Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Immigration and inbreeding

Over the last few years, the indefatigable chickadee has been telling a story about the marriage (heh) between outbreeding and modernity. In fairness to her, the approach she takes is informational, not polemical, and that conclusion is mine, not (necessarily) her's. But it's difficult not to come to that pithy conclusion regardless.

My childish infatuation with the ancients aside, I like modernity. It's not all good, though--ennui, atomization, ethno-masochism--and, apparently, the relinquishing of any sort of serious national sovereignty, solidarity, or identity. Taking the citizenship standards index values* from a post derived from World Values Survey responses and correlating them with consanguinity rates (defined as second-cousin or closer), both at the national level, yields a statistically significant positive correlation of .59 (p = .003) among the 23 countries for which both consanguinity and WVS data are available. That is, the more inbred a country is, the more restrictive the attitudes of its population are on the issues of immigration and citizenship. Conversely, the more outbred a country is, the more its inhabitants tend toward unrestricted open borders.

If you'll allow me to shamelessly quote myself:
The paradox presented here for many like myself is that the places inspiring the warmest feelings and that I would like most to live in are the places that tend to put the least effort into maintaining what they have. It's tragic.
Or maybe I'm just a retrograde troglodyte covetously trying to keep to and for myself what my ancestors rapaciously stole from the brotherhood, er, and sisterhood, of mankind humankind. I suppose I should be smart enough to know better--the inverse correlation between estimated average IQ and citizenship standards scores for the same 23 countries is a statistically significant .70 (p = .0002) at the national level. The higher the country's IQ, the more likely its people are to wave the huddled masses on through.

* See here.

** Calculated by obtaining the simple, unweighted averages of all studies reported at

Monday, July 29, 2013

Modest suggestion for Radio Derb

I'm a week behind, but at last listen the Derb's research assistants were working for the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan on slogans for the upcoming campaign against Emmanuel Goldstein's ragtag coalition of seditious rats. He should allow them indefinite leave there and find some new assistants. Aged 36, 41, and 34, respectively, Mandy, Candy, and Brandy, are surely losing their suppleness along with their sagacity. Spring chickens they are not.

Derb--if I may so audaciously address you directly--to inject your vessel with some warm, youthful energy, I modestly suggest you bring Miley, Riley, and Kiley on board as replacements.

There's a remunerative bonus to boot. As millennials, they're perfectly content to take nodes, er, notes and deliver massages, er, messages, for zero compensation. In fact, they'll fall all over themselves just for the opportunity. Ah, the benefits of living in the age of open borders and zero marginal productivity workers!

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Let's talk about self reported sex baby

Without fear or apology, as is his wont, Roissy/Heartiste has really stuck his neck out there as of late. If he is able to parlay his vast reach into the spread and absorption of HBD realism, then it is with hesitation and angst that I risk appearing as an adversary here. The man is fighting hard and gaining ground in Cisalpine Gaul, not piffling away in the swamps of Ravenna.

That paean sung, a couple of points of contention. Heartiste quotes one of his commenters at length, the remarkable portion being excerpted below. The commenter is referring to male-to-male competition in the field:
Sometimes if he’s frustrated enough he’ll try to tool me on my looks or money etc, something he puts value on so he thinks I’ll put value on, but 1) he’s just reacting to me at that point so he sabotages himself further in the girls’ eyes because the higher value person is the one who reacts less to the other person, and 2) I don’t build my self-worth around those external things so I’m not phased by it and will join in making fun of myself and be self-depreciating because I know my worth internally and know it has nothing to do with whatever he’s making fun of [emphasis mine]…the end result is if he does this, he takes himself from Check with the girls and puts himself in Check-mate and it’s over.
It is this sort of mentality that so frequently irks me in Game discussions. A lot of it is great--eat better, lift heavy things, be bold (even audacious!), have confidence, don't put up with tripe, celebrate your virility, know that there is no question that women love, love, love high status so get off your X-Box and go attain it--but the hoodwinking and deception undermines all of that (as well as the notion of female sexual selection being calibrated in any serious way that can't be fooled with a bit of scripting, and thus too the notion that female detection mechanisms are biologically serious). Put value on that stuff that he's tooling you on, too, because it's good for you, for women, and for society as a whole.

