Friday, December 30, 2016


I decided to check in on Hillary Clinton's social media feed, doing so for the purposes of trolling having fallen out of my daily routine nearly two months ago.

This post, with the two leading comments from the same bot engine aside a creepy robotic head shot, is uncanny:

Is there anything about this woman at all that is authentic? Anything?

Don't forget how narrowly we avoided, at least for the time being, a future characterized by a dried out roast beef sandwich (NSFMH--not safe for mental health) sloshing over a human face--forever.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Cutting out Cali

Calexit would take the country's racial demographics back 15 years. The US' racial demographic breakdown as of 2015 as a whole/without California (Calexit change):

White (non-Hispanic) -- 61.6%/64.9% (+3.3)
Black -- 13.3%/14.2% (+0.9)
Hispanic -- 17.6%/14.7% (-2.9)
Asian -- 5.6%/4.3% (-1.3)
Other -- 1.9%/1.9% (0.0)

Not only does this take us back about a decade-and-a-half in terms of the racial distribution of the country, it also takes the total population back by about the same period of time.

Put in another way, in the last 15 years we've added the contemporary population of the state of California into the US! Another California has been glommed onto the country since Bush-v-Gore.

The country is too linguistically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, economically, racially, morally, and geographically divided to make sense as a single political entity. And there are simply far too many people for it to work. Increasingly the only argument in favor of holding the thing together is a mix of complacency and economic expediency.

A SurveyUSA poll conducted in November showed Californians opposing Calexit 57%-23%, with 20% unsure. That's a high mountain to climb, but with three years' of lead time it's not an insurmountable one. Hispanics are more supportive of it than any other group is, so it already enjoys the Diversity! seal of approval.

Speaking of Californians, the majority of those who voted for the wicked witch think Trump voters are indeed deplorable. Among Hillary voters who were asked if they thought Trump voters were good people or bad people, the distribution is as follows:

Good -- 27%
Bad -- 47%
Not sure -- 26%

It gets even better when the deplorability is put in precise terms. When Hillary voters are asked if Trump voters are racist:

Yes -- 65%
No -- 16%
Not sure -- 19%


Yes -- 61%
No -- 18%
Not sure -- 22%

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Trump trolls the Cathedral hard

Donald Trump mixes owning the insult and agreeing and amplifying with a heavy dose of trolling the hell out of the Cathedral:

Many on the Trump Train are understandably concerned the new president's Achilles' heel will be a desire for media adoration. He's said to keep copies in Trump Tower of just about everything in print that contains a mention of himself.

I'm optimistic. It's hard to think of a better example of a ZFG attitude about the major Western media's opinion than this. The bipartisan establishment is shrieking about unsubstantiated Russian election interference and Trump is mocking them for it. The public is mocking them, too.

Just hours before sending this message out he fired one off that not-so-subtly alluded to the neocons' Israel-first orientation:

There is a lot of concern among restrictionists that Trump will renege on the wall. Again, I'm optimistic. He hasn't relented on the immigration rhetoric. To the contrary, he appealed to restrictionism when he stumped for John Kennedy in Louisiana a month after he'd won the presidency and continues to bring it up without prompting.

To show that I'm not an unadulterated Panglossian, though, this one will probably be thrown back in his face down the road:

I'd put the odds of a market drop comparable to 2008 occurring in Trump's first term at 80%. The earlier it happens the better as far as both the nation's financial health and Trump's reelection chances are concerned.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Feminine Christianity

Listening to an Art of Manliness podcast on the sex imbalances in contemporary American churches got me wondering if membership and self-affiliation numbers told the whole story. Pew's enormous Religious Landscape Survey revealed that US Christianity is, across denominations (with the exception of Orthodox Christians) a predominately female affair, but the gender gaps are no more than 10 points with the exceptions of black churches (shocker) and Jehovah's Witnesses (who are heavily NAM).

The gender gaps on the ground are starker still. Not only are men less likely to be church members, they're also less likely to go to church if they are members. The following table shows the sex distributions among those who attend religious services at least once a month by religious affiliation, from most feminized to least so. For contemporary relevance all data is from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are large except for in the Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, and Orthodox cases (146, 97, 60, and 44, respectively):

Religion%Male%FemaleGap (F-M)

Among Baptists and Methodists there is an almost 2-to-1 female numerical advantage. That's staggering. Having been raised in a Lutheran household, I do recall more women present but the disparity wasn't immediately noticeable, at least not to me. That was a couple of decades ago and in the least female-dominated major mainline Christian denomination, however. The shift has presumably continued since then.

The feminization of Christianity is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. As the author interviewed in the podcast explains, as fewer men have anything to do with church, churches correspondingly become less attuned to and tailored for the needs and concerns of men. It's a common observation among the red-pilled that institutional Christianity has largely become SJW-converged. The cathedrals have become part of the Cathedral.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2014), SEX, RELIG(3,9,10), DENOM(10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,50), OTH16(60-64)

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Pensive on Christmas in the house I grew up in

Foes beaten in Earthbound "returned to normal" and "became tame". Their aggressiveness was a consequence of Giygas' invasion. To my ten year-old sensibilities, it seemed sanitized. Other series implied death.

In retrospect, though, Earthbound's universe is more sensible. Creatures of the size and sophistication making up the enemy fodder of those games presumably have life and gestation cycles similar to those of contemporary big game animals. If travelers routinely slaughtered scores of them, they'd be driven towards extinction quickly, like the dodo bird or, nearly, the American bison.

