Saturday, October 31, 2015

Blacks have less trouble sleeping than whites do

Malcolm Pollack reacted to a newly discovered challenge in the quest for racial justice thusly:
Maybe black people and white people are just, well, different in some way that manifests itself, directly or indirectly, in different sleep patterns?
This intransigent hatethought came after it'd been explained to him by National Journal that the apparent observation that blacks spend less of their shuteye time in slow-wave sleep than whites do is a deleterious consequence of discrimination, poverty, and poor health and certainly not due in any way to "innate biological differences" (so certain, in fact, that no data are required to explain why this certainty is so definitively certain!)

Oddly, this putative problem doesn't seem to be one blacks--who are socially encouraged to bellyache loudly about perceived problems and suffered injustices--have any self-awareness of.

In 2010 and 2014, the GSS asked respondents how often they've had trouble getting to sleep or staying asleep in the past year. The percentages among whites (n = 1,802), blacks (n = 354), and Hispanics (n = 127) who answered either "often" or "sometimes"*:

RaceBad Sleep

Curiously, the ordering runs in the opposite direction of what the oppression narrative would suggest. Perhaps it's the guilt weighing on whites and the clean consciences blacks enjoy that allow the latter to sleep better than the former despite the disadvantages they suffer in terms of poverty, discrimination, and loud music!

GSS variables used: SLPPRBLM(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(15-16)

* The item contains four possible responses--often, sometimes, rarely, never. If we just look at "often", we get 23.1% for whites, 15.8% for blacks, and 19.1% for Hispanics. If we go the other direction and look at "never" responses, we get 17.0% for whites, 21.9% for blacks, and 21.9% for Hispanics. No matter how it is sliced, blacks report significantly less trouble sleeping well than whites do.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Rubio, you rubes! Rubio, we (now) say

Steve Sailer writes:
The experts initially settled upon Latino-in-Law Jeb Bush on the grounds that Jeb’s Mommy Issues that led him to marry the woman in the world least like ol’ Barb made him the perfect fit. But those pesky Republican voters have so far failed to grasp the palpable brilliance of this strategy. So last night the experts shifted their allegiance from the Latino-in-Law to the Birthright Latino.
The headline from Reuters' report on the debate: "Rubio, Cruz dominate rowdy Republican presidential debate". The third paragraph opens, "In a dominating performance, Rubio, the U.S. senator from Florida..." Charles Krauthammer--who, thanks to Dick Morris, doesn't quite earn the worst-prognosticating-political-pundit-on-television title--gave Rubio the gold medal. And so on.

Meanwhile, post-debate polls tell a different story. CNBC and Drudge Report--websites that probably do not have a large amount of visitor overlap--each conducted their own, asking respondents who they thought won the third debate:

CNBC and Drudge polls, respectively

Results from a third NewsMax poll were quite similar, with Trump dominating at 46%, followed by Cruz at 20%. These polls are not scientific, but the participation numbers were huge. I follow Trump's social media presence closely. No heads-up was given regarding the polls, no push effort made at all so far as I'm able to tell. The results were spontaneous.

They show that of the Establishment-approved candidates--Rubio, Bush, Kasich)--Rubio fared the least poorly. Consequently, he's the new last great hope, but the Establishment has been impotent over the last several months and it's quickly running out of time to make something happen.

Carson appears to have been crushed. In desperation, the Establishment had freshly crowned him as the new 'front runner' after a single poll--with a margin of error of 6 points and in the midst of survey after survey after survey finding Trump in the lead--showed Carson beating Trump by 4 percent.

Cruz is an ambitious 44 year-old politician. VP, which we audaciously predict he will be offered, is a spot he'd be thrilled with. A Trump-Cruz pairing would be a nightmare for the GOP Establishment because it would see the hated outsider teaming up with the disliked, dissenting insider against the corrupt, inept Establishment, an Establishment that gets, in total, about one-fifth of primary voters' support in polls like these.

Trump and Cruz are the two best of the ten remaining GOP contenders on illegal immigration. Neither appear to be of any use on curtailing legal immigration. Trump likely gets the National Question at some level, Cruz probably does not. But the good need not be the enemy of the perfect.

