All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 9, 2024 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
52:10
SPECIAL EVENT: Steve Sailer and Amy Wax with Jack Posobiec in Washington DC

Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the show

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
Christ is king!
We're all buying the book, we're all sleeping on the pillow, right?
I want to make sure everyone's good.
Apparently I've got to get Steve a new pillow because he's staying up all night working on his writings and certainly not arguing with anyone on Twitter, right Steve?
Yeah, Will Stancil and I have a new pillow.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's give it up for Will Stancil, shall we?
We love you, bro.
We love you so much.
You've got less than four months.
And also, I'd like to thank you to the earned media advertising from Jason Wilson of The Guardian.
Wow, what a nod.
I'm thinking about putting him on the cover of my next book, but Amy, so Lómez, Jonathan, whatever his real name is, had mentioned this debacle that you've been involved in at UPenn, the sanctioning that's going on against you very recent.
I was wondering if you could, for those in the room who aren't familiar with it, could kind of give you a reaction to all of this that has erupted in your public and, I assume, in your private personal life as well.
Well, it's a long and sad and sordid story, and it's been going on for many years now.
It started a while back when I dared to, in an abed, marry an activist, kind of boring abed, dare to praise bourgeois virtues.
Stuff like thrift, which most of my students think has to do with urine, and trustworthiness, and obedience to law, and taking responsibility, working hard.
That shouldn't be controversial, but somehow it was.
And then dared to say that not all cultures are alike, not all cultures are equal in preparing people to function in our modern, technological, western, weird societies.
And that got people even angrier.
And then the coup de grace was, I dared to praise the 1950s.
When I was alive, although small at the time, as in many ways, not always of course, and we acknowledge that in our op-ed, I had a co-author, was a better time for America.
Put it all together and there was outrage in my school, outrage on campus, people complaining bitterly about me.
The hatchet didn't fall at that point, but I started to be trolled.
There are a lot of people on campus who don't have enough to do.
And what they spend their time doing is digging dirt on individuals like me who dare to challenge the orthodoxy on campus.
And it didn't take long before some of my other offending statements were unearthed.
Things that I had said in My podcast with Glenn Lowry and the like, what I had said at the National Conservatism Convention, my immigration restrictionist views, my observations about differences not unexpected under affirmative action between black student performance and other groups' performance, my general observations.
All of that added up to my dean, who was maybe the worst law dean in the entire country, a guy named Ted Ruger, bringing charges against me.
Those charges were heard by a faculty committee.
I had lots and lots of due process.
Take my word for it.
None of it meaningful at all.
Resulted in my being sanctioned a few months ago, finally, after many appeals.
A year-long suspension, they picked my pocket.
Other recommendations like, you need to move this woman out of the building because she makes students feel unsafe, stuff like that.
And what is it all about at the end of the day?
Well, it's all about the woke takeover of our elite college campuses.
The takeover of an ideology which brooks no dissent, The centerpiece of which is what I call the bias narrative.
And, you know, they accuse the right of being obsessed with race.
Well, the left is totally obsessed with race, which of course, according to them, doesn't exist.
So they're obsessed with something that they themselves don't think exists, which really is a scrambler.
And the bias narrative is that all differences in outcomes, disadvantages between groups, racial groups, ethnic groups, other groups, they're all due to white supremacy, white racism, white bias and discrimination.
It's all the fault of white people and no other explanation is permitted.
Certainly no explanation grounded in human freedom, human agency, behavior, and choices that people make, which is what, of course, makes us human and gives us dignity.
And if you challenge that narrative, you sooner or later will get into trouble.
What happened to me is not about me, primarily, because if you look on the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, so-called FIRE, a wonderful organization, You will see that there are literally hundreds of academics,
and now non-academics, people working for corporations, nonprofits, journalists, other organizations, who are being persecuted, penalized, and punished for deviating from this very narrow, rigid And as Steve Saylor would say, noticing.
Noticing what is in front of their eyes.
Noticing things in the world around them.
And offering possible alternative explanations for it.
Explanations that have important public policy implications.
Implications that we of course can discuss and argue over and we should.
And it's sad and a shame that those thoughts, those ideas, can no longer be expressed in our great universities.
