PS: ""Sailer had never really liked Trump at all."

Come to think of it --- I've read so much of Sailer's output over many years, but I don't recall him stating directly that he liked any active politician"

Yes, good point. I think he likes to stay out of the fray - that type of fray, that is. However, that said, Trump was YUGE hope for all of us anti-invasion patriots starting in 15. VDare covered Trump's actions and lacks thereof and promises and everything immigration related, and this issue is one of iSteve's biggest too (or at least was?*)

It's not like Mr. Sailer doesn't get personal. He'll ridicule the hell out of his fodder folks at the NY Times, Atlantic what have you, as in many times the same ones. (I remember he real hates Max Boot, for good reasons, though he might never say "hate". Naaaaah, I mean, not hate, but he should read some of my posts, and then he'll get it. He's a smart guy...." (Like that, right?)

Why not have put some encouragement for his readers as times on some good moves by Trump on the invasion? I think he doesn't like Trump because Trump is a blabbermouth boor. Yes, he is, but if he gets the job done... well, that's another argument.


* He still brings it up, as here in the interview, and he include it in his book, but I don't recall his writing of many posts about it on TUR - not sure about his new substack site.



I'll have to get your other comment later on or tomorrow, Mr. Hail. Thanks for the conversation. I'd like to hear here more about the interview itself. (Maybe nobody wants to read those 8 posts?)

PS

"Sailer had never really liked Trump at all."

Come to think of it --- I've read so much of Sailer's output over many years, but I don't recall him stating directly that he liked any active politician.

That would be another interviewer tactic: Demand that Sailer name his favorite politicians of his lifetime or of the past forty years or so; and why they're his favorites. Questions like that. Demand specifics and then follow-up.

It's the kind of question Sailer often demands of people he is criticizing (academic writers who refuse to give examples of their theories). "The House Committee on Un-American Activities led to a fall in progressive movies and a rise in right-wing movies," says a Chinese academic. What's a progressive movie? Examples!

PS

Another approach to blogging about the Sailer-Tucker interview would be to "interrogate" Tucker and the persona Tucker takes on for these interviews. In other words, I don't believe Tucker is being his natural self. He is playing a part. "NOt that there's anything wrong with that"-- every interview will do so. But what exactly is Tucker doing? What is Tucker's game?

I have seen enough of Tucker over his career, including some faded memories from his "bow-tie" era of the 2000s (when he was an pro-Iraq-Attaq guy), that I think I recognize some of his instincts in public presentation.

It's fair to say Tucker is a good interviewer, "good at what he does." But personally I'd prefer if he took a more active role at times. including challenging friendly guests; or putting up his own ideas and asking the guest to tear those ideas down, something like that. Tucker's interview strategy seems rather to usually be to be the setter-upper of tees and placer of golf-balls on those tees, then with a laugh and a guffaw or two, urging the guest to "tee off." Is this too critical of Tucker's role?

PS

The good thing about the auto-transcript, even for all its potential problems, is it gives a first draft, making a manual "clean up" all the easier.

I am thinking there are probably ten or fifteen blog-posts that could be based entirely around specific sections made in the Tucker-Sailer interview (like the "Asian SAT score rise" question).

Another reason it would work well is that Sailer usually avoids taking direct positions and frames things as mysteries, and at most might make some sarcastic remarks about them ("no one could possibly funnel test-answers across a full OCEAN to Asia"). The good thing about this, from a blogger's perspective, is it the setting up the pins for others to knock down.

Another good one would be where he mentions Jared Taylor, as Tucker feigns shock that no one has ever successfully set up a White advocacy group (ever since the collapse of David Duke's European-American Unity and Rights Organization, EURO; or the doomed-from-the-start thing someone tried in the 1980s to set up an "NAAWP").

PS: Mr. Hail to comment on your 4 points:

(1) I did answer that below. I was sticking with Tucker version on his site with the video there too. They align there. What I didn't explain before is I assumed the whole thing wouldn't stay on youtube (glad it has, so far), and the TC site requires a small payment to watch most of the videos. (Not by any means all of them, though.)

(2) Yes, I agree. I scanned parts of it, but did not read it while first viewing the whole thing - would have been annoying to me), so I didn't know about the missing stuff. Yeah, the jumpy stuff is not fun, but I could live with that. Too bad there are parts missing.

(2a) I put up with a lot. If I had no way of hearing the interview, I'd probably go through this... lacking a better one.

(3) I guess more of the same. Is the software just not good enough to do this? I guess not. AI, maybe, using the images somehow? I don't think it could. Yes, so again, Tucker's team would have had to go through this slowly. Maybe it takes about 10-20 times as long to get it straight than the real talk time does. Still, OK, 20-40 hours. Break it up for 4 people, and it'll be done. He does have the money for this.


BTW, I just used my phone's stopwatch and read it all. It was in the low 20's of seconds. (Not giving too much precision due to the way I did it by myself.)

PS: Yes, reading is much quicker. However, this was enjoyable enough such that if you had the time, I'd have said watch it. THAT said, the only reason I put this transcript up is because (in addition to that I'd promised to) is that I don't think all readers will have access to the full thing.

I see it IS on youtube right now. The 1st I see is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6wjy53o3r8

If that stays, well, I'm sorry I bothered. That WAS a waste of my time.