In further retrospect, as a kid I tended towards ethnocentrism rather than the ethnomasochism that is becoming mandatory for white boys. I always identified with one character and fed him (invariably) all the stat-boosters. Ragnar, Steiner, Cecil (pre-transformation), Sabin, Crono (and then later Glenn once I realized his backstory), Ness. In Warcraft 2 it was always humans (unless I was laddering competitively, in which case Orcs were a necessary evil).

Speaking of Glenn, we were first introduced to him as "Frog". These are the names those of us who knew him before he was world-famous call him. The rest of you will know him by another name:

A friend alerted me to the upcoming Japanese release of Dragon Quest 11. Nostalgic mechanics paired with a novel story is a compelling mix. It's been several years since I've played a video game, but this is one I'll make time for. I'm looking forward to sharing with my son. He's entering life's most blissful age. I'll do my best to protect it until he's 11 or 12. The formation of his fondest memories draw near.

It's a gay Japanese RPG, fine. The protagonist looks androgynous, they usually do. Why expect otherwise? When was the last time a Jap won an international strongman competition or set a notable lift record in anything?

It's my sense that Japanese games are less converged than those originating in the West are. And they're far more likely to resist convergence in the future. East Asians don't suffer from the self-immolating delusions about diversity that both liberals and conservatives in the West do.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Feminization bodes poorly for free speech

Unsurprisingly, men are generally more tolerant of controversial speech than women are, with homosexuality existing as a marginal exception. The subsequent graph shows the percentages of people, by sex, who do not believe representatives of the following groups should be allowed to speak in public. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. To avoid racial confounding (see here for differences by race), only non-Hispanic whites are considered. Sample size is 7,699:

One thing to note as we look at differences in tolerance for free speech across major demographic sub-groups is how, across the board, the highest levels of intolerance are reserved for "racists". When it comes to ranking these five categories of controversial speech in terms of the amount of damage and destruction their representatives have wrought on humanity, communism comes out way on top, but among WEIRDOs there is no greater perceived societal scourge than racism.


Monday, December 19, 2016

MTV's convergence

MTV is one of many now fully SJW-converged outfits:

The putative logic on offer here is fallacious. To be valid, the corollaries would have to be the existence of "white lives matter" as an uncontroversial phrase, and the case of a white celebrity concerned explicitly with the well-being of whites being deemed perfectly acceptable. Neither things, of course, would be treated as such.

It's open season on heterosexual white male goyim. I look at my 3 year-old son playing on the floor with his Legos and my blood begins to boil.

To strangle the golden goose is to flirt with famine. We have plenty of examples of what places tend to be like without all these odious white men who are in need of fixing. They are the very places that people are evacuating by the hundreds of thousands at great personal risk, by precariously grabbing onto the bottom of semi-truck chassis and boarding rickety rafts to cross turbulent seas. The hoped-for destinations of all these other-than-white-men are countries built by the very same odious white men being mocked and scolded here. When we reach a critical mass of non-white men, incidents like the one in Berlin today begin occurring with depressing regularity.

As much as we white men enjoy being lectured by fugly shrews, flamboyant faggots, and bumbling black buffoons, we might instead heed the implicit advice of one particular man who--by refusing to apologize for who he is, what he wants, and what he intends to do--made 2016 his bitch:

Here's to you doing the same with 2017.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Diversity! is incompetency

The recounts produced a wider margin of victory for Trump in Wisconsin and turned up severe voter fraud in Democrat-controlled Detroit. Too bad they missed the recount deadline in Pennsylvania--Philadelphia's corrupt political machine is notoriously even worse than Detroit's!

From commenter Sid:
The problem with barring white men from leadership roles is that you've cut yourself off from the biggest pool of leadership talent in the country. Imagine if there were an NFL team that barred black men from joining their team: they might be able to find good players here and there, and maybe even win a few games, but barring black talent from your team would be disastrous in the long run.
The Democrats have thus handicapped themselves for ideological reasons. There are far more men than women suited for leadership. Black men have masculine charisma, but the number ready to lead on national issues is quite small. Hispanic and Asian men are rarely charismatic and seldom appeal to people outside of their racial bloc. Is Julian Castro really the best we can find? Apparently so.
An excerpt from Steve Sailer's running commentary about the wicked witch's inept campaign:
Politico spoke to a dozen officials working on or with Clinton’s Michigan campaign, and more than a dozen scattered among other battleground states, her Brooklyn headquarters and in Washington who describe an ongoing fight about campaign tactics, an inability to get top leadership to change course.
Obama's campaign headquarters:

Lots of men--well, biological males, anyway
Hillary's campaign headquarters:

Termagants on trendy MacBooks
While I thought the election would be much closer than the Establishment predicted and that Trump would win the legitimate vote from US citizens, I suspected the rigged system would narrowly keep him from officially winning the presidency.

I overestimated the competence of our opposition. This is another reason we should cheer the elevations of the Keith Ellisons and the Donna Brazilles of the Democrat party--not just because they accentuate the Core-v-Fringe division between the two major parties but also because they're less intelligent and less knowledgeable than the David Axelrods and the Howard Deans are.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Whites more intelligent, knowledgeable than blacks at all levels of educational attainment

You've probably heard the argument that in the US black job applicants face discrimination in hiring even when their educational attainment is equal to that of competing white applicants. This Think Progress article from a couple of years ago is fairly typical but also notable in that it drills down into the assertion a bit further than most others do:
African-American students need to complete two more levels of education to have the same probability of getting a job as their white peers, a new study by Young Invincibles finds.

