Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Camp of the Squatemalans

Most of the 2012 invaders were "unaccompanied minors". Most female invaders, including children, coming through Mexico are sexually assaulted along the way. Many of the adults with the children aren't the real parents of the children. Incarceration requires family separation. Concern for Tommy Robinson's children? For the carcasses of raped and mutilated Afrikaner toddlers?

No novel observations there. Using the opposition's principles against it is standard operating procedure, literally right out of the Alinsky playbook. In a generation or two, if we're still around, we'll be whispering to each other how we should've shot the invaders on sight just as our European brethren will be whispering to each other how the migrant vessels should've been sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean.

President Trump--or as I suspect in this case, Stephen Miller (heaven preserve him)--is a formidable tactician himself. When news of the executive order reuniting families broke, I assumed another hard cucking. Instead, Trump boxed the anti-whites in. The EO doesn't instruct the resurrection of catch-and-release. It allows the children to accompany their scofflaw putative parents in detention centers, nice detention centers run by HHS.

The anti-whites are pissed because the EO provides Trump with great optics without relenting on the actual "zero tolerance" (I know, I know, but it's not nothing). It's obvious the anti-whites don't give a damn about the child-invaders. They want the borders wide open, but even they can't quite say that yet, so they went the family-separation route assuming the results would be the same. Nope. They were outplayed on the invasion front by the Trump administration again.

On the topic of invasion, the American Bar Association is a festering den of thieves and robbers. From the ABA's head harpy and "social activist":


"appears to violate longstanding precedent protecting rights to family integrity"--ie, this has no constitutional basis, but black robes have through the magic of case law allowed us to call it illegal because we're allowed to do that with anything and everything we want to do it with.

Still on the topic, here's a man made of the stuff the West needs to survive:


Dispense with the "undocumented migrants" phraseology. Kobach doesn't even use the cucky "illegal immigrants". He uses the based and legally descriptive term "illegal aliens" instead.

Fellow Kansans--and readers who know Kansans--are urged to support this great man in the GOP gubernatorial primary on August 7th. Here's his twatter cover photo:


A pretty wife who stayed pretty after bringing five lovely children into the world. And is that a retriever on the left? Looks like we know Kobach is good on the pit bull question, too.

Compare Kobach's photo to Paul Ryan's:


All the rafter ties in the world aren't enough to visit justice on these miscreants determined to destroy ourselves and our posterity.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

To preserve and protect White European heritage

Mom and baby have spent a lot of time sleeping in this hospital cell over the last couple of days so dad has correspondingly had a lot time to scroll through Reuters-Ipsos polling looking for interesting queries. The interactive site doesn't organize polls chronologically but instead puts them into categories and sub-categories of which there are around 100. As a consequence, many slip past me unnoticed when they're first released.

The following is based on one such poll from last year. Searching the archives to make sure I hadn't previously covered it reveals that an anonymous commenter did point to it a couple months ago but I failed to take notice then. Better late than never.

Unless you'd like the blog to lay off the 2% already, that is. The subsequent graph shows the percentages of R-I respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who agreed with the assertion that "America must protect and preserve its White European heritage" (N = 4,024; the response "neither agree nor disagree", comprising 29% of all responses, is excluded):


There were only 104 Jews included in the survey, so there's a lifeline if you're looking for one. Given that Hispanics, Asians, and even blacks appear to express less hostility towards European heritage than Jews do, you probably are!

The distance between white Democrats and white independents on the one hand and the closeness of white independents and white Republicans on the other is a white pill of sorts. Anti-white sentiment among whites isn't a natural predisposition, it's an ideological one. When it comes to explicit hostility towards Heritage America, there is the non-left and then there is the left.

A civilization that fails to protect and preserve the legacy of its ancestors will fail to protect and preserve the future for its descendants.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Asian and Amerindian electoral inertia

Steve Sailer has a long-running gag about the Latino Electoral Tidal Wave failing to ever hit shore. Hispanic (and Asian) turnout rates among eligible voters have been and continue to be reliably lower than white and black rates are.

That's because the invaders New Americans aren't that interested in politics. Those on the losing side of the previous invasion aren't much interested, either. One reason blacks still loom disproportionately large in the minds of elites at the expense of other non-whites is because blacks are a lot more culturally salient than other non-whites are. Electoral behavior is part of that.

The following graph shows political interest by race. The GSS asked respondents about their personal level of interest in politics with five potential responses ranging from "not at all interested" on the low end to "very interested" on the high end. Inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension, the higher the score, the greater the interest (N = 2,730):


This isn't attributable to a large share of the browns and yellows being ineligible to vote on account of being non-citizens. Both foreign-born Hispanics and foreign-born Asians actually express modestly greater interest in politics than their native-born counterparts do!

Attributing greater interest to higher intelligence doesn't fit. Yes, Jews are on top, but whites come in ahead of Asians while blacks come in ahead of Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians despite having lower average IQ than any of them.

A loquacity-taciturn gradient fits better, with blacks and Jews expressing more interest while Amerindians and Asians express less.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), POLINT

Friday, June 15, 2018

Islam's clean bill of mental health

The following graph shows the percentages of GSS respondents, by religious affiliation, who have report having experienced poor mental health ("stress, depression, and problems with emotions") in the last thirty days (N = 7,088):


Funny that Buddhists--practitioners of a philosophy which is kind of like Stoicism but without an engagement in worldly affairs--appear to have the worst mental health of all. What are they stressing out about? Hey, nobody said achieving nirvana was easy!

We may think the exploding Muhammads are crazy. They're not. They have a more determined sense of purpose than we do.

Was the impetus to investigate this question my suspicion that Jewish neuroticism would starkly manifest itself? You can't prove anything! Anyway, that's not what this reveals.

Women tend to have poorer mental health than men. That holds all religious affiliations here. The sex disparity among Jews is stark, though. The following graph shows the difference between men and women by affiliation (percentage of men experiencing poor mental health subtracted from the percentage of women experiencing poor mental health):


While 66% of Jewish women experience poor mental health, just 36% of Jewish men do. The Jewish sample size is only 170, so maybe the gender divide is attributable to that. Maybe.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30), RELIG(1,2,3,4,6,9), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), SEX