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

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Nearly three times as many Californians would move to Canada as would move to flyover America

SurveyUSA is one of my favorite polling organizations because of the unique questions it poses. A few weeks ago a representative survey of 1,100 Californians statewide was commissioned. Respondents were presented with a hypothetical--if they could retain their current job and salary, would they be willing to move to selected other places if it meant their cost of living would be cut in half? The results:

- 12% would move to Nebraska
- 12% would move to Indiana
- 18% would move to Mississippi
- 31% would move to Canada
- 36% would move to Nevada
- 43% would move to Oregon

Parenthetically, the respondents were asked about each place separately, not which one of the six they'd prefer. One-in-five respondents pretty consistently said they were unsure. A plurality said they'd move to Oregon.

The blue bedfellow state is the most popular destination, followed by the blueish-purple Nevada, then Canada, and then finally the red states.

Canada ahead of Mississippi, Nebraska, and Indiana? Even with the residency requirements to contend with? It doesn't get much more middle American than Nebraska or Indiana. The weather obviously isn't driving these responses--it's the politics and the culture. Why are California and Indiana under the jurisdiction of the same national government, again?

Time for the political dissolution of these disunited states. Californians have more affinity for Canadians than they do for Hoosiers--and the feelings are probably mutual.

But won't there be war between the states/regions if they separate?

Highly unlikely. Far more probable is that tomorrow the relationship between the country of California and the country of the American Midlands will be comparable to that of the US and Canada today. And tomorrow California may have a modestly better relationship with Canada than the US does today while Indiana may have a modestly worse one. Big deal.

Parenthetically, the new invaders Americans who have colonized California aren't going anywhere. The survey asked respondents to pick from seven statements the one best describing themselves, ranging from "I am in the process of relocating to another state" on the emigration end of the spectrum to "I will never, ever leave California" on the staying put side of things.

Percentages of respondents, by race, why said they were "never, ever" leaving:

California Dreaming is a thing new Americans do and Old Stock Americans don't. The golden state is gone.

Monday, June 11, 2018

A tale of two phrases

Steve Sailer is surprised to find the phrase "Jewish privilege" mentioned in the New York Times, itself a salient manifestation of Jewish privilege (my editorial comment, emphatically not Steve's).

In a presumed attempt to humiliate gentiles, the rarity is brought up by a Jewish writer who brazenly acts as though it's a phrase gentiles toss around nonchalantly all the time even though xi (the writer's first name is "Taffy") knows full well that if a gentile of any stature ever accidentally uttered the phrase that he would be figuratively crucified as a result.

Over the last ten years, the newspaper has included the phrase "Jewish privilege" twice. Once in the recent article Steve linked to and once back in 2010, in an article entitled "An Israeli Finds New Meanings in a Nazi Film". Here's where the phrase appears in that 2010 piece:
Whether cringing at the sight of naked men and women being forced at gunpoint into a ritual bath, or contemptuously dismissing the Nazis’ efforts to highlight Jewish privilege (“My mother wore her beautiful coat, and sometimes a hat. So what?”), the survivors seem to speak for those who cannot.
Nope, no gentiles talking about Jewish privilege there, either. Except for you-know-who, of course. You're not a nazi, are you? So subtle!

While the disproportionately Jewish New York Times rarely writes about Jewish privilege--and only does so in the context of framing the idea as one-part risible and two-parts evil--it writes about "white privilege" with regularity. Some 206 times over the last decade, to be precise.

Taking a cue from the article excerpted above, here's a subtle graphic comparing the frequencies of appearance by phrase in the paper over the preceding decade:

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Centrists find politics boring, wish it would go away

Steve Sailer:
Centrists aren’t typically well-informed people who understand fully the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments of the left and the right. Centrists aren’t normally Mickey Kaus writing a ten-part debate with himself over whether to vote for Gore or Bush in 2000 (he eventually decided upon Gore).

Instead, centrists are more often people who find politics boring and annoying and wish it would just go away.
The GSS permits a testing of that assertion. The following graph shows political interest by self-described ideology. The survey 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 = 5,091):

Steve's assessment is spot on.

Relatedly, moderates tend to be less intelligent than liberals or conservatives. Dumbest of all are self-described conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, probably because many of them are just randomly selecting designations due to ignorance and a fear of being recognized for that ignorance.

GSS variables used: POLVIEWS, POLINT