The researchers looked at data mainly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census, isolating the effects of race and education on unemployment. They found that an African-American male with an associates degree has around the same chance of getting a job as a white male with just a high school diploma. “At every level of education, race impacts a person’s chance of getting a job,” Tom Allison, a research manager and one of the study’s authors, told ThinkProgress.
The following graph is also included in the write up:

From this data we see that whites* who've graduated from high school but not attended any college courses do about as well as blacks who have an associate's degree do, and whites who have some college but no degree do about as well as graduate-level blacks do.

Hold these two observations in your head as we take a look at some relevant GSS data.

The following graph shows average IQ, converted from Wordsum scores^, by educational attainment and by race among whites and blacks. For contemporary relevance all data is from 2000 onward and respondents born outside of the US are excluded:

The study mentioned in the article notes that white high school graduates do are as successful finding employment as blacks with associate's degrees are.

Because the GSS measures by years of education, distinguishing between "some college" and "associate's degree" is dicey.

If we assume blacks with associate's degrees fall midway between blacks with some college but no degree and blacks with bachelor's degrees, however, we get a black average that is almost identical to the average among whites with a high school diploma but no college experience.

On the first observation, then, we see that employers tend to treat white high school graduates as about as valuable as blacks with associate's degrees because the two groups tend to be roughly equal in ability.

And we see the same with regards to the second observation--the average IQ among whites with some college is virtually identical to the average IQ of graduate-level blacks.

What happens in the real world then is just what we'd expect to find if employers are rationally hiring based on ability rather than on educational credentials alone.

This aforementioned study spun this--and these studies and subsequent media reports on them always do--as an affront to social justice etc etc, but it's merely the consequence of businesses making prudent, reasonable broad-based assumptions about potential employees based on the actionable information they have available to them.

The GSS allows us to evaluate this using more than just Wordsum scores. The following tables are from selected results from the social survey's science module. Again all responses are from 2000 onward and limited to those born in the US.

Results from the question on electrons being smaller than atoms:

From the question on human evolution:

From the question on the scientific validity of astrology:

From the question dealing with the efficacy of using antibiotics to treat viruses:

The patterns we see with IQ as measured by Wordsum scores generally hold here as well--in fact, the modestly educated whites from our two previous observations actually best more highly educated blacks on these science questions rather than just matching them as they do in IQ.

It's true that most employers will prefer a white applicant over a black applicant if both have similar levels of educational attainment.

It is not true that this is an illustration of irrational discrimination on the part of those employers, however. To the contrary, affirmative action practices--both implicit and explicit--are so deeply embedded in the fabric of American life that this outcome is, given current societal circumstances, inevitable.

See treatments of related ideas from The Alternative Hypothesis here and here.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2014), RACECEN1(1,2), BORN(1), WORDSUM, EDUC(0-11,12,13-15,16-17,18-20), ELECTRON, EVOLVED, ASTROSCI, VIRUSES

* All data is for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.

^ Assuming a national mean IQ of 98 and a standard deviation of 15.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Who? Whom? is all that matters

It's worth remembering that the Obama administration was actively making foreign policy concessions to Ecuador in an attempt to get that country to influence the outcome of the presidential election:

It's an administration just trying to do what's in its own best interests, of course:

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Whitebread Jews

Steve Sailer writes:
This will raise questions for the single most influential group in public discourse, Ashkenazi Jews. Are they Europeans or are they MENAs? The feds have suggested that Israeli Jewish immigrants will be expected to self-identify as MENAs, but there has been no hint about Ashkenazis, who have typically been in Europe for a couple of thousand years and are, according to recent genome studies, on average slightly more European than MENA by descent. But would self-identifying as Europeans be seen as invalidating their claim to the Holy Land in the Middle East?
How they will choose to identify when the MENA census category becomes available is something I can only speculate on, but by an overwhelming margin they currently elect to identify as white rather than "some other race" or "two or more races".

Just as it is rhetorically effective to grill smug SWPLs singing paeans to Diversity! on where they live and why they choose to pay more to avoid Diversity! instead of opting for a higher (monetary!) standard-of-living and more Diversity! if they really believed what they profess to believe, so it is similarly effective--and squirm-inducing--to immediately bring up "Jewish privilege" whenever anyone mentions "white privilege".

The following table, constructed from GSS data, shows how respondents racially self-identify by religious affiliation. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward:

No affiliation79.

Hispanics appear to be substantially underrepresented here because of the phrasing of the racial identification question. It doesn't specifically ask respondents whether or not they are Hispanic. Instead, it records how they choose to racially self-identify. Since Hispanic isn't a race, many Hispanics don't identify as such on this question. Consequently "white" is, in this context, mostly non-Hispanic white but also includes some number of 'white' Hispanics.

Jews are in fact the whitest major religious tradition in the country. Among the major Protestant denominations, only Nazis Lutherans are whiter, and only marginally so (95.3% to 96.9%, respectively)--Presbyterians (90.7%), Baptists (61.6%), Methodists (86.0%), and Episcopalians (88.5%) are all less white than Jews are.

Muslims, in contrast, are far more likely than Jews to choose "some other race". After we discount for the one-third who are native blacks in the Farrakhan/prison conversion mold we are still left with less than half of the American Muslim population racially self-identifying as white.

