Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Fight the invasion

I found this flier near a construction site this morning:

Google translates as follows:

High to deportations!

Sunday, March 26, 2017/4 PM - 6 PM Church Our Savior Lutheran Church KC 4153 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, Kansas 65103

A KC Fight invites you to a conversation with immigration experts, they can answer your questions to create plans of action and resistance. There will be music in LIVE!

Food on sale to raise funds for Johnathan and Andres; Who were unjustly arrested in the protest 'A Day Without Immigrants.'

Doesn't helping scofflaws and their sympathizers create plans of "action and resistance" against a federal agency carrying out a legally mandated function constitute the aiding and abetting of illegal activity?

Let's see if we can move ICE to take a look at this civilizationally seditious gathering. Here's the ICE tip form page. For selected violation, I chose "human smuggling" and for who the complaint involves, I selected "business/company" and entered the church's information a second time.

In the summary box I put "I have been tipped off to a meeting this Sunday, March 26th from 4pm-6pm at the address above that will feature advice on how to take action against ICE and help illegal immigrants avoid deportation. The people planning this are aiding and abetting illegal activity and their audience will be illegal immigrants and those assisting them."

If you'd prefer to call, ICE's toll-free phone line is (866) 347-2423.

Here is the homepage of the church hosting the invaders, and here is the email address of organizers:

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Miscellany of exit polling items

If you haven't, see Steve Sailer's and Heartiste's reactions to the Reuters-Ipsos detailed exit poll data.

First, Heartiste notes a commenter at Steve's pointing out what I should've emphasized:
Which of these things is not like the others?

Single white women: 39.0
Married white women: 61.4
Single white men: 59.0
Married white men: 61.0
A couple of clarifying comments. Steve's subsequent post looked at work from professor George Hawley who asserted that "the relationship between marriage and voting declined" in 2016 from 2012.

Maybe--Trump was more Fishtown and less Belmont than Romney--but the correlation he looks at is at the state level, not at the level of individual voter. I've not run the numbers, but I suspect that at the state level the relationship between IQ and voting Republican increased between 2012 and 2016. The upper Midwest states, where Trump outperformed Romney the most, do pretty well on measures of intelligence.

Given Trump's much stronger performance with working-class whites, modestly stronger performance with non-whites, and poorer performance with professional whites relative to Romney's, however, it's almost certain that the average IQ of Republican voters decreased between 2012 and 2016 even though the average IQ of the states that went for Trump was higher than the average IQ of states that went for Romney (clever sillies aren't going to save the West, Alt Knights will).

The officially commissioned exit poll released on election night shows a marriage gap that is narrower than what the R-I results show. I wish I'd saved all the initial releases on November 9th. I did happen to screen shot a few in the course of doing a little post-election analysis before they were changed again and again and again, presumably to adjust to official electoral results as those trickled in for several weeks after the election. Of the four exit poll tables captured in this post from November 12th, the results for every single one subsequently changed.

In other words, there's reason to be skeptical of the commissioned exit poll. In any event, R-I's results provide another similar but not identical data set.

Heartiste, pointing out Trump's strong performance among married Jewish men, cautions that this might more accurately be described as a strong performance among married Orthodox Jewish men on the presumption that a lot of secular, irreligious ethnic Jews identify as having "no religion" rather than "Jewish".

It's hard to know how things shake out precisely from survey to survey, but the GSS--when asking "What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?"--shows that only 36.1% of those who identify as Jewish say they "know God exists". The corresponding figures for Protestants and Catholics are 74.9% and 62.2%, respectively.

In other words, barely one-third of self-described Jews--self-described in response to a question about religion rather than ethnicity or cultural heritage, no less--are firm theists. Some number of secular ethnic Jews do not identify with any religious tradition, but a not insubstantial number of them--the majority if I had to guess--identify as Jewish.

GSS variables used: RELIG(1,2,3), YEAR(2000-2014), GOD(6)

Monday, March 20, 2017

The future belongs to those who show up for it

From the GSS, responses from white survey participants on the ideal number of children for a household to have, by year of participation in the survey:

Even as our TFR has been sub-replacement, our collective assessment of what we should be doing hasn't changed. We know replacement should be the floor. Fewer than 1-in-20 white Americans put the ideal number of children to have at 0 or 1.

Knowledge isn't enough, though, in this case or any other. We all have 10,000 Library of Alexandrias in our butt pockets. The sum of all human knowledge is 0.91 seconds away. Only when knowledge is put into practice does it become functional.

What we lack is the will. For more than a generation now the native populations of every Western nation--excepting Israel, if it is included as part of the Occident--have been failing to replace themselves.

This first manifests as an upward shift in the median age as the leading low-fertility generation grays. The total population doesn't actually start declining until that low-fertility generation begins dying off. It's already happening in Japan, and it will happen here when the Boomers check out.

It's not just that the populations in "refugee" sending countries are numerous, it's that even if their fertility fell to Western levels overnight, their populations would continue to grow for several decades.