I guess I'll close this discourse and I know people will have comments and questions by saying that in my perception and I have really looked into this and thought about it quite a bit because of my experience which as I say isn't really about me it's about other people and our institutions our education system is a It's a horrible mess.
It needs serious reform.
So I guess I would say, let's focus on that.
Let's get our politicians to focus on it, because nothing could be more important.
What's at stake is young minds who are the future of our nation.
And now I'm gonna say something very partisan, so be forewarned.
The Democrats will never ever reform or improve our education system.
They will only make it worse.
That is their project.
I'm sorry to have to report and they've dropped the ball and you know, I'd like to see them do better.
The Republicans are our only hope.
So there it is.
They have no spine.
We know this.
We know they have no spine.
Conservatism is nothing.
It stopped nothing.
Okay, well, we'll discuss this.
- Somebody tell me!
What would we do?
There's nothing out of this class.
Tell me what the answer is. - So the, didn't realize we had got to the Q&A yet, but here we are.
But that's alright.
That's alright.
We don't mind.
We don't mind.
He's noticing something.
We're noticing things as well.
And so the question, I'll repeat this for the stream, because Lómez was saying that he wanted to cut off the question.
So the question was, essentially, the statement, what do we do?
Because if the Republicans are our only hope, he was saying that we are then doomed.
Well, first of all, it's a vicious circle because the education system has, you know, distorted people's minds and perceptions, and that's across the political spectrum.
I readily admit that.
So that's disabled them from reforming the education system, so how do we break into that?
I just think, yeah, people need to develop some spine, be more courageous, be less selfish, excuse my language, strap on some balls, and men need to speak up because They're the ones who've let this happen.
They've allowed these noble lies to take over.
There is one glimmer of hope.
I probably won't please this audience by saying this, but I will say that I was kind of partial during the early primaries to Ron DeSantis because he at least took this seriously.
He at least...
Knows what time it is about education and he tried to make some headway against the woke takeover, the horrible distortions and lies and misrepresentations that are poisoning our education system.
Obviously, his success has been very mixed, and there are legal limits to what you can do, at least at the higher ed level.
It's a big challenge because our K-12 system, which is where all the trouble starts, is decentralized, it's localized, and conservatives generally do favor that.
That's called devolution.
But it means, to quote Oscar Wilde, that to reform the system takes too many evenings because you have to go school district by school district.
So it's a battle for hearts and minds.
I don't have a magical solution.
Well, let me sort of go to Steve, then, and similar ask a question, but maybe in a nonpartisan way, that, you know, your book starts with, I think the first essay is 1973, which, of course, you wrote when you were in first grade.
And then you go on to, you mentioned you started writing publicly in the 90s, and you mentioned that you've won a lot of the arguments since then.
You look around the room, and I'll just say for the purposes of the stream, we have several thousand people that are here tonight.
And have you begun to see...
Have you begun to notice that these issues are gaining more traction and gaining more following and more purchase than they did when you first started?
Yeah, it's a tough question.
I mean, in part...
When I started writing regularly in the 90s, I wrote one paragraph letter to the editor in 1973 when I was 14.
I put that in my book to extend the span to 50 years because it pretty much just summed up what I was going to say for the next 50 years.
I'm not that original.
All right, so in the 90s, You had an upsurge in political correctness at the beginning of the decade, and it was pretty similar to woke periods, but it was more restricted to campus.
What we're seeing now, what we've seen over the last A dozen years of the great awokening is kind of the people who were students on campus taking the dumbest courses in 1990, now becoming the professors on campus.
And there's just General Benedict.
An overall dumbing down of American discourse.
Now, in some ways, 2020 pushed it too far.
And, you know, we've seen the Biden administration, it seemed like sometime in about Mid-2022, they started putting out the word to the media, like, oh, you know, this whole racial reckoning thing that we've been talking about nonstop for two years, that's not going to do us any good in the midterm elections.
And so you've seen a general backing off of that.
But on the other hand, Is this a widespread, permanent change in the zeitgeist?
To some extent, the fact that I'm now allowed out in public has more to do with a few brave individuals, like my publisher, Lomaz, Anna, from the Red Scare podcast, quite a few of you all out here.
In the audience.
So a lot of it's just individuals standing up for honesty and being interesting.
So I don't know where it's going to go next.
We'll see.