Given the relative irreligiosity of ethnic Jews, there is the potential confounding issue of some non-religious ethnic Jews religiously identifying as having no affiliation rather than a Jewish one. Such cases presumably account for a small percentage of all ethnic Jews--religious or not--however, as those who do religiously identify as Jewish make up over 1.8% of the total respondent pool (n = 19,894). The category appears to be capturing most American Jews.

Additionally, those who do religiously identify as Jewish aren't very theistic. Belief in God by religious affiliation, again from 2000 onward:

Religion%Atheist%Agnostic%Uncertain belief%Firm belief
No affiliation12.120.545.921.5

GSS variables used: RELIG, RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15,16), DENOM(10-19,20-29,30-39,40-49,50), YEAR(2000-2014), GOD(1,2,3-5,6)

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Trump's net favorability on track to surpass Obama's by inauguration day

Trump's shattering expectations.

I got on the Trump Train back in July 2015 for three primary reasons:

1) Immigration -- his candidacy was a referendum on a wall.

2) Political correctness -- any other political figure who'd said one-tenth of the things he did would've been toast. Instead of groveling, he doubled down. Rather than shedding support, his level of support increased.

3) Messianic democracy -- he offered a reorientation of Republican foreign policy from neocon interventionism to America First nationalism to such an extent that the 2016 election was one in which the Democrat was the hawk and the Republican was the relative dove.

Trump's positions on trade and corporate taxation were encouraging to hear but I figured they would at best amount to small effects on the margins.

Was I ever wrong about that. The news of foreign investment heading into the US and of manufacturing already here staying here as a direct consequence of Trump's election continues daily--Ford (hyperbole aside), Carrier, Trans-Lux, SoftBank, to name the biggest and most conspicuous ones so far.

There is nothing more valuable than access to the US market. That can be leveraged to the hilt. Wal-Mart didn't become the world's largest brick-and-mortar retailer by focusing on reciprocity and equitability with its suppliers. That sort of principled cuckery is the reason the phrase "nice guys finish last" exists.

Parenthetically, don't think I've lost my grounding here. Despite the recent surge, the markets are headed for a serious downturn in the relatively near future, on the order of a double-digit percentage decline over the course of a single year. That was going to happen irrespective of who was elected. I'd put it at 5% before Trump takes office, 80% during his first-term, 10% between '20-'24, and 5% that it'll happen after that.

Anyway, Trump's net favorability has gone from -29.2 to +5.2 in a mere six weeks. He's now within striking distance of Obama. The markets need to open an over/under on whether Trump will be more popular than Obama by inauguration day:

Trump is now far more popular among whites (+21.6) than Obama (-8.7) is, and Trump has closed his own NAM gaps considerably, from -50 to -16 among Hispanics and from -85.8 to -64.0 among blacks.

Sunday, December 04, 2016

Liberty, if you can keep it

As a follow up to the previous post showing how free speech is a white thing, note that free speech is an American thing. The US is still as good as it gets when it comes to speaking freely.

The subsequent graph shows the percentages of people, by whether they were born in the US or were born outside the country and subsequently settled stateside, who do not believe representatives of the following groups should be allowed to speak in public. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are 9,807 for natives and 1,313 for the foreign-born:

The color commentary from the preceding post is as relevant in the case of native-vs-foreign-born as it is in the case of white-vs-non-white, so with the objective of making each capable of standing on its own, indulge me this... reiteration.

Whether the speaker in question is 'far right'--as in the case of an avowed racist--or 'far left'--as in the case of a communist--native-born Americans are more open to discussion of controversial topics than immigrants are.

This is of course a feature rather than a bug from the perspective of the Cloud People. It's one of the reasons they've been working so hard to elect a new people. Independent thoughts should not be coming from the peasantry!

Not only does multiculturalism make members of all races and cultures hunker down more than they otherwise would if their societies were homogeneous, the specific kind of diversification we're suffering from is accelerating this process even more than heterogeneity in general would. As the white population declines, free speech will decline along with it.

The more diversity we take on, the less liberty and equality we will enjoy. These things are mutually exclusive.


Saturday, December 03, 2016

Diversity is Strength! It's also... opposition to free speech

The subsequent graph shows the percentages of people, by race, who do not believe representatives of the following groups should be allowed to speak in public. So in the first set of bars we see that 36.4% of whites do not think racists should be allowed to speak in public. For blacks, Hispanics, and Asians the figures are 41.4%, 55.2%, and 47.8%, respectively.

For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes by race are 7,751 for whites, 1,445 for blacks, 535 for Hispanics, and 297 for Asians:

Free speech is a white thing. Whether the speaker in question is 'far right'--as in the case of an avowed racist--or 'far left'--as in the case of a communist--whites are more open to discussion of controversial topics than non-whites are. Hispanics are especially hostile towards freedom of expression.

This is of course a feature rather than a bug from the perspective of the Cloud People. It's one of the reasons they've been working so hard to elect a new people. Independent thoughts should not be coming from the peasantry!

Not only does multiculturalism make members of all races and cultures hunker down more than they otherwise would if their societies were homogeneous, the specific kind of diversification we're suffering from is accelerating this process even more than heterogeneity in general would. As the white population declines, free speech will decline along with it.

The more diversity we take on, the less liberty and equality we will enjoy. These things are mutually exclusive.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, YEAR(2000-2014)

Friday, December 02, 2016

California dreaming

In the previous post it was noted that according to exit polling data the entire increase in Hispanic turnout in the 2016 election compared to the 2012 election was accounted for--and then some--by an increase in California's Hispanic turnout.

