Friday, July 31, 2015

No one leaves the door unlocked anymore

Social trust has steadily declined in the US over at least the last four decades. Part of that decline is explained by an increase in the proportion of the country's non-white population, but much of it is due to a decline in trust among non-Hispanic whites as well. Diversity is strength social withdrawal paired with social discord. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents of European ancestry who say that people are generally trustworthy, by year:


Trust in the general population declined from 48.1% in 1972 to 31.9% in 2014. Over the same period of time, trust among whites fell from 54.7% to 39.3%, a trajectory modestly gentler than that of the population taken as a whole.

Parenthetically, there is a precipitous decline in 1983 followed by a rebound in 1984 that mirrors the data for the entire population, a variance probably explained by a transcription issue with the results or simply sampling noise. It's tempting to combine the years for a smoothed average that meshes better with the rest of the data, but I've never massaged the numbers here before and I'm not about to start doing so now, so make of it what you will.

GSS variables used: YEAR, TRUST(1-2), ETHNIC(2-4,6-15,18,19,21,23-27,32,33,35,36,41,97)

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Trust no one

Digging a little deeper, it's remarkable just how little trust millennials express having in other people. The following graph shows the percentages of those under 30 years of age, those over 30 years old, and the population as a whole who assert that "most people can be trusted" on a dichotomous rendering of a question ("you can't be too careful in life" is the alternative response) that has been asked since the survey's inception in the early seventies:


While trust in others has decayed alongside social cohesion across all age groups, the decline has been especially precipitous among young adults. While expressed levels of trust among those over 30 has decreased by a bit less than one-third in the last four decades, it has been sliced to less than half of what it was among those under 30, to the point now where just 1-in-5 young adults feel that other people are worthy of their trust.

The country is coming apart at the seams. We can pretend to try and talk it over but the words come out too rough.

GSS variables used: TRUST(1-2), AGE(18-29)(30-89), YEAR

Monday, July 27, 2015

Caitlyn and Zoey

From the NameVoyager application at Baby Naming Wizard, the history of the name Caitlyn:


It first crops as a name for infants in the eighties and begins to become somewhat familiar in the nineties.

And of the name Zoey (the adopted name of the feminine transgender woman who physically threatened a wrecker who dared to state the biologically obvious fact that, gender identification aside, Caitlyn and Zoey are, biologically, both males):


Zoey first shows up in the nineties and still may yet to have peaked as a trendy name.

If these two had thought about becoming (or being, or whatever) women for their entire lives, one might expect that they would've long since identified names to represent their true identities, names that would've been popular when they were growing up, like Bruce or Robert.

If, on the other hand, transgenderism is the consequence of something else, like psychologically unstable men acting on a narcissistic desire to lust after themselves, we might expect them to pick names they had recently been exposed to from coming across hot teenagers or twenty-somethings with those names.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Salubrious straights

The percentages of people, by sexual orientation, who reported having missed work over the last month due to "mental or physical" health issues (n = 1,160):

OrientationMissed work
Straight13.3%
Bisexual19.4%
Gay34.4%

Sample sizes are small for gays and bis (22 and 27, respectively) as the question was asked for the first time in the most recent 2014 iteration of the survey, so results shouldn't be treated as anything more than suggestive.

When we talk about a germ theory of homosexuality, this isn't what we usually have in mind, but as someone who gets the anecdotal sense that (male) homosexuals are generally less healthy than heterosexuals are, the above comes as little surprise, even after acknowledging that stereotypically gay jobs are not especially physically demanding or dangerous.

GSS variables used: MISSWORK, SEXORNT

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Social entropy

The US has become so disunited--religiously, ethnically, politically, economically, culturally, racially, linguistically--that its existence as a single political entity no longer makes sense. As the polyglot country becomes increasingly diverse and thus increasingly divided, people are becoming increasingly distrustful of other people. The following graph shows the percentage of GSS respondents, by year, who say that "most people can be trusted" (n = 37,407):


Whites self-describe as far more trusting of others than NAMs do, and slightly more trusting of others than Asians do. From 2000 onward (the year the survey first began asking a detailed question about racial identity), the percentages of respondents who say most people can be trusted, by race (n = 11,530):


Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing demographic groups in the US. As their shares of the population continue to grow, levels of social trust will continue to deteriorate. Prepare to hunker down in the disUnited States of Misanthropia.