Well, I'll throw that to Amy then.
And by the way, I'm sure the dumbing down and the courses that you were just speaking of, those weren't any of Amy's students, right?
Yes, I'm old enough to have noticed a great deal of dumbing down over many decades.
There was something that Steve mentioned going through 2020 that, and I remember you mentioned this, I've heard you mention it publicly as well, this notion that I think he's speaking around of peak woke.
Are we at peak woke?
Are we starting to see peak woke?
Is peak woke real?
What's your sense of this?
I think we are at peak woke, but I don't see it declining.
I actually think, this is the pessimist in me, of course, that the fact that they're letting Steve Saylor out in public is just a sign that we all love and are very glad of, is a sign that they realize that they've pretty much taken over the commanding heights of the culture, and they've You know, got control of all the big institutions.
They've got a lock on them, and so they can afford to, you know, ease up a little bit.
I mean, just recently, the Obama administration, with their obsession with equity, threw out a firefighter's exam because too many black people flunked it, and too many white people passed it.
I mean, they are continuing to do this sort of thing Full throttle, and as long as they are in power, they will push the equity agenda to the max.
Now, there is one tiny little hopeful sign, I think, which is that Harris, in her campaigning, has really soft-pedaled a lot of these racial agenda, transgender agenda, equity issues, tries to keep them out of the limelight, Of course, that's just gaslighting to the max because if and when she's elected, they're all going to come roaring back.
But the fact that it's being soft-pedaled, pushed off stage, I think represents a fear, anyway, that people are kind of fed up with woke.
Once again, they're just trying to get these marginal voters who are clueless about what the Democrats are doing and what they really intend to do.
A lot of it is just sneakiness.
They're being sneaky about their woke agenda, which they're working on across the board and across all of the institutions.
So, we'll see.
And of course they're using the alpha male vitality and masculinity of Tim Walls to really cover up the deficiencies.
What?
What's everyone laughing about?
Actually, speaking of Tim Walls, that leads me to my next question for Steve, because there was a question or sort of a comment that Tim Walls made as an aside.
At his recent vice presidential debate with JD Vance, which JD Vance won handily in New York.
JD Vance.
Where they were talking about the question of crime, and they were talking about the question of shootings, specifically public shootings, and he mentioned that his teenage son had witnessed a shooting, I think it was at either a YMCA or a gym, and then he also mentioned that Tim Walz, apparently, we know about these 30 trips to China that he's taken, but he's also spent a lot of time, I didn't realize this until then, in Finland.
And Tim Walz posed a question, Why don't we see these types of things in Finland?
And the moderators didn't seem to have any answers, so I was wondering, well, if we've got the detective of demographics right here, why don't I ask Steve Saylor the same question?
Yeah, I mean...
I put forward about five years ago the Saylor law of mass shootings because...
It turns out that there's two different kinds and they're both really bad and I'm against both of them and wish we could like to see more done to lower the numbers of both but typically If there are more dead than wounded in a mass shooting,
then the shooter is Probably white or increasingly Latino, Asian, transgender.
These are the Columbine type mass shootings and they're just horrible.
We didn't have them a half century ago.
We had lots of political assassinations then.
Then for some reason the political assassinations went away and we got the school shootings and so forth.
Of course those are back now, too.
Yeah, so now we've got the worst of both worlds.
On the other hand, say there are four casualties in a mass shooting and they're more wounded than dead, then it's probably a black-on-black incident.
The New York Times in 2016 looked at a year's worth of four or more casualty mass shootings and reported, yeah, it's about almost 75% Black on black.
And it's just a different thing.
It's basically whether the shooter wants to get away.
Are they going to stick around and finish off the wounded while they can hear the sirens approaching?
Or are they just going to shoot in the general direction of some guy who dissed them and then run for it?
So, yeah, there's two different kinds like that, and they're both really bad, and there's probably things we can do about both of them.
The issues...
I'd also recommend the distinction to be made in thinking about gun control between two types of gun control.
One is point-of-purchase gun control, and the Democrats tend to focus on that because they're...
They're basically really concerned about deplorable rednecks buying rifles at Walmart, and that's what they want to stomp on.
The other is point of use gun control.
The NYPD did a great job, starting in the 90s, of driving down the murder rate in New York City by enforcing laws Against people carrying illegal handguns on the street or in their cars.