Pithom doesn't buy it:
Though the effect of Loretta Sanchez on the ballot may have helped Hispanic turnout in California, the numbers I saw before election day from early voting in North Carolina showed "other race" and "multi-racial" turnout up reasonably strongly ...

I suspect Florida and Nevada had higher Hispanic turnout, as well, though that Hispanic turnout was also more pro-Trump than it was pro-Romney in 2012, at least, in Nevada.
I didn't make it clear enough that I'm skeptical of the veracity of the conclusion. While it's unavoidable given the data, it presumes that the data is accurate. There are reasons for skepticism. For example, nationally the percentage of voters without a college degree apparently declined by 25% between 2012 and 2016. That strikes me as almost literally incredible.

On election day, I heard, read, and saw several reports about huge lines at voting locations. All the people I talked to who voted on election day, though, said the lines and the wait times were minimal or nonexistent. Given that turnout was flat from 2012 and down from 2008 and that a record number of ballots were cast before election day, I suspect this anecdotal evidence scales better than the media accounts do.

Parenthetically, exit polls show North Carolina's electorate was 70% white this time around, unchanged from 2012. Hispanic turnout in Florida and Nevada was flat to 2012 (up 1 point and down 1 point, respectively). For what it's worth, the state exit polls mesh with the story that the national exit poll appears to tell.

Speaking of the California senate race (still another reason for Calexit!), it was nice to see that Loretta Sanchez, the candidate who was beaten decisively, actually won among Hispanics. It was also nice to see the winner, who is black, won the black vote by a 4-to-1 margin. When there isn't a badwhite to unite the Coalition of the Fringes, the various parties comprising that precarious coalition turn on each other in a flash. Diversity is a wonderful thing! Lee Kuan Yew knew.

And speaking of Hispanics, Steve Sailer has noted that, relative to their IQs, Hispanics tend to be underachievers. They're less likely to go to college or vote than blacks are, for instance. They're also less likely to read. From Pew, the percentages of people, by race, who have not read a single book in any format in the last year:

Hispanics -- 42%
Blacks -- 31%
Whites -- 24%

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Another reason to support Calexit

With the caveats about the reliability and precision of exit polling data kept in mind, consider that Hispanics went from 10% to 11% of the national electorate between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 10%. In California, Hispanics went from 22% to 31% between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 40%. Some 30% of the nation's total Hispanic population lives in California.

That means that California alone accounted for the entire increase in nationwide Hispanic turnout between 2012 and 2016. Solely accounted for it and then some, to be precise--the numbers actually suggest that Hispanic turnout in the other 49 states modestly declined between 2012 and 2016.

We have seen the future and it is, without a significant change of course, California.

Here's to hoping that the golden state acts as a window into the future on another thing--secession.

The most probable path I'd conceived of up to this point was through Texit. Texas exits the union, the electoral college immediately becomes unwinnable for Republicans, and a secession cascade is triggered.

Well, a similar dynamic is in play with a Calexit except that the blue states are the ones that start bailing. Hasta la vista, baby.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Choose one: Liberty, equality, or diversity

Malcolm Pollack excerpting thoughts on the Equalism myth:
Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.
If Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias, She bursts into laughter at the union of freedom, equality, and diversity in our utopias. When one prevails, the other two die.

Liberty, equality, or diversity--choose one. Just one.

Even the most nightmarish Orwellian IngSoc state, with zero liberty, will fail to make diversity and equality compatible. Asian men and black women will still have relatively lower SMVs than others, black infants will still die at higher rates than non-black infants, etc.

That the Cathedral favors diversity over the other two is the Occident's great tragedy. There is plenty of room for moral, empirical, pragmatic, and dialectical arguments and correspondingly differing positions on relative preferences for equality and for liberty in a healthy society.

Diversity destroys all of this. It leaves us enfeebled, untrusting, and holed up inside our own little cocoons. As Greg Johnson puts it:
Nobody feels at home in multicultural and multiracial societies.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Further left than blacks, liberals, and Democrats

Trebek: For $1000, blacks, liberals, and Democrats were more likely to vote for Donald Trump and less likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than this group of people.

Trebek: Yes, Pepe?

Pepe: Who are residents of Washington DC?

Trebek: That is correct. 

Friday, November 25, 2016

If all publicity is good publicity

... then Richard Spencer has given the Alt Right a lot of good publicity. He has in fact trebled the interest Hillary was able to generate when she mentioned the movement in a speech back in August:

Looking at the search results by state, I got a chuckle when I saw Montana, Spencer's primary residence, as the top result. I wonder if Whitefish has the highest per capita search volume in the country. At some level, all politics are indeed local!

Contesting the sagacity of the titular saying is that unlike when the wicked witch called us out, top search results included things from guys like Jared Taylor, Jeff Deist, and Spencer himself.

Now the best coverage we get is from Wikipedia--everything else is a total hatchet job using the NPI Nazi salute video as a starting point:

The Brave results are no different.

C'est la vie. What we lose in the intellectually curious we may more than make up for in non-conformist, contrarian young men full of energy and an insatiable desire to troll.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Thus Spoke Spencer

Processing the end of Richard Spencer's NPI speech and trying to figure out what to make of it, I felt compelled to drop in at The Z-Blog to see if he'd publicly expressed his thoughts. I'm glad I did. I'd be echoing his sentiments with less eloquence and precision here if I hadn't done so.

