movie Zulu, there is a scene illustrating this. The veteran Welsh Sergeant-Major takes his rifle through the thrust, parry textbook style and dispatches one Zulu after another. This was a real-life battle, by the way, not fiction.


Another time, I was reading about the Little Big Horn. Custer had ordered that sabers be left behind because the Indians would run when cavalry charged with sabers. Afterward, some said that this was one of Custer's mistakes. Due to the Indian horror of the "long knife," it was a threat that shouldn't have been discarded.

 

[White_Savage]

Um, how 'bout Geronimo? And Middle-Easterners are apparently willing to blow themselves up to kill enemies. So the WILL is there.

The American Indian was amazed by the White's physical strength when they came to this country. The White man was larger than the Indian, more importantly, Indians had no such heavy physical work as your average White laborer did to build their strength.

 

[White Shogun]

Savage, I think we're in agreement for the most part, but let me try to explain my idea further.

Yes, Geronimo was a great war chief, as was the Sioux chieftain Crazy Horse, Joseph of the Nez Pierce, Santana of the Kiowa, among others. But their tactics were hit and run ambushes. They didn't stand toe to toe when outnumbered and when facing overwhelming odds.

Maybe its courageous to blow yourself up with a bomb, and take out women and children while you're at it, but if these men had WARRIOR spirit instead of the spirit of the MARTYR, they would come with guns blazing into the heart of the American lines in Iraq. They would still die a martyr to their god but as an actual warrior, instead of a simple murderer. A warrior, or one with warrior spirit, doesn't blow up a bunch of unsuspecting people on a subway train enroute to work.

One can be a warrior and a martyr, but a martyr isn't always necessarily a warrior. Look no further than the Buddhist peace activists who set themselves on fire. They're willing to die but they're not WARRIORS.

Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I see a definite distinction between men who fight other men and those who will ambush children.

 

[White_Savage]

Shogun: I agree that "With your sheild or on it" is almost engraved on our DNA. But as my examples proves, balls will take you almost so far. In the world before repeating firearms, no one could have won battles against overwhelming odds repeatedly without serious physicality.

Next time you're watching a hockey game, imagine taking these guys, dressing them in some armor, giving them a spear or halberd, and some quick lessons on how to handle them. Think anyone would want to screw with them?

 

[White_Savage]

Geronimo once charged into a group of Mexican soldiers firing at him with a knife killed/wounded several.

The fanatical Moros of the Fillipines charged with blades and such fercocity that "Black Jack" Pershing introduced leather-neck guards to his men-hence the phrase "leather-neck"-and this caused the Army to re-evaluate it's choice of a .38 caliber sidearm in favor of a .45 caliber once. (Which btw, we're evaluating again-9mm is about .38 caliber, we went with it to match the rest of NATO, but now that our men are fighting fanatics in close quarters they're once again-surprise-clamoring for .45s.)

So I'm saying we don't have a monopoly on fighting fiercely, but the verdict of history is that we win the prize for fighting both fiercely and well.

 

[White Shogun]

Geronimo once charged into a group of Mexican soldiers firing at him with a knife killed/wounded several.

And that proves what?

Just kidding.

So I'm saying we don't have a monopoly on fighting fiercely, but the verdict of history is that we win the prize for fighting both fiercely and well.

See, I knew we were in agreement all along.