And, you know, there's a lot we can all learn from what New York politicians like Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Braddon, the police chief under both Giuliani and de Blasio, accomplished.
It's a great thing.
But it involves drawing distinctions and really paying attention to what's going on.
So, thanks.
That's exactly right.
I wish that for those of you who live or work in D.C. right now, I think we can all agree that we would love to see some of those policies returned here to the district.
Or even Amy, as you're working still in Philadelphia.
Good.
Yes, right.
Well, let me go back to the question of why, you know, people don't get shot at high rates in Finland.
It's because Finnish people live there.
Oh, by the way, just for the record, I did actually look up, I found the case that Tim Walls was talking about, and Steve was correct.
It was a black-on-black shooting.
Right, so what that teaches you is that ethnocultural differences are real and they have relevance for how people behave and this is a home truth that academics refuse to recognize.
This is a noble lie that they tell people and I think they really start to believe it contrary to All the evidence in front of their eyes.
It also proves that guns don't kill people.
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and they don't see a lot of gun-based homicides.
The third point I want to make is, you know, law and order has become a dirty phrase, and it shouldn't be.
Without law and order, there is no security, there is no harmony, there is no civilization and no decent society.
I've said on a recent podcast, the Democrats are the shoplifting party.
They've decided to revoke the commandment, thou shalt not steal.
I mean, that's crazy.
That's just nuts.
That tells you that they no longer respect the integrity and security of property, something that the founders were deeply concerned with, that the takers would take from the makers, that the Democratic mob would confiscate people's hard-earned money, hard-earned property, and of course that is happening.
We see the results.
We see the disorder that results from that.
Yeah, just to digress and kind of reminisce for a moment, I first visited Union Station here in DC in 1988, and it had just undergone a vast revamping,
and I can recall walking around it and going, wow, this is pretty great here, and it would be nice if American urban life could have nice things downtown like it used to and, you know, before World War II and then we let it all kind of slip away.
And yeah, actually things in many ways did get better and, you know, urban life became somewhat better in the U.S. around the turn of the century and well into this century.
And that's great.
Now, you know, starting a decade ago or so, we decided, oh, well, that was all a mistake to try to have more law and order in the cities to enforce the law, and we'll just let things...
Get out of control again, like we had, you know, in the 60s and 70s and 80s.
And, you know, we did it and, you know, we're kind of on the knife edge of throwing away all the gains over the course of my lifetime in terms of city living.
But there's a lot to be said for the kind of things we built in this country a long time ago and the kind of urban bourgeois lifestyle that's kind of exemplified by Union Station.
Can I say one more thing about this?
This goes to the theme of noticing.
It is so sad in cities like D.C. and Philly, which is where I live, that young people, the 20-somethings and the 30-somethings, go past the squalor and the disorder and the menace in the city and just sort of willfully fail to notice it or talk about it.
It's considered unfashionable and unhip to say, this is disgusting, this is dangerous, why do we have to live this way, why can't we have nice things?
You just don't do that.
And I think, once again, that goes back to the education system.
They teach you, you're not supposed to talk about it.
You know, it's funny because I'm also from Philadelphia originally, and I've talked about this at a recent event with Tucker, and I've just talked about how my town was destroyed by crime, about how it was destroyed by policy, how Philadelphia was destroyed, and then...
So my wife, Tanya Tay, is here in the row there, and so she...
Oh, go ahead.
And so she is coming from Eastern Europe, and so...
She didn't have the education system that exists here where you're taught to not notice.
And I find this very interesting, and also, Steve, with your book, that noticing, as it turns out, is something that's just sort of normal for the rest of the world.
And in fact, it's in the West where we are actually taught to not notice.
And so she came to the U.S. with none of these preconceived notions about how things would be, and other than, you know, watching movies and things about how the United States would be, And then has seen in that time that Yes, these things are getting disgusting, these conditions are getting deplorable, and someone ought to do something about it.
And I think that's kind of the reason that we're all actually here tonight.
And personally, I'll just say, Steve, I think this is the reason that your writings have been picked up, because people have taken a look at this and say, we don't know if this is all the solutions right here, but this seems like a roadmap forward to putting together what you've written, and Amy, what you've taught about for all this time, To be able to get out of the situation that we're in and hopefully somewhere better.