The rule that there should be no enemies to the right is one I respect. Spencer is not an enemy. Functional alliances are not predicated on the parties involved being in perfect alignment.

That said, let's consider some of the moving parts. First, the attention Spencer has received over the last week:

It dwarfs that of other leading Alt Right-ish figures. Spencer is now the recognized name--and face--of the Alt Right, and he's also now associated with leading a Nazi salute (claims that Roman military salutes were the intention are optically immaterial as is the fact that he merely raised his water glass in toast) to close out a speech where he urged people of European descent to conquer and destroy. The provocative use of the German word "lugenpresse" has been used in Germany over the last couple of years, but the connection to Nazism is what will stick in America.

Of course they'll call us Nazis, -ists, -phobics, and all the other deplorable identifiers regardless of what we say or do. But over the last several years, and the last 18 months in particular, those charges have become risible. The general public now increasingly dismisses them as indicative of empty virtue-signalling and hypocritical double-standards.

As these deterrents have ceased to any longer deter, people have fumbled their way to our ideas, our issues, and our conceptions. They resonate. They identify what so many people feel in their guts to be true about what the West is becoming--or unbecoming. The conference title "become who we are" encapsulates this perfectly. The meat of Spencer's speech is great, some of the most rhetorically effective stuff I've ever heard him say, and I've been following for almost a decade now.

White people don't want anything to do with Nazism, though. Nazism doesn't symbolize European unity. To the contrary, it symbolizes the most self-destructive, nearly suicidal episode in the 2,500 year history of the West. It strips away the empirical and familial foundations of civic nationalism (or white nationalism for that matter) and replaces it with white supremacy, and it's the team name of the losers to boot.

The number of people--normal, salt-of-the-earth Trump people--who are moving (and being moved by events) towards a sense of racial identity is orders of magnitude greater than the people who will look into a movement that splashes in WWII-era German words, gives the Nazi salute, and talks about conquering and destroying. And now whenever the term "Alt Right" comes up, so will images--real images, video from people standing in front of Spencer as he says "hail Trump"--of 'neo-Nazis' giving the HH salute.

Speaking of looking into the movement, untold numbers of potential recruits found their way to us as a consequence of Hillary Clinton's bizarre speech denouncing the Alt Right. Beyond the immediate news headlines from her speech, those who went looking found articles, posts, podcasts, and videos from Alt Rightists giving introductions and summaries of what the Alt Right is, what it stands for, and what it hopes to accomplish:

NPI's 2016 conference and subsequent theatrics have given even more attention to the Alt Right than the wicked witch did, but now instead of sending people to Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer or Jeff Deist to have it explained to them, search results will forever bring up video of people yelling "hail Trump" and giving Nazi salutes.

People will continue to move in our direction. It remains to be seen if the Alt Right is able to continue to function as an umbrella term for dissidents on the right as that dissidence fractures along fault lines of civic nationalism, white nationalism, and white supremacism.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

White Republicans overwhelmingly feel like strangers in their own country

Here's the graphic accompanying the portal into Reuters/Ipsos' poll in which participants were asked, on election day (this looks like it could be Steve Sailer's missing R/I exit poll, but at least up to this point, isn't being fully released), if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, "These days I feel like a stranger in my own country":

So it's illegal immigrants, Muslims, blacks, SWPLs, and all the other constituencies that must be cobbled together to create the Coalition of the Fringes that are feeling lost as the country regresses, then?

To an extent, yes, in that plurality of the country as a whole expresses the sentiment of feeling like a stranger in American society. Bowling--or, increasingly, holing up and watching Youtube or Netflix--Alone; the story of 21st century multicult America.

But Core America is where the alienation is the most acute. It's Middle Americans who really feel like barbarians living within the gates.

The following table shows the percentages who agree--that is, who express feelings of alienation--by the limited demographic characteristics available and with the non-committal and "don't know" responses removed. The sample size is huge (n = 45,122):

White Republicans72.9%
Hispanic Republicans69.2%
Hispanics (all) 60.8%
Black Republicans59.3%
Whites (all)59.0%
Blacks (all)54.5%
Hispanic Democrats54.4%
Black Democrats53.2%
White Democrats38.7%

Nearly 3-in-4 white Republicans sense that the country is becoming unrecognizable. The cold culture war (that is heating up) continues to pit goodwhites on one side and deplorables on the other.

Cross-tabs on age and education aren't available. It'd be interesting to see if younger whites on the right--who are quite open to the idea of secession--express more or less alienation than their parents do.

The first time I recall viscerally feeling a connection to the Trump movement, back in late summer 2015, was when I heard Trump say "We're taking our country back from these people" at one of his rallies. I wasn't alone:

The propositionalist's Hamilton problem

Hamilton is hell for tradcon propositionalists. It follows historical events pretty accurately and some of the founding fathers are protagonists. There's no angle for criticism. It doesn't even occur to them that Pence showing up to such an ethnomasochistic production is regrettable.

The best they can do in the current situation is point out that the cast was pulling a publicity stunt and that if their real objective was to communicate their concerns to the VP-elect they could've requested a meeting backstage before or after the performance, that it's not a first amendment issue because Trump isn't saying they don't have the right to speak, etc.

For the Alt Right, informed by identitarianism, the analysis is easy--Hamilton is virtue-signaling ahistorical claptrap because demography is destiny. Who you are is more important than what you profess to believe in a particular time and place, earnestly or otherwise. Rather than lose battle after battle in the culture war by stubbornly refusing on principle to engage the enemy using the same guerrilla tactics that it uses against us as the Respectable Right has done for decades, the Alt Right employs CultMarx tactics against the CultMarxists with deadly effectiveness.

