Early in life, Vance had his father's and then step-father's surnames of Bowman and Hamel. I suppose they would be too-obvious aliases once he got a Wikipedia page.
I don't know of any who used their mother's maiden names, as Vance does.
The maternal-line-surname inheritance choice is another break with tradition and continuity we see in the biography of Vance.
Few cultures (certainly not the West) have a system in which a male inherits his mother's "family names" and keeps it through life as his own primary surname.
Charles Windsor would like a word. It's happened in other English noble or moneyed families. When Diana hit the big time, the Dukes of Marlborough resurrected and hyphenated their male-line Spencer surname with the Churchill they'd used for two centuries.
"So instead, I merely tend to knock off around dawn when it’s long past time to go to bed."
Steve, I figured you were a night owl because I often check X for your posts when I sit down with a cup of coffee after I wake up around 4:15AM EST. If I comment on one of your posts at that time of the morning, I've "noticed" that you're often likely to either "like" or respond fairly soon thereafter. I figured most people are still asleep in the wee hours, but you always seemed to be active on X during that time. Enjoyed the article.
Steve, in my own life I have seen a big change in myself - as someone who has always felt naturally "liberal" - there's something profound and satisfying about, well, finally admitting to yourself that most of what you "notice" about the world is in fact true, despite what we hear to the contrary.
This will sound a bit cliche, but in my early twenties, I read Ayn Rand for the first time. It occurred to me while reading your piece why Ayn Rand remains so popular. It's not that Objectivism is unassailable as a philosophy or that her books are particularly well-written (they're much better than she's given credit for, overall) - it's that she was a noticer; a gateway to being a noticer yourself. In pointing out the perils of Collectivism (as she called it), and the various moochers and poor incentives of the modern welfare state to the simple fact that some people contribute immensely to society and others do not - she gives us, the readers, permission to finally acknowledge to ourselves what we intuitively see about the world. If there's such a thing as being "red pilled" that was it for me. It was confirmation that all those little doubts and critiques of the mainstream narrative that I kept to myself were not moral failings, but simply reality poking through the veil of bullshit. I was not crazy - the world was, and that's at least somewhat comforting. The narrative remains the same, so Rand remains popular as one of those "gateways" to allowing yourself to believe your own eyes.
Noticing average cognitive differences between different groups doesn't need to lead to different outcomes for individuals in a society. In fact, such noticing can lead to a more equitable world.
Utterly reasonable article, but this part is the key to understanding why you were banished from the in-crowd for so long:
"Yet, ultimately, I believe that the truth is better for us than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking."
I don't think that's a common sentiment, despite what people say. If it were, there would be Steve Sailers all over the place, but there aren't.
People flee from the truth all the time. The intelligent do so as much as and possibly more than average folks (they are better at deception after all).
Truth is not generally seen as liberating, but rather as an obstacle to be overcome, or at least avoided for as long as possible. It is resented, feared, shunned and often assaulted.
In this world the truth is a leper, a pariah, an outcast. Also an intolerable burden that weighs men down with guilt, a monstrous apparition that causes the worst of nightmares, and a constant reminder of our failures, frailties and limits.
If we could do away with the truth we would. Just think of how many times we've tried.
But, but we NEED Assistant Reichsfurher for Domestic Policy Sailer!😉
Early in life, Vance had his father's and then step-father's surnames of Bowman and Hamel. I suppose they would be too-obvious aliases once he got a Wikipedia page.
Several recent Presidents had multiple surnames at different points in their lives: Obama, Clinton, and Ford.
Newt Gingrich and Nancy Davis Reagan also took their step-fathers' surnames.
I don't know of any who used their mother's maiden names, as Vance does.
The maternal-line-surname inheritance choice is another break with tradition and continuity we see in the biography of Vance.
Few cultures (certainly not the West) have a system in which a male inherits his mother's "family names" and keeps it through life as his own primary surname.
Charles Windsor would like a word. It's happened in other English noble or moneyed families. When Diana hit the big time, the Dukes of Marlborough resurrected and hyphenated their male-line Spencer surname with the Churchill they'd used for two centuries.
"What if noticing became widespread?" Noticing tells you that that is not going to happen.
"So instead, I merely tend to knock off around dawn when it’s long past time to go to bed."
Steve, I figured you were a night owl because I often check X for your posts when I sit down with a cup of coffee after I wake up around 4:15AM EST. If I comment on one of your posts at that time of the morning, I've "noticed" that you're often likely to either "like" or respond fairly soon thereafter. I figured most people are still asleep in the wee hours, but you always seemed to be active on X during that time. Enjoyed the article.
Steve, in my own life I have seen a big change in myself - as someone who has always felt naturally "liberal" - there's something profound and satisfying about, well, finally admitting to yourself that most of what you "notice" about the world is in fact true, despite what we hear to the contrary.
This will sound a bit cliche, but in my early twenties, I read Ayn Rand for the first time. It occurred to me while reading your piece why Ayn Rand remains so popular. It's not that Objectivism is unassailable as a philosophy or that her books are particularly well-written (they're much better than she's given credit for, overall) - it's that she was a noticer; a gateway to being a noticer yourself. In pointing out the perils of Collectivism (as she called it), and the various moochers and poor incentives of the modern welfare state to the simple fact that some people contribute immensely to society and others do not - she gives us, the readers, permission to finally acknowledge to ourselves what we intuitively see about the world. If there's such a thing as being "red pilled" that was it for me. It was confirmation that all those little doubts and critiques of the mainstream narrative that I kept to myself were not moral failings, but simply reality poking through the veil of bullshit. I was not crazy - the world was, and that's at least somewhat comforting. The narrative remains the same, so Rand remains popular as one of those "gateways" to allowing yourself to believe your own eyes.
Fun article over at Taki and directly applicable to today’s Secret Service controversy…
Noticing average cognitive differences between different groups doesn't need to lead to different outcomes for individuals in a society. In fact, such noticing can lead to a more equitable world.
https://ydydy.substack.com/p/each-individual-a-king
Utterly reasonable article, but this part is the key to understanding why you were banished from the in-crowd for so long:
"Yet, ultimately, I believe that the truth is better for us than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking."
I don't think that's a common sentiment, despite what people say. If it were, there would be Steve Sailers all over the place, but there aren't.
People flee from the truth all the time. The intelligent do so as much as and possibly more than average folks (they are better at deception after all).
Truth is not generally seen as liberating, but rather as an obstacle to be overcome, or at least avoided for as long as possible. It is resented, feared, shunned and often assaulted.
In this world the truth is a leper, a pariah, an outcast. Also an intolerable burden that weighs men down with guilt, a monstrous apparition that causes the worst of nightmares, and a constant reminder of our failures, frailties and limits.
If we could do away with the truth we would. Just think of how many times we've tried.