Can we give it up for Steve and Amy here?
I'm kind of thinking, okay, so where's, so we promised Q&A and I'm not sure exactly the logistics for that yet.
We're going to have a floating microphone at some point.
You could also try single combat, just fight it out amongst yourselves, and then the winner would be able to ask the question.
Or maybe just Catherine could do it, I don't know.
Just do hands, just do hands.
Professor, if that's okay. - Let's go, Sam, let's go.
I think it's on.
Yeah.
So I'm Sam.
I'm from Australia, which is a bit unusual.
My question's actually for kind of all three of you, because we've talked a lot about noticing.
That's the theme of the evening.
If you wake up tomorrow and there's a magic wand on your pillow...
And you get to make the entire mainstream media, the entire country, the entire world, notice something.
And I'd like to hear from all three of you.
What would that one thing be that you make them notice?
Because, just to give a bit of context for the question, sorry, I'm not going to monologue for long.
But you've talked about the problem with not noticing is that these are people's lives that are worse off.
There are real consequences to not noticing.
So, you get one thing.
What is it?
Well, I'm happy to start.
Noble lies are still lies.
Right?
The truth shall set you free and You need to seek the truth as painful as it is, as inconvenient as it is, and as unfortunate.
John Derbyshire, who's one of my favorite people and a hero to me, Once said to me, he was channeling A.E. Hausmann, the poet.
A.E. Hausmann said, the love of truth is the faintest of human passions.
And I think that's right.
I mean, I have always, from girlhood, burned with the passion to know the truth and to face reality.
I realize we see through a glass darkly.
We're in Plato's cave.
We do occasionally, through great effort and fortitude, glimpse the truth, perceive the truth, and we have to value that.
We have to value it more as a culture than we do and prioritize it more, and I think we've lost that.
So we need to get it back.
Yeah, I'd add...
Basically, we have a prejudice against stereotypes.
There's a widespread assumption among the college educated that anything that's become a stereotype can't possibly be true.
The truth has to be the opposite of what everybody in the world has noticed.
And that's just extraordinarily self-destructive.
I think that's a fantastic answer.
I guess one thing that I would say just and we were talking about the current state of cities right now and major cities is We don't have to live this way.
We can actually choose, as Amy was saying and we discussed, that we can choose policies that bring us up of this.
We don't have to leave Union Station right now and be accosted by criminals and have to look at tent cities and have to worry if, you know, like, I didn't bring my children here tonight because I didn't know what was going to happen.
Also, they'd probably be kind of bored by watching me sit on stage.
But at the same time, when I've been to places, and Amy, you and I were talking earlier about visiting Eastern Europe and visiting Poland, they don't live like this over there.
There are actually other ways to live, and it's perfectly fine to live in countries that are controlled by law and order, And where your neighbors are people who speak the same language as you and have the same culture as you and aren't strangers, and that's perfectly fine.
And as a matter of fact, it's actually one of the most common and ancient things on the planet.
And to have high expectations and enforce those expectations.
I know.
We're all familiar with what IQ means.
I'd ask, I guess, what are you...
Would you say it's better to have a...
Would it be better to have a low IQ now or 100 years ago?
And if so, why is that?
Yeah, that's a really good question.
It's a tough one.
In general, society was better at giving guidance for the left half of the bell curve in the past and tended to be highly restrictive of the right half.
For example, When I go back and read early 20th century social history, a huge issue was, should Bertrand Russell be allowed to trade in his wife every decade or so for a new one?
And the general view of society was that, well, no, of course not.
Think about what everybody else's life would be like.
And Russell's view was, you know, I'm an aristocrat, I have 180 IQ, I have a lot of money, I can afford this, we can work it all out.
So, in a lot of ways, the 1960s, the Cultural Revolution of the West in the 1960s was sort of smart liberation.
That smart people got to do more things that they wanted to do, and it tended to work out pretty well for the smart people.
Worked out less well for the not-so-smart people.
That's not too surprising.
Was the trade-off a good idea or a bad idea?
It's tough to say.
But let's just keep this in mind, you know, and how do we, you know, is there a way to have both?
I don't really know.
