Wednesday, November 14, 2018

New York Magazine contemplates secession--the time for political dissolution draws nearer

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Advocating it a decade ago was met with mockery even from many of those on the dissident right. No longer. A few years ago, Pat Buchanan began talking about it. Now it's entering mainstream discourse. From New York Magazine (via IHTG):

Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same.
There is no longer any racial, religious, moral, cultural, political, linguistic, or ethnic unity in the US as it is currently defined. The last remaining bond holding the thing together, beyond inertia, is economic expediency. It's why talk of dissolution will begin in interest once the impending economic downturn hits. The Federal Reserve, with rates already under three percent, will be unable to stave it off.

It is as a nationalist that I support political dissolution. A nation requires a shared sense of the aforementioned characteristics. As currently constituted, the United States shares none of these things. It is not a nation. It is an empire comprised of several disparate nations inside of it. The empire must fall for those nations to flourish.

When the US dollar loses its status as the world's reserve currency, it will become obvious that not only are the federal government's debts unpayable--which just about everyone already assumes to be the case--but that they are no longer even serviceable. Running away from the Imperial Capital's obligations will start to sound appealing. Gubernatorial campaigns will put secession at the center of the platform and the breakup will begin.

The NYMag article takes a fairly predictable stab at what dissolution might look like, at least initially, but it would be excessively audacious to pretend to know precisely how it will play out. It may be municipalities that get the ball rolling, it may be a single state, a compact of states, an entire region, or it may manifest in some other way.

However it begins, once it has it will not take long for the cascade to occur. Imagine a Texit that includes Oklahoma and Arkansas. Rather than prevent the exit, leftists will be cheering--Congress, the presidency, and the making of the Supreme Court will forever be under Democrat control. Remaining red state America will presented with a stark choice--effectively forfeit all political power indefinitely, or bail. Many other states will follow Texas' lead and choose the latter.

Initially, the emergent states will be based on preexisting political and geographical arrangements but over time the realignment will take on distinct racial and ethnic characteristics. Savvy red states will drastically slash welfare benefits while encouraging, even aiding, low-income residents (read blacks) in relocating to Blue America where benefits are more generous. SWPLs won't stop migrants from truly foreign lands moving in now, so they're certainly not going to stop former American blacks and browns from moving in tomorrow.

The conjecture on what potentially follows dissolution is just that. Political dissolution sounds scarier than it should. That there will be any support for militarily stopping a state or compact of states from seceding is highly unlikely. The federal government could hardly get away with snuffing out the Branch Davidian complex a generation ago. In the Current Year there is no stomach for scaling that up by a factor of ten thousand. The Soviet Union's disintegration was not bloody and neither will that of the United States.

As for the concern that an emergent smaller new country or countries will be susceptible to invasion, there is no invasion of Mexico, Canada, or Cuba on the table today and those countries don't even have nukes. Let Montana purchase a few nuclear warheads and its risk of invasion will be nil.

When the topic comes up in conversation and people ask what will change from the way things are now, I answer that the money withheld from their paychecks each week for federal income taxes will no longer be withheld and whatever services the federal government provides them--if they can think of any, because I can't!--will no longer be provided to them.

The reason we're whipped into a frenzy each time a putative federal government shutdown looms ahead of a debt ceiling 'crisis' is because the Cloud People don't want the Dirt People to realize how superfluous said Cloud People are. Furlough a couple million federal government employees and nothing happens? Why didn't we scrub these parasites off sooner?

Last Spring I put together a couple of posts based on a Reuters-Ipsos poll from 2014 asking respondents whether or not they supported "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government". Unbeknownst to me at the time but subsequently brought to my attention by a pro-secession Faceborg group, R-I picked the poll back up a couple of years later, running it through Trump's inauguration in January of 2017.

As a consequence, we now have a sample size of 37,465 to work with--more than twice as large as the one initially used. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected demographics, who support peaceful secession. "Don't know" responses, constituting one-fifth of all responses, are excluded:


That the military is a bastion of pro-secessionist sentiment doesn't bode particularly well for the idea that the federal government will successfully instruct the army to turn its guns on states or compacts electing to leave the union.