Here are the median ages of populations in several refugee-sending countries:

Syria -- 24
Iraq -- 20
Chad -- 18
South Sudan -- 17
The Congo -- 20
Nigeria -- 18
Somalia -- 18
Yemen -- 19

Compare that to the geriatric West:

Germany -- 47
France -- 41 (the figure for the 10%+ of the population that is Muslim is significantly lower)
Italy -- 45
Great Britain -- 41
Sweden -- 41
The US -- 38

Increasing our birth rates is not sufficient to save Western civilization, but it is necessary. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

There are three actionable, conceivable things to do in the US (and Europe) to preserve ourselves and our posterity:

1) A moratorium on immigration (more politically palatable than preferential status for selected ancestrally and culturally compatible countries)

2) The repatriation of non-citizens ("you have to go back")

3) An increase in native fertility (an uptick of 25% would do the trick)

These are achievable. While we still have some ground to cover to get to 1) and 2), we're much closer today than we were even two years ago.

I'm anecdotal evidence for 3). My wife and I have two kids, aged 3 and 1, and we're not finished yet. My decision to start a family was spurred in large part by a sense of civilizational and ancestral duty. I was set to be a ZFG--zero fecundities given--genetic dead end through my mid-twenties, including the first few years of this blog. After a couple of years hovering in the seminal mists of the Dark Enlightenment--roughly the precursor to the Alt Right--it became clear to me that sitting on the sidelines was no longer an option.

Those who forget about their ancestors soon forget about their descendants.

Parenthetically, here's suggestive evidence that choosing cats over kids isn't something childless post-menopausal women are satisfied with having done:

Childless women over the age of 60 (n = 679) put the ideal number of children to have at 2.75 on average!

GSS variables used: CHLDIDEL(0-7), AGE(60-89), SEX, RACE(1), YEAR, BORN(1), CHILDS(0)

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Jewish eugenics

Sparked by Steve Sailer's recent post, the following graph and table show the percentages of GSS respondents, by religious affiliation, who support eugenics at the practical, functional level.

The term is used accurately in this context. The question reads "Suppose a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect. Would you (yourself want to/want your partner to) have an abortion if a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect?"

The survey is not asking about policy prescriptions, questions of legality, or moral attitudes towards the idea of abortion or eugenics--it is directly asking if the respondent if he/she would abort his/her own unborn baby if it testing in the womb found that it had "a serious genetic defect".

Results (n = 4,006; the Jewish sample is only 77):

No affiliation50.8
Other traditions44.3

GSS variables used: GENEABRT(1-2), RELIG(1,2,3,4,5-13)

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Detailed demographic breakdown of 2016 US presidential election

[This post was updated on 3/18 from its original publishing on 3/16 to include the addition of a few subgroups. Source data is here.]

In imitation of Steve Sailer's--epigone, after all!--detailed demographic breakdown of the 2012 presidential election with Romney and Obama going head-to-head, here's a less aesthetically appealing version of the same for 2016 with Trump and Clinton squaring off.

A few brief technical notes: Reuters-Ipsos never released official exit poll results, but they have maintained a daily tracking poll on Trump's approval rating with filters including who respondents voted for in addition to all the various demographic categories presented below. The data is taken from the poll's commencement on January 20 through March 14, the latest date for which figures were available at the time of this post's creation. The total sample size among those who voted for either Trump or Clinton is 13,381*. Trump shows a modest edge, 50.6%-49.4%, in the popular vote in this sample. I have no opinion on whether this is more or less accurate than the officially reported popular vote total when it comes to legitimate ballots cast by American citizens.

The following graphs show the vote share of each demographic group Trump received in November:

The marriage gap is a bigger story than the gender gap. The gap between married and unmarried women is 29 points, and the gap between all marrieds and all unmarrieds is 19 points. It is just 6 points between men and women. In other words, marital status is over than 300% more powerful a predictor of voting behavior than gender is.

Married women were considerably more likely--by a margin of 9 points--to vote for Trump than unmarried men were. They were even marginally more likely to vote for him than married men were! While only 3% of unmarried black women voted for Trump, more than 1-in-4 married black men did (n = 284). Married Hispanics were marginally more likely to vote for Trump than unmarried whites were. Marrieds were more likely to support Trump than singles in every category examined.

While Mormons didn't come out as overwhelmingly for Trump as they did for Romney, most of the latter's co-religionists did not reveal themselves to be made of the same quisling cuckery that the GOP's 2012 nominee is made of.

I inadvertently didn't include all Jews as a single category in the visual representations, but 35.2% of them went for Trump (n = 378). That's a significantly better performance than the 24.5% figure the officially commissioned exit poll reported.

I also failed to include the non-negligible chunk of the electorate without any religious affiliation (n = 2,119). Trump got 31.9% of the heathen vote.

Among those of family formation age, Trump wins by 6 points among those with kids while losing among those without kids by 12 points. This isn't just among whites, it's among all voters. Additionally, it excludes those aged 50 and over (who lean Trump). So sans immigration, Trump gains and Clinton loses as time goes on.

If there are other demographic subgroups of interest, let me know in the comments and I'll take a look at them (and eventually revamp the graphs to include those additions).

* Sample sizes for the following demographic groups numbered less than 200: Single Jewish men (39), single Jewish women (51), Hindus (53), Muslims (67), single other races (90), Married Jewish men (102), Black single mothers (104), married Jewish women (119), married Hispanics (157), married other races (165), other sexual orientation (166), single Asians (168), and single Hispanics (192).