If the country's founding demography resembled the cast of Hamilton, we'd likely to be living in a country more reminiscent of Haiti or Liberia than of 21st century America. Turning Hamilton into a Diversicrat is ridiculous. He was, to put it mildly, an immigration skeptic. He was part of a George Washington administration that supported the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricting naturalization to "free white persons of good character".

We're more favorably inclined towards the criticism of dead white males than we are of this character fungibility. In the case of the former, the battle lines are clearly drawn. When we get revisionism like this, though, that attempts to rewrite our heritage rather than just myopically viewing the past through the lens of 21st century CultMarx leftism, it's time to draw steel.

Though Trump isn't consciously aware of what's in play here, the greatness of his instincts are once again confirmed. He didn't have to make an issue out of this, but President I-am-your-voice sensed that he ought to and acted accordingly.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Hamilton: An American Musical vs Hamilton's America

The Coalition of the Fringes is tearing and fraying more and more by the day.

In response to the public pillorying of Mike Pence, #BoycottHamilton started up. Yes, it's silly to think a status-signalling display of conspicuous consumption where the dynamic is one of artificially restricted supply designed to insure demand remains unsatisfied is vulnerable to a boycott, but the reactions to the aspiring boycott are useful for revealing to the middle (and the bottom) how much the top despises it:

We can further stir the pot by pointing out how every attack on the middle is an even harsher attack on the bottom. Yes, Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats because of you know who, and yes, more Trump voters than Clinton supporters are able to afford Hamilton tickets because of you know who:

To give the shiv a little twist, keep in mind that Trump did better in flyover country and in rural areas where the cost-of-living tends to be lower than on the coasts and in densely populated areas where Clinton did better. Consequently the Trump voters' advantage in terms of real standard-of-living is even greater than is their advantage in terms of nominal income.

Here's another one:

For a figurative backhand, we could point out that Republicans are more knowledgeable than Democrats are about things like current events and history.

Since this is no time for half-measures, however, I recommend we grab the hacksaw instead:

Friday, November 18, 2016

Polling predictions versus actual electoral outcomes in the 2016 presidential election, by state

The following table and map show Trump's electoral performance relative to RCP's two-way polling averages, by state.

The poll results were averaged except for the few cases where no polling had been conducted since October 1--in those states, the most recent poll was used as the RCP 'average'. There was no polling data available at all in four states. They are colored in black on the map. The rest of the states are colored according to how greatly Trump exceeded/fell short of polling expectations, the darker the greater his over-/under-performance. The five states where the RCP average was within half a percentage point of the actual results are shaded in an off-white color.

West Virginia24.2
South Dakota19.1
South Carolina10.1
Rhode Island5.4
North Carolina3.0
New Hampshire0.0
New York(0.8)
New Jersey(1.8)
New Mexico(3.3)
No data for

One thing that immediately jumps out is the tendency for the winner of non-competitive states to significantly exceed polling expectations (ie Trump doing even better than the lopsided polls suggested in dark red states like West Virginia and Oklahoma and Clinton doing better than the polls predicted in dark blue states like California and Illinois). The correlation between the margin of Trump's victory/defeat and his over-/under-performance relative to the polls is an impressive .63 (p-value = .0000002).

Another thing that astute commentators noted from the beginning but that the polling agencies never fully picked up on was the nationwide east-west divide. The dynamics in play here are the rootedness, manufacturing, and populism of the east versus the transplanted, service-oriented, libertarianism of the west. Trump did better than expected in the east and worse than expected in the west.

A few comments on where the polls went especially wrong:

- They drastically underestimated how the subjects of Hillbilly Elegy would come out in droves for Trump. These are the forgotten Americans he spoke about again and again during the campaign. They were as forgotten by the pollsters as they are by the political class.

- Trump was, save for Chicago Illinois, significantly underrated across the entire Upper Midwest and surrounding regions. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota--the polls didn't just miss in these states, they missed badly.

- Hispanics--illegal or otherwise--responded to the threat that the reconquista could be coming to an end by shaking off a bit of their apathy to vote at higher-than-expected rates.

Parenthetically, the exit polls should be viewed with the same skepticism that the pre-election polls were correctly viewed with. It's highly unlikely that if blacks dropped from 13% of the electorate in 2012 to 12% in 2016 that the percentage of voters with no more than a high school education dropped from 24% in 2012 to just 18% in 2016, even though that's what the exit polls--which initially indicated a comfortable Clinton win before being sloppily adjusted in light of the actual results--show. We'll have to wait for the Census and eventually the GSS for more precise and reliable data.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Four fortnights and change

- Bernie Sanders is the most tragic figure of this election. He was perfectly positioned to come out of this as the left's moral and spiritual leader if he had played his cards right. Instead, he chose the role of Judas Iscariot and he didn't even get his silver coins because Hillary lost. It's too bad.

- The wailing and gnashing of teeth, the hysterical (and sadly empty) threats about leaving the country, and the chimping out are all in stark contrast to Trump's gracious probity since winning the election. Trump is managing the optics masterfully.

He's now the president-elect. Most people, including those who voted against him, want him to succeed for obvious reasons. It's easy for those of us who follow this stuff closely to forget how so many people have seen nothing from Trump beyond bits and pieces of media presentations of him up to this point.