GSS variables used: YEAR, TRUST(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16)

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Blacks crush blacks

How the distribution of perpetrators of violent crimes perpetrated against blacks would look in a perfectly diverse, multicultural utopia:


How a naif might think the distribution looks based on the perpetual cherry picking and gross omissions served up by the major media:


Piggybacking on the 2012-2013 NCVS numbers crunched by Heather Mac Donald, how the perpetrator distribution against black victims of non-homicidal violent crime actually looks:


A picture is worth a thousand words, and this is a handy one to pull out of a back pocket every time a SWPL or race hustler yammers on about how some individual case of white-on-black violence serves as a microcosm of American society as a whole (while ignoring the 27 instances of black-on-white violence that occur for each single case of white-on-black violence).

Just 1-in-10 black victims suffer at the hands of non-Hispanic white perpetrators of violence. This even though whites comprise a majority of the population.

Proximity, of course, plays a substantial role in shaping the distribution. The Obama administration's drive to push NAMs out of the inner cities and into white suburbs will, as one of its many aftereffects, lead to an increase in interracial violence. As a consequence, a few more blacks will suffer at the hands of whites and a lot more whites will suffer at the hands of blacks. Diversity + Proximity = War.

Still, if #blacklivesmatter, it seems curiously ineffective and inefficient to focus almost exclusively on a small minority of cases in which blacks suffer if the objective is to reduce said suffering.

Whites are, in fact, less likely to perpetrate acts of violence against any of the groups measured--whites, blacks, Hispanics, or others--than their numbers alone would predict under the (flawed) assumption that propensity for criminal violence is distributed evenly across racial groups.

Blacks, on the other hand, at 13.2% of the population, are more likely to perpetrate acts of violence against members of all other groups than would be predicted under an egalitarian assumption based on their share of the population alone.



Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Sending our love down the well

During its golden age, The Simpsons covered all the bases. An exchange, relevant to today's McCain/Trump 'controversy', that transpired more than two decades ago:

Homer: That little Timmy is a real hero.
Lisa: What makes him a hero, Dad?
Homer: Well, he fell down the well and ... can't get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: [Angrily] Well, it's more than you did!

Outrage.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Here comes the normalization of open marriage

Instead of mere powers of prognostication, we'd prefer Heartiste be blessed with the ability to do something to help Western civilization hold itself together (though he'd argue that he provides a powerful tool that could theoretically be employed to do just that). I suppose we use the skill sets we have. Self-quote:
If the presumption is that marriage precludes extramarital sexual activity, then it seems reasonable to argue that opening it up to same-sex couples does in fact 'disrespect the idea of marriage'.

Perhaps it's time for that aspect of the definition of marriage to change as well. Expect it to be the next big Establishment objective after the shock troops are done mopping up any residual resistance to transgendering.
From New York magazine, right on cue, comes an article written by a gelded homo sapien who happens to have a Y-chromosome. The opening paragraph:
As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.
Outbred serial monogamy is a monumental achievement, one a civilization that has managed to make it the societal norm should be perpetually vigilant in maintaining. It goes against the natural inclination of women to a small degree and of men to a much more significant one, but the benefits in terms of social cohesion and, most crucially, widespread male societal buy-in is enormous. Things are easier to tear down than they are to put together.

Celibacy, monogamy, homosexuality, polygamy, incest, bestiality--they're simply different choices. No one approach is preferable to any other. Your job as a good, tolerant SWPL is to nod and smile and condone people for being true to themselves. That's all that matters. Concern for "societal consequences" is just thin euphemistic cover for a license to spread hate! hate! hate!!

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Discussing white privilege, another job Americans won't do

The bugger and scofflaw Jose Antonio Vargas is hosting an upcoming MTV 'documentary' entitled White People. It "tackles the hot topic conversation of white privilege head-on in a special presentation borne out of MTV's Emmy-winning Look Different campaign". It appears that the formula is to prod some college-aged white kids into humiliating themselves about how they feel about their whiteness followed by a group reeducation session where several of these impressionable young people who've spent their entire lives immersed in a culture of white guilt come together to wallow in that guilt collectively and therapeutically.

There isn't anything particularly surprising about something like this being produced by a cable network. It's just one of countless examples of the continual deracinating of any kind of white identity that is not firmly rooted in ethnomasochism. What is noteworthy is how it is being received by the plebes. The youtube trailer is currently pulling a 1:4 like-dislike ratio, and the comments appear to be even more lopsided than that.

Scoff at this garbage. When someone brings up white privilege, sardonically ask if that is the privilege of being violently assaulted by a black man (since black-on-white violent crime is nearly 40 times more common than white-on-black violent crime is), or if it is the privilege of being able to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year to be distributed to non-whites after government bureaucrats have taken their cuts for nothing in return, or if it is the privilege of having to perform better scholastically and in the office to receive the same rewards that NAMs do.