A cad isn't a flattering thing to be (high notch count, yes, but not necessarily high quality, and also disproportionately childless, leftist, black, unmarried, irreligious, and uneducated). Dominate them just like you dominate everything else in life. That's the alpha worth aspiring to.

Switching gears, Heartiste has ribbed quant bloggers like myself in the past on multiple occasions, specifically about our reliance on the questionable reliability of self-reported data on sexual behavior (although in fairness to Heartiste, he is more concerned about female misrepresentation than his is about male fabrication).

When the results are on his side, though, he's quick to toss that caution to the wind, as he did the other day in reporting on and analyzing a study showing that perceived male dominance trumps perceived male physical attractiveness when it comes to predicting the number of bangs a guy has. Dominance was measured by male raters assessing a man's perceived "fighting ability" while attractiveness was measured by female raters assessing a man's perceived "short-term attractiveness". These results were then cross-referenced with each evaluated man's self-reported number of lifetime sexual partners.

A cynic might wonder if there's a tendency for aggressive, high-testosterone types who missed humanity's gracility boat to inflate their numbers more than stencil-necked pretty boys who get mistaken for Justin Bieber do.

Parenthetically, while a little skepticism is always healthy, I put a fair amount of confidence responses. They don't often get us to the unadulterated truth, but they're something, and unless there are systematic rather than across-the-board skews, they are almost always useful for, if not obtaining absolute delineations, then at least for comparative purposes.

With regards to the study in question, I suspect that the researchers' (and Heartiste's) readings into the results get us part of the way there, and that the tendency for aggressive, pugilistic guys to engage in both more puffery and more intense and frequent sex seeking than slimmer, more laid back men do gets us down the rest of the road.

In any case, more researched is surely required!


Eighteen weeks.

Halfway there! Oh c'mon, I felt the boy kick for the first time last night. Give a guy a break for getting a little faggy.

Settled on the name Nathan. It's biblical, so it won't be feminized. It's fairly common (just outside the top 20 boy names in the US), yet not so ubiquitous that he'll be Nathan E. in all of his classes. It shortens to a single syllable sobriquet. It isn't an easy target for ridicule in elementary school like Hayden (hey hey hey Hayden) or Will (wet willie).

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Tsarnaev gets bloody Nick's treatment by today's bolsheviks

It's been impossible not to notice the visceral negative reactions among leftists on social media sites and the like to the recent Rolling Stone cover showing the younger tax-eating terrorist from crapistan who helped set off bombs in Boston. We're talking about marathons in Massachusetts, not skeet shooting in Chattanooga--SWPLs were really upset by the bombings. There just isn't much sympathy for the devil on display for this one. Portraying one of the instigators in such a way was bound to garner a lot of attention, but then again car crashes garner a lot of attention, too, but they're usually not good for the drivers.

Sure, there is perspicacity in the observation that some women are attracted to killers and the attention they receive for being identified as such, and the crapistani is no exception. But let's not lose perspective here--for every one girl who wants his nuts, there are hundreds or thousands who would like to put them in a vise. And in fairness to the ladies, if Nina Dobrev's doppelganger did something this nefarious, how many men would masturbate with her in their heads as they read about and watched the subsequent trial unfold? Because we're sophisticated enough to separate love from lust, though, we'd still be fine with having her hang from a lamppost after we were through with her, unlike the crapistani's aspirants, who would like to spend their energy trying to domesticate him instead! Really, before it becomes ancient history to them, ask some female SWPLs about the punk. The reaction is similar to what you'll get if you ask them about Fred Phelps.

For pundits on the mainstream right (that excludes darkly enlightened, red-pill popping HBDers, of course), this should signal the start of a field day. For one, the incident itself is exactly what the polite right opposed to amnesty and open borders dreams about--terrorist activity committed by a white (nothing racist about our anti-amnesty position!) immigrant who was given the green light to stay in country and then subsequently given naturalized citizenship, both far too easily, who targeted an event leftists love in a city leftists love. Moreover, an iconic, cultural standard-bearer for the degenerate baby-boomer leftist worldview not only lines up on the wrong side of the issue, but is perceived as glamorizing evil incarnate in the process.

Parenthetically, I realize the article isn't hagiographic, but in a world where attention spans max out at around 140 characters, few people are going to get that far, and media types like the editors of RS know this, so that's a risible defense.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Law alone?