Yeah, I just, I agree with Stephen, but I would add a perception, which is I do think that with the rise of the meritocracy and a very complex technological society, There is a premium, more of a premium now, to having a high IQ than I think there was in the past, for sure.
And that's, you know, an unfortunate fact that we have to learn to live with.
But it doesn't follow from that that people of average ability or even below average ability, that those people can't live fulfilling, dignified lives.
We have, the elites, have given up on the norms and the guideposts and, you know, the sort of limits, prescriptive limits that help people of unhigh ability Guide their lives and live good, fulfilling lives.
The expectations, the rules and the norms, which people at the bottom end of the spectrum need, as Stephen said, much more than the people who are privileged with high intellect.
They've sort of figured it out for themselves, frankly.
They've remade up the rules.
of how to live a good life, you know, get married, stay married, raise your kids, get an education, obey the law, all of that.
They've recapitulated the norms, the bourgeois norms.
So we absolutely have to not give up on people across the spectrum.
I tell my students only 20% of people can be in the top 20%.
Think about that.
And I think a lot of good policies come from taking that seriously.
I'll just add that having been in the Navy and in the military, so anyone who's been in any branch of the military, you'll know that on the enlisted end, you have something called the Armed Services Vocational Battery, so the ASVAP, and this essentially is a sort of entrance exam, very similar to an IQ exam, where when you go in, you initially take it, everyone takes the same test, and then there's a sorting.
So in the Army, you would call it an In my Navy, we call it a rate.
And, you know, if you want to be a nuclear engineer or an intelligence analyst, you're sort of at one end.
And then there's other jobs at the other end.
Once you get on the ship, you're still on the same ship, and you're still, in some cases, making the same money, which is because the military is socialist, but that's a different thing.
And by the way, I'm talking about how the military should work.
But then everyone is still basically taken care of after that point, and there's still camaraderie, and there's still a lot of unity within the rank, a lot of a spirit of core.
So just because a person has a different...
By the way, for example, if you're in the military, It's a really good idea to make friends with the cooks, because if you are friends with the cooks, you, number one, get to the front of the line, and number two, they will make you food whenever you want.
So you don't have to go to the galley at normal times.
So again, it's...
Yeah, the galley, or the chow hall, the DFAC for my army buddies out there.
There you go.
And so it's kind of like Steve was saying earlier, that...
Just because we know the truth, it doesn't mean it's some catastrophe, and it doesn't really mean...
Honestly, it's not even something that I think about or ever thought about when I was in the military.
It was just you treat people the same regardless of what their station was.
Now, of course, the rank would be different.
However, we do have the DEI military now, which I don't know if anyone has seen the story.
Amy, you'd probably appreciate this one.
I guess the New Zealand Navy has just lost their first ship for the first time since World War II because the first lesbian captain has crashed it into an island off the coast of New Zealand.
And the entire $100 million ship has sunk.
So there you go.
My name is Alan.
Thank you for your remarks so far.
I have a question about the education system.
I think it's readily apparent to everybody that we're in a state of rot.
I think the first question is, how did we get here?
But I think a better question is, is the education system rescuable?
Is there a path for redemption, or is it broken beyond repair?
If it's broken beyond repair, how do we rebuild?
And if it's not, if there's a path for redemption, what does that look like?
What is a winning policy path to get our education system back?
I don't know.
I don't have a definitive answer for that.
I think there are a lot of workarounds that people are developing.
Even, you know, normies, even ordinary people who are not terribly right or left, parents are becoming disillusioned and they are Establishing their own private schools, engaging in homeschooling, pods, various mechanisms to avoid sending their children to government schools because they are beginning to see that they are rotten.
So I think the first step is to publicize and impress upon the populace how bad these schools are.
And it's not just the, you know, The racial propaganda, the woke propaganda that they're getting.
It's also the sexualization of the curriculum in the schools, which alarms a very broad spectrum of parents.
That needs to be much better publicized.
I look to those of you who are on the internet to do that.
It's also simple things like not teaching phonics when it is so very clear that that is the way that reading should be taught.
Not forcing students to memorize their timetables, not doing the fundamentals that children need to learn.
I have been going around giving talks about how we I call myself the radical reactionary, go back to my elementary school, Troy, New York, 1960.
That would be a great model.