Trump is neutralizing all the Cultural Marxists' standard tactics, he's repeatedly pledged to build a border fence and effect the removal of tens of millions of illegals, and he has a real shot at the presidency. As someone who has been in the restrictionist trenches for over a decade, this is far and away the best the prospects for real restrictionism have ever been. The hour is getting late, but it's not quite midnight yet.

Illegal immigration is the easier sell. Make it first and then we move on to legal immigration.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Charles Murray ad hominem ad infinitum

On facebook and twitter Charles Murray has mounted a continual attack campaign against Donald Trump (and also on his presidential aspirations and its supporters--but, surprisingly, against Trump in an acerbically personal way more than anything else).

From Trump's perspective, this is an ant-pissing-on-my-shoe scenario, of course. Another Establishment figure renouncing Trumpian populism is nothing new, nor is it anything that will hurt Trump's candidacy. To the contrary, it'll likely help it*.

It is, however, surprising to see someone who has been on the receiving end of a vicious, unrelenting Establishment assault so enthusiastically pick up stones stained with his own blood and throw them at the newest official object of hate.

There is no air of reservation or scholarly thoughtfulness present here, either. It's embarrassingly sophomoric stuff. For instance, today Murray writes:
It could be the 1850s and the Know Nothings. Same fear, same rhetoric, same fascist tendencies. And I don't use "fascist" loosely.
Yikes. Fascism is a distinctly 20th century European cultural-political movement. To describe a phenomenon that occurred several decades previous to the existence of fascism as fascist is anachronistic and thus almost definitionally a loose application of the term. It's like saying the Jacobins were Marxists. This is something I'd expect from a talk show host, not from the author of Human Accomplishment.

The responses to Murray's posts are about as fun to read as comment sections on NYT articles about the putative epidemic of white-on-black violence in the US are. For example, a particularly perspicacious one:
There is nothing more inherently conservative, in the most basic sense of the word, than restricting immigration. There is nothing more inherently transformative than mass immigration. This is not even a close call issue.
And one whose author reached for the scabbard under his cloak before posting:
Nice to see you utilizing the same tactics that marginalized you and sidelined your career. I suddenly feel much less sorry for you.
Yesterday, Murray accused Trump of being a "RINO" and lamented ¡Jabe!'s lame attempt to counter the "Trump toxicity". A SurveyUSA poll (albeit from nearly two months ago, though ¡Jabe! hasn't changed much since then!) with detailed cross-tab information shows that among those who think Trump will be the GOP nominee, 41% are self-described conservatives and 21% are self-described liberals. Among those who think ¡Jabe! will get it, 25% are conservatives and 34% are liberals.

Words mean things. It's sad to see someone of Murray's caliber employing them with such sloppiness and inaccuracy.

The Trump phenomenon is revealing all kinds of things that are relevant for understanding contemporary America. Worth paying attention to.

* In complete candor, immediately after reading Murray's feed I went to Trump's campaign site and bought a hat and a couple of bumper stickers. The only other time I've ever purchased any political campaign gear was when I grabbed a few Tancredo stickers in 2008.

++Addition++John Derbyshire:
I’m loath to criticize Murray, to whom I owe many kindnesses, but I’ll say this: he’s awfully white, in the worst possible way. 
Even worse, in fact, Murray is Midwestern white. He’s a nice guy, with that unfailing Midwestern niceness that will be the death of us all if we can’t do something about it.
Also, prompted by the wickedest mind, great discussion from he and his legions.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

White like me

Responding to a piece by a dark black woman lamenting lighter-skinned black women who, apparently not satisfied with their black-lite, make themselves lighter still for the putative aesthetic enhancement it brings, Paleo Retiree remarks:
Easy to understand for the ladies. Aside from Michael Jackson, have there been many dark-hued men who've tried to do a lot of skin-lightening? I remember that Sailer said that Sammy Sosa did it ...
Dan recently pointed out that it is not an exclusively female thing. In addition to the most notorious example, Michael Jackson, the aforementioned Sosa, and soccer player Neymar (also via Steve), Al Sharpton, David Dinkins, James Earl Jones, and Vybz Kartel (a real stand up guy!) appear to be bathing in alabaster.