Political dissolution is most strongly supported by the young and by non-whites. Boomers are strongly opposed, but from Xers on down it's hardly a radical idea. In other words, it is the country's future.

Political dissolution is a decidedly non-partisan issue. More than one-quarter of Republicans and of Democrats, and nearly one-third of independents are supportive of the idea. As support grows across the political spectrum, the possibility of a relatively amicable breakup will grow with it. Acrimony--let alone bloodshed--will be unnecessary and should be avoided. A soft landing is preferable to crashing into the mountainside for all on board.

Monday, November 12, 2018

2018 midterms continued

A few more observations from the 2018 midterms:

- We hear a lot about the educational divide. Democrats are increasingly winning the college-educated while Republicans are increasingly winning those without college degrees.

That's descriptive when it comes to whites (including Jews). It's not so with non-whites, though:


- While higher educational attainment is inversely correlated with voting Republican among whites, higher income remains positively correlated with it.

Today's archetypal Republican is the master plumber who owns twenty work trucks. The archetypal Democrat is the barista at Starbucks with a PhD in women's studies. The master plumber's doctor and the his employees fall somewhere in between.

- Sixteen nations, under no god, divisible, with liberty and justice for none. These disUnited States of moribund America:


Ignore the crazy talk about political dissolution on the horizon. What do you mean people living in America don't agree on anything? They agree on this, that the country is becoming more and more divided by the day! Really, nothing to worry about. Just fifty million more Africans, fifty million more Latin Americans, fifty million more Asians, fifty million more Muslims and everything will be perfectly fine!

- Relatedly, the decline of the moderate (full exit polling data was unavailable for 2002 and appears to be incomplete for 2010 as well):

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Saboteurs, by accident or by intention

VDare carried the previous post containing some reactions to the 2018 congressional midterms, highlighting the finding that the vast majority of Democrats think it important that fewer whites and fewer men be elected to public office:


An NPC, putatively sympathetic to VDare's mission, immediately and publicly cried foul:


He was of course blatantly incorrect. The exit poll contains the question. Rather than apologize and exit stage left with his tail between his legs after being corrected on his sloppy ignorance, he spouted more ignorance:


The exit poll shows party vote distribution by answer to the question. I simply flipped this to show the answer distribution by party vote. To get the 75.1% figure, the first blue column in the chart, I took .41*.87*18778, finding 6,698 respondents to have been Democrat voters who say whites are favored over minorities in the US. Then I took .19*.12*18778 to get 428 Democrat voters who say minorities are favored and .33*.29*18778 to get 1,797 Democrat voters saying neither are favored. Finally, I divided 6,698 by the total Democrat voter exit poll sample, 6698+428+1797, to get .751 or 75.1%.

Having settled this, another ostensible ally revealed himself to be a charlatan by continuing with the public concern troll sabotaging. Though he did so in a series of tweets, he subsequently turned it into a convenient little post of his own, gathering it into one place to be refuted:
1. The chart has no source.

2. The author falsely claimed that he always gives sources. Actually he had to be asked the source on Twitter because he hadn't given it. The source is these CNN exit polls.

3. To get the chart, the author did math on the CNN exit poll data. He did not show his work.

4. I checked what math he did by asking him on Twitter, since he didn't document it. His math was wrong. Where he got 75.1%, the correct answer was 75%. He added an extra significant figure to exaggerate how good his data was. He admitted I was right, but thought the matter deserved the comment "lol" rather than saying e.g. "My mistake, I will fix it."
1. and 2.: It's provided in the body of the post. In the interest of readers' time, I don't link to the same source multiple times in the course of a single post since I know there are some readers who click on all the hyperlinks provided. I've been doing this for awhile and have a well-deserved reputation for being meticulous with my source data. The color commentary may be crap, but the presentation of the data is not.

3. Vanishingly few people want to see the presented results worked out step-by-step from the raw source data. It's a blog post, not a formal paper being submitted for academic publication (though most people who read such papers skip over the parts where authors show their work, too!).