And we need more organizations like Moms for Liberty who are going into schools and saying, you know, we want our parental rights back.
We want a much sharper delineation between school responsibility and parental responsibility.
So I think there's potentially broad appeal in a lot of these messages, and it's a propaganda war.
That's where it has to start.
We're going to do two more questions, so...
I saw this quiz.
How about it?
All right, Steve Saylor.
God bless him.
All right, here's a quick quiz.
And Steve, you can jump on whatever you want.
I'm sure you know all the answers.
Long ago, John Derbyshire called Steve the smartest blank I know.
The smartest what I know.
Does anyone know this?
The smartest what I know.
No one knows this.
Wow.
Steve, do you know?
Very Anglo.
It is very Anglo.
Git.
G-I-T. Yeah, exactly.
Git.
Exactly.
Good job, Steve.
So Steve's leading right now.
I have 24 more questions.
Okay.
All right.
Steve coined the term regarding the rabble rousing done by autogynophiliacs.
What was the term he called it?
World War...
What?
T. Bang.
Nand it.
Good.
All right.
So you're tied with Steve right now for the lead.
All right.
Is Steve a fan of LeBron James?
Why or why not?
Is Steve a fan of LeBron James?
Yes, you.
We'll give him full credit, Steve?
Alright, very good.
You do get full credit.
One more question, last one.
So, what he was saying was, LeBron James, God bless him, didn't have a dad, grew up, did the best he could, best basketball player in the world, and guess what?
With his wife from high school, God bless him.
Alright, last question.
Alright, what is Saylor's first law of female journalism?
Come on!
Come on!
Sailor's first law of female journalism.
Come on.
The laws, come the revolution, the laws will be written to...
Yeah, exactly.
You got it.
Steve, very good.
Thank you.
My first law of female journalism is that Come the new age, society's values will be overturned to make this particular female journalist be hotter.
Hey guys, my name is James.
Thank you for this and your comments on the education system.
I'm a former teacher, that's the reason I started reading Steve.
And my question is actually just more general about education for noticing.
In general, I'm sure we have plenty of friends that don't necessarily fall within the spectrum of observation.
And having these conversations can sometimes be, I guess, a little difficult.
In terms of spreading that kind of knowledge, do you have any recommendations for how to approach that?
I mean, is it blunt?
Do you kind of lead into it?
I was just kind of curious about spreading this further than it's already going.
Yeah, I'm probably the last person to ask about how to get ideas across in a socially acceptable way because I've been remarkably unsuccessful at people going, oh, that's a reasonable idea, Steve.
For some reason, the way I tend to put things, tends to drive people crazy.
So I would recommend that there must be somebody else out there who has a better approach than what I've displayed over the decades.
Steve, let me perhaps just rephrase that a little bit.
Have you noticed, are there any type of, you know, gateway drugs, any type of topics that you have found that people are more comfortable talking about in bringing some of this up?
Maybe not crime, maybe not auto-fatalities, testing, something like that.
Is there anything out there?
Well, and certainly sports.
You've used sports, you know, quite extensively.
Yeah, I've used sports...
You know, enough to bore everybody silly who's not interested in sports.
Have I succeeded at that?
I don't know.
I always thought the sports angle would be just a slam dunk, but no, the world seems to get along pretty well without acknowledging, like, oh, okay, yeah, we watch this on TV, and yeah, that is how it works, and yeah, you know...
87 of the last 88 finalists in the men's 100-meter dash have been at least half Sub-Saharan African by ancestry.
Oh, that seems to be a pattern.
So, I don't know at this point.
I'm probably not going to come up with major breakthroughs in my old age.
If anything, the rest of the world has to change.
I'm too old to change.
Alright.
Alright, well I think we're gonna, it looks like we're just about time to close up.
I didn't know if there were any closing statements that you'd like to give, Amy or Steve?
No, I just want to say that I've been a fan and a follower of Steve Saylor for a very long time.
And I will also say that I know a lot of academics have told me behind closed doors, we read Steve Saylor, just don't tell anybody.
Thank you.
So you have quite a following.
Steve Saylor, the man who's the most widely read and yet least cited.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being a wonderful audience.
Please make sure to donate to Amy's GoFundMe.
Make sure you get the books.
Make sure you check out Lomez.
▲
Export Selection