Are there more instances of high-profile black men possibly aspiring to put on permanent whiteface? I'd like to collect them, with illustrations, here:

Vybz Kartel
David Dinkins
Neymar Silva Santos
Al Sharpton
Sammy Sosa
James Earl Jones
Michael Jackson

Excerpting from a BBC article, Dan writes:
"The World Health Organization has reported that Nigerians are the highest users of such products: 77% of Nigerian women use the products on a regular basis. They are followed by Togo with 59%; South Africa with 35%; and Mali at 25%."

Its similarly huge in Asia and India.

If it is not a major thing in America, then America would be the exception.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

George Will, Mara Liasson, and Charles Krauthammer -- augurs all!

Remember over the summer when every week some member of the GOP establishment was predicting the imminent demise of Donald Trump's presidential campaign (really, these pundits' powers of prognostication rival those of Dick Morris!)?

Was that recurring insight more perceptive than their assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? More perceptive than their insistence that Hispanics are "natural conservatives"? More perceptive than their belief that toppling secular dictators in the Middle East and North Africa would usher in an age of Jeffersonian liberalism in the Muslim world? More perceptive than their promise that if the country elected a Republican majority in 2014 they would defund Obamacare?

Man, they've been spot on so many times that it's difficult to identify a specific instance of perspicacity that trumps (heh) all the others.

Parenthetically, as Steve Sailer likes to point out, the left likes to act as though it's 1960 and they haven't been in charge of most everything over the last half century.

However, a change in the American quotidian, if it comes at all, will come from the right.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Dark blacks more conservative and marginally more Republican than light blacks

Different black definitions of justice
A little while back Steve Sailer discussed the observation that while the GOP is the de facto white party, top black Republicans tend to be ebony dark (Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts), while top black Democrats are often a paler shade of black (Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Valeria Jarrett, Charlie Rangel).

In 2012 and 2014, the GSS asked interviewers to rate the skin tone of survey participants on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the lightest and 10 the darkest. While virtually all self-identified white respondents were gauged to be on the light side of the spectrum, blacks were distributed almost evenly on the light (1-5) and dark (6-10) ends, with 46.8% of blacks assessed as light-skinned and 53.2% as dark-skinned. The total black sample was 576. So the question is contemporarily relevant and conveniently designed to evaluate how well the observation holds up at the street level.

The following graph shows the distribution of partisan affiliations among light- and dark-skinned blacks:

The differences are marginal, and its slim pickings among self-identified black Republicans of any skin tone. That said, among the handful of black Republicans in existence, dark-skinned blacks are 35% more likely to self-identify as Republican than light-skinned blacks are. Maybe the GOP brain trust, given ten blacks in the entire country to choose from, simply promotes the five blackest to maximize the authenticity of its perpetually futile outreach!

Dark-skinned blacks are noticeably more conservative and less liberal than light-skinned blacks are. The following graph shows the distribution of political orientations among light- and dark-skinned blacks:

Tribal loyalties aside--which may motivate light-skinned blacks worried about not being perceived as black enough to compensate by vociferously and emphatically embracing their blackness and, by extension, their Democratic party affiliation more than dark-skinned blacks--dark-skinned blacks may well be more likely to find kindred spirits among white political conservatives than light-skinned blacks are.

GSS variables used: RATETONE(1-5)(6-10), RACECEN1(2), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6)

++Addition++In the comments, Dan points to before-and-afters of Al Sharpton and David Dinkins:

Lipids and melanin, begone!

Are there any black conservatives/Republicans who have intentionally lightened their skin? Or does bucking the political expectation and being a black conservative/Republican mean generally not conforming to any black norms, stated or unstated?

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Donald Trump agrees and amplifies

Video here. See 13m17s in:

"And a communist."

Leathery Chris Wallace tried to shank Trump in the first debate and he'd have no compunction knifing him in the back tomorrow if the opportunity presented itself, but as his genuine laugh following Trump's quip reveals, even he can't help being infected by the Trump appeal. This alphaness on display is more than mere seduction, its social dominance on full display. Take notes.