Don't take a browbeating sitting down, and when someone else does, interject without apology. To the extent that you're able to, provide that honest conversation about race that the race hustlers putatively desire we all have.

Friday, July 10, 2015

God goes

At Secular Right, mupetblast asserts that the association between atheism and leftism is dissolving in the US. Given his vantage point, that may be little more than wishful thinking.

The percentages of GSS respondents, by year and by political orientation, who self-identify as either atheist or agnostic. To avoid racial confounding, only whites are evaluated:


The following shows how much more likely liberal respondents were, by year, to self-identify as atheist or agnostic than were conservative respondents. There is some noise from survey to survey, but to the extent that there is a trend at all, it appears to be in line with general tendency for Americans on opposite ends of the political spectrum to display wider and more acute disunity on, well, virtually everything:

1988 -- 3.36
1991 -- 1.61
1993 -- 2.71
1994 -- 2.04
1998 -- 3.02
2000 -- 3.04
2006 -- 4.57
2008 -- 5.03
2010 -- 3.30
2012 -- 6.62
2014 -- 3.53

A lack of theism, of religious affiliation, and of worship attendance increasingly characterizes people of all political orientations, but the change has been most pronounced among self-described liberals.

The presumption that most leftists are atheists is incorrect (at least for another generation or two). The assertion that most atheists are leftists, however, is currently accurate--among those surveyed between 2010-2014, 52.6% of atheists and agnostics self-described as politically liberal.

In fairness to mupetblast, his point is that the natural inclination of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to say iconoclastic things is butting up against all the emotional safeguards that have been erected by the cultural Marxists to shield the protected classes from any perceived criticism of any kind, ever. Here is to hoping he is on point there.

GSS variables used: GOD(1-2), YEAR, RACE(1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Where the white fern grows

Among the 50 states and DC between 1990 and 2012, only one has seen the share of its non-Hispanic white population grow. In the other 50, whites have declined as a percentage of the total population.

If the curiously explicit inclusion of DC didn't give it away, well, the one exception is the nation's capital, where whites have increased from 27.8% of the population in 1990 to 35.3% in 2012. In the US as a whole, white dropped from constituting 75.6% of the population in 1990 to 62.8% of the population in 2012.

The seat of federal power--where perennial amnesty proposals and 'prosecutorial discretion' have worked indefatigably to reduce whites to minority status nationwide--becomes steadily more white as the rest of the country becomes less so. Rumor has it Kent Brockman relocated to DC several years ago.

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Ain't what they used to be

Over the last three decades, US birth rates among women under 25 declined while birth rates among women over 30 increased, dramatically so among women over 40. It's well known that mean maternal age at birth has increased substantially in the West over the last 60 years.

What might not be as widely recognized--I previously wouldn't have guessed as much--is that in 1950 absolute birth rates among American women over the age of 40 were substantially higher than they are among women over the age of 40 today (on the order of 50% greater). This even though a larger percentage of total births today are to old matrons than was the case in the middle of the 20th century.

Even with all the fertility treatment cheats, longer life expectancies, and bodies less battered by previous childbirths that middle-aged women enjoy today over what their grandmothers dealt with, the latter remained more fecund than the former all the way up to menopause.

Why there may never be another Republican president

In 2012 an unpopular president--presiding over a 'bad economy', supported by an unenthusiastic base, and having been out-debated by a credentialed challenger--won reelection by a comfortable margin. Time is obviously on the Democratic party's side, so as propitious as the circumstances were for the GOP in 2012, they'll have to be even more favorable in the future for Republicans to have a shot at winning a national election.

Texas births in 2014, by race:


When the inevitable consequences of this demographic transition flip Texas from red to blue (in 2032 if I had to guess), the game will officially be over. For those familiar with the American political landscape, that might seem difficult to fathom at first blush. Consider, though, that from 1952 through 1988, California was a solidly Republican state, voting Democratic only once during that 36 year period. Now, of course, California is one of the most reliably blue states in the country.

Parenthetically, this is not to bemoan the decline of the Republican party per se. To the contrary, I've come to view its diminution as a good thing (and not only because it means fewer military blunders into third-world hellholes). The sooner a critical mass of people realizes that the idea of the US as a unified political entity is unworkable, the sooner secession becomes conceivable. Effective one-party rule is a great way to expedite that process.