With a victorious--if only symbolic, temporary, and ultimately futile--stand against amnesty looking to be secured thanks to the majority of Republicans in the House, the only part of the federal government I still have any hope at all in (and that hope is shaky to say the least), let's take a look at international sentiments towards the requirements for citizenship.

In the most recent wave conducted by the WVS, running from 2005-2008, respondents were asked about the importance of four factors in deciding whether or not a person should have citizenship conferred upon him. They were having ancestors from the country, being born in the country, adopting the customs of the country, and obeying the laws of the country. Pithily, the angles we're exploring here are blood, soil, culture, and law. The first table shows the percentages of respondents in each participating country who judged it to be "very important" that a person have ancestors from the country to be considered a citizen of it:

Burkina Faso61.6
South Africa61.1
Trinidad and Tobago26.9
South Korea24.6
United States14.1

People of northwestern European descent put the least emphasis on the blood bond of a nation's population. The US is no exception. After all, how can a nation of immigrants, which we've always been since we gained our independence from Great Britain in 1923, prefer that its citizens' family trees be rooted firmly in the land of amber waves of grain? To the contrary, those people are the ones we look down upon with the most superciliousness and disdain today. Northwestern Euros are followed by central, southern and eastern Europeans, then Asians and Latin Americans, and finally by Middle Easterners and Africans, who put the greatest amount of emphasis on it.

There's a pattern here that surely doesn't come as much of a surprise to regular readers of the chickadee's blog. Relatedly, this list looks like it proxies pretty well for a measure of national pride. Parenthetically, I plan on correlating these results with reported rates of consanguinity by country.

The paradox presented here for many like myself is that the places inspiring the warmest feelings and that I would like most to live in are the places that tend to put the least effort into maintaining what they have. It's tragic. It doesn't strike me as overly cynical to presume that this is almost inevitable, as though liberalism doesn't know when or where to stop and just keeps cruising along the progressive highway past the promised land and over the cliff. Unfortunately, the one nation that regularly pops up as an exception to the putative rule in discussions like this was not included in this battery of questions. But even Japan has started down the slippery slope towards open immigration, recently introducing a point system, akin to the policies employed in Australia and Canada, where preference is given to highly skilled prospective immigrants.

What of birthright citizenship? Our own 14th amendment has been read by the courts in such a way that if one is able to spawn somewhere in the country, through hook, crook or otherwise, then said spawn is, jus soli, a child of the land he was born on.

The next table shows the percentages of respondents in each participating country who deemed it very important that a person be born in the country if he is to be entitled to citizenship:

South Africa67.8
Burkina Faso48.9
Trinidad and Tobago44.1
United States25.3
South Korea20.5

Keep in mind that the four categories considered here are not mutually exclusive, but can and do layer upon one another. It appears that most Malians, for example, feel it of great importance that citizens be born in the country, to people who have previously established ancestral ties to it, adopt Malian cultural norms, and that they respect the law of the great trading empire.

The following table shows the percentages of respondents in each participating country who deemed it very important that a person adopt the customs of the country to become a citizen of it:

South Africa59.4
Burkina Faso59.4
United States59.4
Trinidad and Tobago42.8
South Korea27.1

Are we all Georgians now, senator?

I've always felt a special affinity for Australia. If I were to leave the US, I'd head down under (Switzerland would be a close second, but the cultural and linguistic distances would probably be too far). It may not count for much of anything in the grand scheme of things, but they are one of the few Occidental nations whose population still maintains, with some pride, a semblance of a revered, historically-rooted national identity (the others being Israel, Ireland--dare I say--these United States, and possibly Germany). That shows up here.

With the importance of blood ties to citizenship being an idea entertained only by the most reprobate--hell, even the idea of citizenship is becoming beyond the pale--the concept of a national culture is the next wall the forces of the Cathedral are determined to scale. They've already infiltrated so far that only the most 'extreme' talkers on the mainstream right would call for a national policy resting on the three xenophobic pillars of borders, language, and, most germanely for us, culture!

Up to this point, our Scandinavian representatives haven't shown support for any standards on citizenship at all. But we have yet to discuss governmental policies. The Golem will keep the baddies out, we just need to equip him with the right tools. And then make sure he doesn't strike out against refugees--political, economic, religious, or otherwise--or those offended by depictions of Muhammad, or undocumented workers, or visa overstayers, or asylum seekers, or those looking for a better life, or those who love to feed from the public trough, or...