For every black lynched during Jim Crow, ten whites are murdered by blacks today

The question isn't whether or not reparations should be paid out, it is whether or not they should stop being paid out:

From 1882-1968 3,446 blacks were lynched in the US. That comes to an average of just under 40 blacks per year. In 2011, to take a recent year in which data are readily available, at least 448 whites were murdered by blacks (keeping in mind that the rate of black-on-white homicide is several times higher than the rate of white-on-black homicide and that in more than one-in-three cases of homicide the murderer is never identified). If we subtract from this figure the number of blacks murdered by whites during the same year (193), we still get a net interracial white body count of 255.

It is likely the case that, over the course of US history, more whites have been killed by blacks than blacks have been killed by whites. And with every passing year, that black advantage over whites in interracial murders increases.

Of course it naturally follows from this that the biggest intellectual sensation in the US today is a black guy who profitably laments things like white privilege and the legacy of slavery, a message that Colin Flaherty parsimoniously reduces to three words: "White people suck"!

Perhaps it's unfair to be so dismissive of the work of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Besides making life miserable for Coke executives, Coates accurately perceives that rather than fading into the past, racial strife is America's future. Google's Ngram corroborates that insight:

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Ode to immigrants

The Austrian outsider

In addition to ruling the academic and professional roosts, Keynesians control the public mind. The monetarists (ie Milton Friedman) aren't impervious though, even if their spiritual leader is:

Combined interest in the Austrian triumvirate is still dwarfed in comparison to what is directed towards the princeps Keynes and Friedman:

Economics is apparently like mechanics in the sense that macro concepts are of no use explaining behavior at the micro level. To get healthier, the economy must do what wrecks the lives of individuals who do the same. A contrarian might find it curious that wisdom at the macro level paves the road to ruin at the micro level!

The 2008 recession sparked some interest in the Austrians, but it's still a school of thought existing on the fringes. I suspect the gap will narrow more when the next bubble bursts. 

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Sun and Moon

The unconquered son guides Sol Invictus.

The unconquered son sees and shows the moon.

We climb on two by two to be sure these days continue.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Princess Paul Henson

My sons will be kings, and not because they'll (necessarily!) be Newtons, standing on the shoulders of proverbial giants. They will appear prodigious because everywhere they go there will be dwarves standing all around them.

Absentee fathers are becoming the American norm. Seeing this sort of flamboyant dishonor shows that even where dads are still around, the rot often runs deep.

As a man, the second greatest thing in life is having someone who will die for you. The greatest thing
is having someone you won't hesitate to die for. Every man is someone's son. He should be so fortunate to have such a father. And for every man worthy of being called a father, trading your own life for your son's should be as automatic as breathing. Unless you're really just a couple of play sisters, that is.

Parenthetically, indulging a child in this sort of stuff being irresponsible aside, the glorification that accompanies it would appear, to an alien who just landed here, ridiculously arbitrary. What if the kid wanted to be Barack Obama? Would a toddler in blackface elicit similar virtue-signalling celebrations? Would dad say "keep your race bullshit" to the SJW-types who'd be triggered by a parent encouraging a white kid to dress up as a black man? Gender is less arbitrary than race is, yet while very few people would "like" a little white kid pretending to be black, they'll rah-rah when a little boy pretends to be a girl.

There is a silver lining here, though. It shows us that while we might focus on what separates us from Pashtun goatherds in Afghanistan, we have more in common with them than we might think we do!

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Pathological altruism

Pathological altruism--a mind disease closely related to political correctness that may prove terminal to western civilization--on display (assuming the alleged crime occurred):
A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”

Colleagues are alleged to have said that reporting the crime would set back their struggle for a borderless world.
Yes, this is an extreme example of it, but there are WEIRDOs reading this who will reflexively direct more anger at me for pointing out this heinous but avoidable tragedy than they will at the victim who put herself in a position to allow it to happen and the perpetrators who made it happen. That instinctive reaction is a less intensive manifestation of the condition, but it too is indicative of a mental pathology.

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Trump on inviting, invading, and HBD

(Click on the link following each tick mark for the relevant break in video)

- On the MENA migration crisis in Europe

Trump notes the migrants look like young, strong, fighting men who should presumably be engaged in the Syrian melee instead of running away from it. He then expresses skepticism over whether or not many of these men are actually from Syria, and follows it up by suggesting the migration could effectively be a modern day Trojan horse operation (Angela Merkel thinks she's getting quite a gift!). Finally, he says that as president he'd send back the 200,000 Syrian refugees the current nation-wrecker plans on bringing in.