4. Edison captures responses. CNN presents them as rounded percentages for ease of consumption. Probable absolute numbers are not difficult to work out.

Sticking to the first blue bar in the graph, the 75.1% figure, the number of Democrat voters who said whites are favored is more likely 6,698 people, as my percentages indicate, than the 6,698.1126 people he'd prefer I imply. Having worked backwards to obtain actual number of respondents, I then created a graph where the absolute numbers of responses are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage.

Technically we may be off a response or two with a sample size in the tens of thousands. But I find 10.4%, the first red bar presented for example, which would more precisely represented as something like 10.3%-10.5%, to generally be more useful than simply 10%. The 10% implies it could be as low as 9.5% when we can get closer to the actual figure than that. I could start putting error bars on the percentages--that'd make it really fun to read!

I laughed because of how characteristically spergy this self-proclaimed fan of Ayn Rand is. To make a big deal over 75.1% being presented instead of the 75% he'd prefer is risible. Validating stereotypes!

Intentional saboteurs won't care about any of this. But if they're generally on our side--and I suspect both of them are--there's a takeaway from this extended exchange that sullied VDare's twatter account: Good faith questions about the data should first be attempted privately. Both people could've easily DMed me or VDare to be forwarded to me.

There are organizations like the $PLC and the ADL who like nothing more than useful idiots like this who blow a bunch of smoke for them. They use it to create the vague perception that VDare and other dissident sites like them cannot be trusted when they in fact can be.

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

93% of Democrats think it's important that fewer whites be elected

Some reactions to the blue splash:

- I'm quite pleased with the congressional predictions we made. Richard and I put the House at Ds 225, Rs 210. There are a handful as of yet undeclared but it looks like the final result is going to be Ds 229, Rs 206. In the Senate, we nailed every incumbent party hold and got all three of our predicted flips correct but failed to predict two additional flips, one in Florida (understandable) and one in Indiana (inexplicable). The latter isn't a missed free throw, it's a missed layup.

- The Kemp, DeSantis, and King contests were three of the night's four most important. Cheers to and for all of them.

Kris Kobach's defeat stings more than any other could, though. I spent several hours canvassing for him and know well several people who did far, far more than I did.

As has been recounted here before, I first met Kris when I was in college as he debated the late Richard Nadler over the topic of immigration at a dinner club hosted by journalist Jack Cashill in 2005 (or maybe 2006). Since then I've watched him fight almost single-handedly to make National Question issues like in-state tuition and sanctuary cities top political concerns in Kansas. As expected, he's regularly been stabbed in the back by corporatist cucks and in the front by criminal organizations like the ACLU, but he refuses to be deterred. The man is indefatigable.

How did his defeat happen? Laura Kelly effectively portrayed Kobach as the second coming of the deeply unpopular Sam Brownback. Kobach could have easily refuted this by pointing out that he had defeated Brownback's lieutenant governor and then replacement, Jeff Colyer, in the primaries and that Kobach and Brownback could hardly be any further apart on immigration than they are. Instead, he opted to try and win on the state's nearly 2-to-1 Republican party affiliation advantage by not saying a bad word about anyone with an (R) next to his name. It wasn't enough.

Then there is Johnson County, home to the Kansas City metro area's most affluent towns and suburbs. Over one-quarter of the state's votes came from the county, and Kelly won it by a devastating 55%-38%. Outside of Johnson the two virtually tied, 50.2%-49.8%. In Brownback's 4-point 2014 reelection win, the former governor took Johnson, 49%-48%.


Kobach underperformed Brownback by 3 points in every county combined except for Johnson. In Johnson, however, Kobach underperformed Brownback by a staggering 18 points. Had Kobach been able to mirror Brownback's 2014 performance in the county, he'd have won the election.

