Saturday, August 29, 2015

Jack and Rand went up the Hill

A cuck what now?
When Donald Trump announced his 2016 presidential bid, Rand Paul was a serious Republican contender, enjoying over 8% of the support among primary voters, placing him somewhere between third and fifth in a field of fifteen.

Among GOP contenders, Trump's unapologetic political incorrectness contrasted most glaringly with Rand Paul's big tent ethnomasochism. It spilled out in the Fox News debate, as Rand Paul was the only candidate to really go for Trump's jugular (the rest of the field was content to let Fox do it for them). Trump humiliated Paul for his trouble.
Okay, you got me.

So it's instructive--and encouraging--to see that just as Trump swatted Paul down in the debate, Trump's ascendancy has been coupled with Paul's descent into irrelevance. Paul is now bumping along the seabed at 2%-3% support even though he has been campaigning for the presidency since the day after the 2012 elections:



The data are taken from Politico's moving average so that graph is a lagging indicator by several days. The latest Quinnipiac poll had Paul at 2%. He's toast.

When I mentioned this on one of Jack Hunter's facebook posts that consisted of complaining about racist support for Trump, he deleted the comment and unfriended me. Jack used to be a fairly prominent member of the dissident right and my relationship with him was a holdover from that time. I had been happy to engage with him and try to provide intellectual counsel to him where I could until his pathetic about face a couple of years ago in 2013 after it was 'publicly' revealed that he had written the unthinkable, including "Americans aren't wrong to deplore the millions of Hispanics coming here" because "a non-white majority America would simply cease to be America" and sympathizing with John Wilkes Booth. Inexcusable!

Prostrating himself in front of the Establishment he had rapidly began fancying himself a part of, his mea culpa included this gem: "I'm not a racist, I just played one on the radio".

Like Paul, Jack embodies the opposite of everything that makes the Trump phenomenon so captivating. Guys like John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow have paid heavy prices for their intellectual and moral fortitude, a price far too high for a guy like Jack to endure. 

Trump's continued success, coupled with a recent Rasmussen poll showing that 71% of the public thinks that "political correctness is a problem in America today"--and while the cross tabs are pay gated, presumably that figure is even higher among non-Hispanic whites--provides some justification in being cautiously optimistic that things have reached a breaking point and that a real, widespread push back against cultural Marxism is occurring.

Not a moment too soon, and hopefully not a moment too late.


$25 million per mile

Citizens of the world like to point out, with heads shaking, the public's ignorance of what percentage of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. Kaiser found a mean estimate of 26%. The actual figure is about 1% (curiously, this reaction is not elicited when it comes to overestimates in the populations of blacks, Jews, gays, or Hispanics). In 2012, that 1% came to about $48.5 billion.

Here's a modest populist proposal for the Trump campaign--or for one of the other GOP wet noodles who want to show they are still alive and kicking. Scrap foreign aid. All of it. Divert that spending to the barrier. That annual outlay of $48.5 billion comes to $24.8 million per mile, or $4,700 per foot. And it would be recurring. Think $25 million a year is enough to maintain a single mile of wall? The US wouldn't have to outsource the work to Mexico with that kind of funding. I bet Trump could get it done ahead of schedule and under budget.

Instead of giving money to other sovereign nations, spend it on securing our own sovereignty instead. I'd vote for that.


Tuesday, August 25, 2015

A Tale of Two Men

One, an alpha male fit for leadership, demonstrating an innate ability to assert control of a situation:



The other, pusillanimity personified, only too ready and willing to capitulate at the feet of the screeching rabble:



Saturday, August 22, 2015

Trump's good genes

See right at 13 minutes in (the ad wall keeps me from sharing at exactly that point):



A little HBD realism in a successful businessman is hardly surprising. Hell, it's probably a prerequisite. But the refusal to treat acknowledging as much as the worst thing in the world is, like just about everything else with Trump's campaign, a breath of fresh air.

I suspect we won't get the disastrous educational romanticism of No Child Left Behind with a Trump presidency, anyway.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Clannishness by ancestry

See Ed West (via the chickadee), on the English not being a very family-oriented people in contrast with Middle Easterners and North Africans on the family-oriented other end of the spectrum and Mediterranean peoples somewhere in between. He subsequently considers the advantages societies with weak family connections enjoy. I'm not sure from the excerpt if he discusses the disadvantages such societies face, like pathological altruism and low fertility rates.

Turns out the GSS has a potentially relevant question from 2002 in which respondents were asked how often they'd been in contact with a cousin in the past four weeks.

Excluding those who did not have any living cousins, I created a simple index of extended family closeness (EFC), by self-reported ethnicity, by giving 2 points for the percentages of respondents who had been in contact with a cousin more than twice in over the last four weeks, 1 point for the percentages who had been in contact once or twice over the same period of time, and no points for the percentages who had no contact with a cousin. Thus the higher the score, the closer the extended family (clannish) ties tend to be. Because the question was only asked in a single iteration of the survey, sample sizes by ethnicity are pretty small. Only responses for ethnicities with at least 25 respondents are included here. The data are suggestive, not statistically significant, so make of them what you will:

EthnicityEFC
African117.1
American Indian94.9
"American" only88.8
Mexican79.0
Italian62.4
Irish58.8
English/Welsh58.7
German56.5
French48.2
Scottish37.4

Given the small sample sizes and inherent imprecision of self-described ethnicity, these results pass the smell test. Excepting those of Scottish descent--maybe these are all low-landers!--the rank ordering is pretty close to what I would've expected it to be. Additionally, I'd have guessed the English/Welsh and French rankings would be flipped and that "Americans" would have come in between Italians and Irish. Many of those who self-identify as "American" are what we might also refer to as "Scotch-Irish" [edit: Only 39% are white while 52% are black and 3% are Hispanic, so the black element is far more explanatory than the potential Scotch-Irish element here, thanks M], so if we plug them roughly into the Irish and Scottish figures, the table has even more stereotypical validity.

GSS variables used: COUSINS(1-3), ETHNIC(1,8,10,11,14,15,17,24,30,97)