If you care about the National Question, convince me of who else could possibly be your man, because if you elect to engage in the current political process I see no other conceivable choice.

- On the disastrous consequences of US meddling in the Muslim world

Essentially what Trump asserts is that knocking out Saddam and Qaddafi gave us the migration crisis, the Islamic State, and a stronger Iran. With Trump we get no more nation-building and no reigniting the Cold War. Sign me up.

- Genetics matter

This isn't the first time he's indicated as much. This revealed tendency for thinking in terms of human biodiversity rather than blank slatist nonsense is encouraging because it, almost by default, lessens the likelihood that he'll fall for stupid, destructive stuff like No Child Left Behind, disparate impact as a legitimate indicator of malfeasance, the aforementioned nation building, unskilled immigration, etc.

Friday, October 02, 2015

James Holmes attractiveness due to status, shooting people, or both?

Parsing this sort of thing is difficult, but I stand by the original CH formulation. In a list of male attributes ranked in descending order of power over the female libido, fame is at the very top. Fame brings all the girls to the yard. There are a couple posts in the archives featuring videos of pranksters in the field (i.e., a mall) pretending to be someone famous. Once word spread, women flocked to them. Next in the ranking, raw power/dominance. Violent psychopaths exhibit a form of raw power/dominance, and that is likely a big part of their visceral appeal to women.

Heartiste's comments on Colorado shooter James Holmes' aspiring harem begs the question of whether or not status, rather than cruelty and violence, is the predominant driver of the female sexual desire on display.

Does Peyton Manning--a physically unattractive, salt-of-the-earth niceguy--attract the same volume of mail attention from women that Holmes does? I have no idea. While it almost certainly doesn't comprise as high a percentage of the total mail Manning receives as it does Holmes, in absolute revealing photo counts, I'd guess Manning gets more. As a greater beta, that's what I want to believe, anyway, but I'll defer to the discerning devil on this question if he deems it worthy of taking up.

What about (relatively) low-profile murder compared to status? Does Manning attract the same volume of mail attention that a less notorious murderer does? How much of the lusting is driven by the implied high status that comes from attention--of any kind--and how much is driven by violence and psychopathy per se? Both factors are contributory. The question is one of degree.

Whatever the distribution, modern WEIRDO treatment of its societal miscreants perpetuates the socially harmful boost in attractiveness these miscreants receive as a complement to the attention that comes their way. We see them in well-dressed and in good health smugly smirking in a courtroom surrounded by authoritative men in suits who are paying attention to them.

The ancients knew better. When Caesar defeated Vercingetorix, he kept him on a subsistence diet in solitary confinement without access to the most basic hygienic services for years before revealing him to the public--bound and broken--and then force marched in humiliation in front of jeering crowds before being ritually strangled. Vercingetorix must have been more of a sex symbol before Alesia than he was half a decade after it.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Shameful dogism

Checking around before renewing home insurance for the year, imagine the triggering I experience as I come across this:

Discrimination against pit bulls so bad that four iterations of the breed appear here

Racism in any form is intolerable enough, but to have it so blatantly incorporated into a routine business transaction shows just how far we still have to go to achieve true social justice in America!

Obviously the reason having one of these breeds as a pet increases a person's premium is because these are the breeds at highest risk of causing liability claims against their owners. If it was due to some irrational anti-terrier bias on the part of Geico, other insurers could undercut the company by offering people with these breeds lower premiums. It turns out that this is standard practice, though, because, well, because that's exactly how the insurance market works most efficiently, by basing premiums on risk profiles.

"But isn't the real question how their owners raise them?"

That confuses cause and effect. It's not that people who want aggressive dogs tend to get pits and consequently pits become aggressive, it's that pits inherently have an aggressive temperament (especially towards other dogs) and the capabilities to make that aggressiveness count that lead people who want aggressive dogs to get pits. Blacks aren't fast because they play cornerback, blacks play cornerback because they are fast.

"But labradors and collies bite, too!"

Not as frequently as rottweilers do, and perhaps even more importantly, if a lab bites at your toddler or your whippet, you might be looking at stitches. If a pit bull does, you could be putting down your pup or burying your own baby.