United States85.0
Trinidad and Tobago83.2
Burkina Faso78.1
South Africa72.9
South Korea40.4

Several charts in rapid succession there, so here's an overall "standards" index that simply sums the percentages of "very important" responses across the four dimensions considered previously. How curious that Mexicans make greater demands of their citizens than Americans do of their's:

South Africa261.2
Burkina Faso248.0
Trinidad and Tobago197.0
United States183.8
South Korea112.6

Things are grim on this side of the pond, but they're even grimmer in Europe. With the rise of nationalist parties in several European countries, I wonder when (or if) we'll begin to see the same.

SWPLs, stop emulating the Swedes and start taking after the Andorrans!

WVS variables used: V217, V218, V219, V220

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Redux: Surprise, surprise--blacks more 'racist' than whites, Hispanics are

For my 30th birthday, Rasmussen conducted a straightforward poll on perceived racism in the US by race. The results:
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.


Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

Among white adults, 10% think most white Americans are racist; 38% believe most blacks are racist, and 17% say most Hispanics are racist.
The reaction on the left (to the extent that it the poll has been acknowledged at all) has been predictably dismissive and disparaging of Rasmussen as an organization. Individuals aren't the only ones susceptible to Watsoning or Richwining.

Note that these results are not merely due to each group thinking other groups are more racist than they themselves are--even blacks recognize blacks to be more racist than are whites or Hispanics. The high standing in pop culture of a Chris Rock, anyone? I don't need to detail the double standard on display here--if a white comedian was to be one-tenth as candid about race as Rock is, he'd be blacklisted by the entire entertainment wing of the Cathedral and forced to exist exclusively on the internet if he existed at all. Speaking of double standards, racial epithets are of course off limits for some groups but not so much for others. And on and on and on.

The data, to the extent that they are gathered, confirms as much. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, when the media narrative revolved around whether or not whites would vote for a black candidate or not--we're talking Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton here--exit polling clearly showed that even (especially?) among Democrats, blacks were more influenced by the races of the candidates than whites were, and of course blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama. In 2004, the GSS showed blacks to be nearly four times as likely as whites were to choose race as one of the three most important ways they self-identify from a list of ten possible choices.

As a self-styled race realist, the term "racist" is a difficult one for me to define with much utility. What is generally considered to be "racist" in polite 21st century American parlance would be, in a sane world, prefixed by the adverb "irrationally"--someone who despises an affable, industrious black man for no other reason than the color of his skin fits this definition, for example. A rational racism (or rational racialism), in contrast, is the more common and commonsensical realization that, on average, different groups of people behave differently from one another and have different characteristics than other groups of people do, and consequently said groups shouldn't be presumed to be indistinguishable from one another. In reality, though, both varieties of racism are merged under the umbrella term "racism" in which rational variety of racism is at least as despicable as irrational variety is (if not worse, as the Cathedral is aware that the former aligns strikingly well with the information people's own lying eyes are conveying to them and is, as a consequence, more threatening than the latter, which just sounds off-putting and buffoonish).

That digression aside, these results should come as little surprise to red pill poppers. Blacks are perpetually encouraged, from both within the 'black community' and from without, to view everything that happens around them through a racial lens. More recently, Hispanics have been offered similarly tinted spectacles, but as Hispanics in the US are, relative to blacks, less pathological, racially more dissimilar, and less civically engaged, the results haven't been nearly as 'effective' (at least not yet--give it a couple more amnesties and majority-minority status and we'll revisit my evaluation).

As the Inductivist illustrated years ago, the less prosperous and less put together a racial or ethnic group is, the more pride (and thus more awareness) it has in being member to said race or ethnicity. Well, blacks are the least prosperous, least put together racial group in the country. The very starkness of this black failure accentuates black racism by making it so blatantly obvious to blacks and non-blacks alike--if only whispered in private in the case of the latter--that blacks are underachievers. Always have been, always will be?

Blacks have more historical grievances to air against the (former) WASP majority than other minority groups do, so their moral claim to victimhood putatively dwarfs that of other groups. Use what you've got and exploit that white guilt to the hilt! Never mind that not only today do whites (and other non-blacks) have far more to fear from blacks than blacks do from whites (or other non-blacks), it's also highly probable that in all of the nation's history, blacks have killed more whites than whites have killed blacks*.