I got the text off of Tucker's site, thinking it would be accurate. I thank you for working on those 2-3 minutes to make it sound right and not as poetry of some sort, as you say. However, Mr. Hail, I couldn't do the whole 1 hour 58 minutes.

I'll get to your 4 points in a further comment.

PS

Some transcript technical discussion and an adaptation of the "Rising SAT scores by 'Asians' mystery" portion of the Sailer-Tucker interview.

_______________

Steve Sailer [01:37:02] I mean, we know there's a lot of cheating in Asia itself.

Steve Sailer [01:37:05] On the S.A.T.. We don't.

Tucker [01:37:08] Think people bring their bad habits when they come here, do you?

Steve Sailer [01:37:12] Yeah. I mean.

Steve Sailer [01:37:13] I mean, nobody can possibly communicate across the Pacific Ocean. It's thousands of miles wide. How could anybody text message what was on the test?

______________

.

Some transcript's problems I see:

(1.) The timestamps don't align to the Youtube version, owing to the Youtube version's introductory material.

(2.) The text we get is divided into arbitrary time-bites, which cut across thoughts/sentences. It seems it's created directly for "closed-captioning" purposes and not as a readable, book-style transcript. (Printed interviews should always be adapted for the printed page. If this were an earlier era and there were a TUCKER CARLSON magazine, any editor he'd hire would have the foresight and soundness of judgement to hire good people to create smoothed-over, readable transcripts.

(2a.) The transcript here, cut off by line as mentioned, ends up reading like a kind of poetry oftentimes. An interesting experience, but not ideal for comprehension.

(3.) The auto-transcript also doesn't clean up grammatical stumbling. It is easy to parse what a man is saying when he does false starts and verbal ellipses, from certain cues we all recognize from lifetimes of listening to people talk. But none of these cues are present with the printed word. (See point-2).

Here's how I'd revise the "Asian SAT score mystery" part:

__________
__________

(from Youtube version, 1:37:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6wjy53o3r8

SAILER: I don't know whether the rise in Asian SAT scores is completely legitimate, whether they really HAVE just been getting so much smarter than everyone else...

TUCKER: Could there be other reasons?

SAILER: We KNOW there's a lot of cheating in Asia itself, on the SAT...

TUCKER: I don't think people bring their bad habits when they come here, do you?

SAILER: Yeah, I mean, nobody can POSSIBLY communicate across the Pacific Ocean. It's thousands of miles wide! (wryly) How could anybody text message what was on the test? -- Or just the enormous amount of 'Tiger Mother' prep that Asians brought with them, from their two-thousand-year-old tradition of taking tests to become mandarins; of doing enormous amount of test-prep, for years. There are also possible technical reasons... They keep doing things like "let's rid of analogies! That'll be fairer!" But it winfs up just benefitting Asians most of all.

TUCKER: Why?

SAILER: When they had analogies, it was harder to memorize. Test-prep didn't work as well. It took a certain amount of creativity and insight in the brain -- But the University of California DEMANDED getting rid of analogies about twenty years ago. So the College Board said, "Yeah, sure! You're our biggest customer. We'll do what you want." And then things just got worse after that.

TUCLER: But there HAS been a noticeable, relative rise in Asian SAT scores.

SAILER: Huge. Since the year 2000. I think we should have a blue-ribbon commission to look into what's going on, exactly, with the SAT.

(end of my adaptation of the transcript; Youtube-version time-mark: 1:39:50)

____________
____________

Sailer talks a little more about the late-2010s/early-2020s trend of "dropping the SAT requirement" (a subject often discussed on his blog ever since an long-gone regular who had a blog named Unsilenced Science brought it up in the early 2010s). The "SAT score mystery" and Asian cheating/gaming-of-Western-institutions portion of the interview takes up about 5% of the total length.

My adaptation of the transcript, I believe, is more readable than the auto-version. It's 250 words so can be read in 40 to 60 seconds. Or skimmed for main content in around 20 seconds.

Watching the video version, the run-time for this portion is 2 minutes, 30 seconds. Unless paying quite close attention, you may miss points that even someone skimming will catch in a good transcript version. (It's remarkable how much more efficient the written word is than the spoken, but there are lots of people out there convinced that they don't like reading but do like listening!)

PS: I know that J.D. Vance is much more visible now, but I'd take MTG or the like over him. Would he be good as a leader of the whole MAGA movement? I don't know. Being head of the movement is something that Trump is almost uniquely good at. He can't live forever though... we now know that.

PS: Demotic is just fine with me too, Mr. Blanc.

Yeah, as long as they're onto what's being done to us and know what the solution is, I don't care if they have a few wayward "Jewish space laser" theories in their heads or don't clean up like Jared Taylor. You don't have to be that highly educated to know what's going on. In fact, too much probably hurts.

I remember now I meant to write in this post something else, but it was already too long. That is, yeah, you got a problem with MTG? Any missteps she makes are not on the level of your Hank Johnsons'. (Remember the video about Guam tipping over. It's on here somewhere - I'll find it upon request.)

PS As the upper economic and educational echelons of the white population are now overwhelmingly Leftist, if the Repubs become more populist—as they have done under Mr Trump—it’s as certain as things are in this life that the presentation of the party will become more demotic. The pendulum might swing back a bit if Mr Vance becomes head of the Trump movement, but it’s pretty clear that a lot of Trump voters really like Mr Trump’s style. I just wish that his actions were in greater accord with his style.