His victory speech, save for the debates, was the most watched of anything he's done. A lot of people were legitimately making their first serious evaluation of him in the presidential role. He was gracious, conciliatory, good-humored--in a word, "presidential".

For the tens of millions of people who aren't particularly ideological or invested in politics, it'll leave a good taste in a lot of people's mouths. The contrast to the hysterical, destructive, often violent reactions of the rabble taking to the streets and to social media to express their burning hatred couldn't be starker.

In his democratic way of floating trial balloons out to assess his negotiation positions, he's flirted with backtracking on the Obamacare pledge while throwing around pretty big numbers for immediate deportation.

FDR's election revealed the awesome political potential of radio. JFK's election revealed the awesome political potential of television. Trump's election has now revealed the awesome political potential of the internet in general and social media in particular.

The media landscape has changed forever. The walls have totally crumbled around the gatekeepers. The narrative has become impossible for the Establishment to control.

Trump will do well to remember that. It's prudent to allow Donald to be Donald--after all, he did the putatively impossible. But he should also be aware that the weapon that brought him here can just as soon bring him down if he reneges on too much of what he pledged.

- Exit polling's Overton Window on display:

Ref favors you over your opponent or he's fair
to both, those are your available responses

- Speaking of the exit polling entree, salt is recommended on the side. The early results now infamously indicated a relatively comfortable Hillary win and had to be adjusted accordingly after the actual tallies came in.

Even after said adjustments, some of what is reported remains dubious. For example, in isolation this item insinuates a veritable Trumpslide:

- Other results feel dubious. This is a realignment year! The perennially incorrect punditry class predicted that Trump would hurt Republicans running down ticket. A few contrarians thought he might actually help the majority retain their majorities in the unpopular body. Instead, at least at the national level, it looks like a wash. We more-or-less got partisan business as usual:

Saturday, November 12, 2016

While we await the ascent

A lot to say about the election with an uncertain timeline of getting to it, so the subsequent series of posts may appear disjointed.

- Heartiste asserted the following:

That's undoubtedly a strong contender. Another possibility:

As pro-Trump as non-whites were anti-Trump. These people should
be scattered to the four winds, not grabbing their pitchforks!

And the one that hits closest to home if we're zeroing in not on cucks but on their allies, allies who maintain the alliance only for the sake of political expediency:

Romney, in his losing effort, did better with Jews than Trump did in his winning effort. Obama only bested Romney 69%-30%.

Trump didn't need their moneytheir public support, or their votes. He won without any of those things and now he's not beholden to them. It's not just Jonah and his moribund publication that has been left out in the cold, it's the (((people))) he cares most about who are on the outside looking in as well.

- Speaking of God's chosen people, let's give God's other chosen people a bit of credit for mostly coming through in the end:

Early on one of the many #NeverTrump's talking points that would ultimately be proven humiliatingly incorrect was the claim that Trump wouldn't even manage to win dark red Utah. In an effort to turn that claim into a self-fulfilling prophecy, they poured everything they had into an Egg McMuffin. The sandwich was subsequently crushed. Trump won the state decisively, garnering almost as many votes there as Hillary and the sandwich combined did.

- Pepe!:

- Pointing out that Hillary won the popular vote is like pointing out that a losing football team racked up more total offensive yards than the team that beat them did. It's nothing more than trvia. It's irrelevant because racking up offensive yards isn't the objective.

Voter turnout in uncompetitive states is naturally suppressed, especially so among voters on the losing side. When Trump won the Nebraska primary it wasn't because he was more popular there than Cruz, it was because Cruz had already dropped out of the race and so fewer of his supporters bothered showing up to vote for him.

If voters knew the popular vote was determinative and Trump had held rallies up and down the West coast and in New England instead of trying to squeeze every last drop out of Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, and Florida, the final numbers would not have been the same and Trump would've likely won the popular vote as well.

That's hypothetical speculation, of course. The rules must be changed before the game begins for them to matter.

Let us, then, continue to dance while they continue to wail and gnash their teeth:

Thursday, November 10, 2016

At least the black guy said "parents" instead of "mothers and fathers"

As they scurry away to the swamps of Ravenna, the enemies of the Trumpening are grabbing at anything that can reassure them of their own moral superiority at such a dark, dark moment in their lives (spoiler alert: It gets darker for them still). This clip has been one of the more prominently displayed of their recently discovered holy relics:

Trump never said anything critical of blacks during the campaign. He did better among blacks than Romney or McCain did even with the entire media complex and a black president aligned against him.

Trump's theme was very clearly American vs non-American, and the assertion that the good of the former should be the driving factor in how the government deals with the latter. It's ridiculous how difficult it is for many people to grasp this, but it was plain from the beginning.

That said, there is no time for this lugubrious, mawkish crap.

Where was Van Jones when NFL teams, politicians (both Democrat and Republican--we're looking at you, Rand), celebrities, the attorney general, and the media establishment were putting their hands up in imitation of Michael Brown's totally fictitious "hands up, don't shoot"? The only thing Brown used his hands for was punching Darrin Wilson and trying to take his gun.

Explain to your kids how an innocent white man doing a dangerous job in an impeccably professional manner has had to drop off the face of the earth because the powers that be wanted to turn a criminal into an angel and a decent, salt-of-the-earth middle American into a sacrificial lamb for the sake of Who? Whom?

Wilson is emblematic of why working-class white men, the only demographic in the country without a single group that stands up for them, came out more than 3-to-1 in favor of Donald "I am your voice" Trump.