In closing, note that becoming the most powerful person in the world isn't enough--not nearly enough, and quite possibly counterproductive--to reduce perceptions of racial tension in the US:
Overall, just 30% of all Americans now rate race relations in the United States as good or excellent. Fourteen percent (14%) describe them as poor. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think race relations are getting better, while 32% believe they are getting worse. Thirty-five percent (35%) feel they are staying about the same.
It never ends. It just gets worse. Really, though, in the words of that great sage, what do we expect when, upon finding ourselves in a hole, our collective solution is to keep on digging?

* Doing back-of-the-envelope calculations, the contemporary figures show that each year around 1,500 more whites are killed by blacks in the US than blacks are killed by whites (homicidally, that is). In contrast, in the 85 years from 1882 to 1968--the era of Jim Crow laws--there was a total of just under 3,500 lynchings of blacks (presumably almost exclusively by whites). Okay, so maybe in the last decade blacks have spilled more white blood than whites spilled black blood in the first couple of centuries of the country's existence, but we're talking about lynching here for crying out loud, what could be more brutal than that?! Well, I'm no expert, but I think if I had to pick my poison I'd opt for hanging over this.

Sunday, July 07, 2013

Brother or sister speaks well?

Steve Sailer's insight into the secure masculinity of biblical male names has been of great personal interest recently. While it's a great place to start, however, it isn't without exceptions. He never claimed it was, of course--I've just finally gotten around to putting a little pressure on it.

Aaron/Erin is the first exception that comes to mind, though I'm sure there are more. Enlighten me, please. That the feminine origins are distinct from the masculine ones doesn't negate (at least not fully) the functional consequences of onomastic homonyms when it comes to given names as far as I'm concerned.

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Pedant on that

In summarizing a post on college bank rollers, Steve writes:
In general, it appears that the biggest donors to colleges are conservatives.
To investigate this assertion rigorously would require something akin to Fortune's survey of the XXX wealthiest whatevers. The groups in question are too numerically small to be represented with any meaningful reliability in most wide-ranging, general surveys. Sometimes these surveys employ precision modules targeting niche respondent groups, but the results are often fruitless (and risible to boot). Case in point, the 2012 GSS includes a set of items pertaining to elements of Jewish identity. It garners relevant responses from a whopping 12 people. Hardly enough for a HBR case study, let alone statistical significance on a national scale. This isn't an isolated example, either.

While general surveys aren't capable of providing the electrolytes number crunchers crave, however, they often do at least provide some suggestive hydration in an otherwise arid environment. In 1996, the GSS queried respondents on how much they had donated to educational organizations in the past year. The following table presents a breakdown of the political orientation of donors who gave in the three figures and up (n = 131) and contrasts that distribution with the political persuasions of the broader population during the same period of time:


Despite academia being an intellectual pillar of the leftist Cathedral, the bit of hard data we have suggests that perspicacity is Steve's middle name--conservatives give to schools more than their representation in the general population would predict they would. Note that this is despite the fact that, in general, liberals attain higher levels of educational attainment than conservatives do.

Parenthetically, we see yet another iteration of the tendency for moderates to be less engaged, involved, or aware than more committed ideologues are.

GSS variables used: POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), YEAR(1996), TOTEDUC(100-999999), JEWAJ

Monday, July 01, 2013

It's a ...

Depending on who you ask or what source you trust, generally the sex of a child can be determined with certainty via ultrasound (that is, by sight--we're not talking about chorionic villus sampling, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or any other futuristic methods of cheating here) at somewhere between 17-20 weeks into a pregnancy. We found out at 15 weeks. Don't get hung up for long on what this says about the sex of the kid.

Youths will be youths

As an addendum to the previous post, I suspected an age skew. Younger guys who buy cheap cigars are more likely to use them as blunts than older men are. The percentages of men aged 18-25 and aged 26+ who buy cigars and are active marijuana users, again defined as having smoked weed sometime in the last year:

Black and Milds21.3%12.4%

Even among 'youths', though, it's more the exception than the rule.

2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health variables used: CGR30BR2(404, 423), IRSEX(1), CIG30MLN(2-3), MRDAYPYR, CATAGE(2)(3-4)