Johnson has a lot of transplants from other states and also, in no small part thanks to Kevin Yoder, lots of H-1B serfs working for tech companies such as Sprint, Garmin, and Cerner who have a large presence here. It's a county whose population has grown much faster than the rest of the state's over the last couple of decades. So have its median incomes and housing prices, the latter more rapidly than the former. It's becoming the kind of place Paul Ryan dreams about, and as a consequence it is becoming a place that Republicans increasingly cannot win. Conservative nationalist Kobach and Chamber of Commerce puppet Yoder both lost the county on Tuesday.

I'm not sure what's next for Kobach, but his story is not finished. If Trump appoints Kobach as Jeff Sessions' successor, the AG gets a major upgrade. If Trump appoints anyone other than Kobach as successor, it gets a serious downgrade. When Trump campaigned for Kobach last month, he joked about bringing Kris into the White House if he lost the governor's race. Time to make good on that!

- Next door, Missouri had three initiatives up for vote--one on raising the state's minimum wage, one on "ethics reform", and one on increasing the gasoline tax. The first two passed, the third failed.

That's what democracy inevitably leads to--people voting in favor of things that benefit them without requiring any sacrifice on their part, voting in favor of virtue-signaling that similarly doesn't require them to do anything, and voting against anything that requires them to incur real costs to themselves.

- The Russia Hoax has run its course. Some 54% of respondents say it is politically motivated while just 41% think it is justified. The partisan split is predictable. That means independents realize it is fake. It's unlikely Democrats will squander electoral goodwill by continuing to pursue it.

- Civic Nationalists remain a majority of GOP voters, but alt-right ideas continue to percolate through the electorate, with more than one-third of Republicans now realizing that the society their ancestors built systematically discriminates against them in favor of non-whites. Only one-in-ten Republicans buy into the 'white privilege' nonsense.


- In addition to overwhelmingly agreeing with Kinky Kamala about the nature of the country, a staggering 95% of Democrats say it is either "important" or "very important" to elect more women to public office and a similar 93% that it is either "important" or "very important" to elect more racial and ethnic minorities to public office.

Stated in another way, some 95% of Democrats say it is important or really important to elect fewer men and 93% say it is important or really important to elect fewer whites. But don't worry, Joe Biden is sure to get the 2020 Democrat nomination. Harris doesn't stand a chance!

- I will respond to the great thread in the previous post soon, specifically to Passer by who is not getting a beer from me on account of the outcome (but who will certainly enjoy a beer on me if he, or any other regular reader, drops me a line when passing through the KC area).

Monday, November 05, 2018

Predictions for 2018 midterms

Richard Spencer's outfit, the National Policy Institute, has a series of posts I contributed to. The literary portions are, for the most part, not mine. I'm an Austrian economically so the institute's description isn't the one I'd give, for example, but there is not in my mind anything implausible included.

I've followed Spencer for a long time, when he maintained a webiste called Alternative Right several years before the shorthand became a household phrase, back in the early Vanguard days (the podcast of radical traditionalism!). But I hadn't ever talked to him in any detail until this. It was a pleasure. He's a real human person with real feelings and real vulnerabilities.

He offered both to pay and give attribution but as is my MO both were politely declined. Regarding the former, our side of the great divide isn't flush with cash like our tormentors are. Donations and payments are a zero-sum game. I'd rather them find their way to others. Regarding the latter, this post is sufficient.

He's a strategic visionary, I'm a tactical incrementalist; he's high-brow, I'm distinctly middle-brow. As a consequence, I'm not always on the same wavelength as he is but as the duration suggests, I've always found him engaging and very often intellectually novel. He's the first to admit he's had some missteps, but he's been bleeding and sweating in an arena where for most of his adult life. He's fearless.

Anyway, the prediction I twisted his arm into publishing is Ds 225, Rs 210 in the House and Ds 48, Rs 52 in the Senate. The former is based on having tracked reported enthusiasm for several months and on the two-way split in R-I's congressional mid-term poll with the shakeout presumed to mirror the popular vote, handicapped 3 points net to account for Reuters-Ispos's leftward bias. The latter sees Missouri and North Dakota flipping to the GOP and Nevada back to the Democrats.

If you'll indulge me, offer yours in the comments. Virtual reputational skin in the game!