Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Debate round out

A few remarks, in no particular order of importance.

- Attacking Trump for working to reduce his income tax bill to the lowest level possible is despicable demagoguery.

Yes, she gave millions to the Clinton Foundation she controls. That is of course a blatant way of reclassifying her income so she doesn't have to pay taxes on it while simultaneously allowing her to claim charitable contributions that she is able to use, akin to me taking income from my career and putting it into the Audacious Epigone Foundation so I don't have to pay taxes on it and then using that foundation to pay my mortgage.

But that's merely an illustration of hypocrisy. The demagoguery comes about because everyone in the country does the exact same thing, from people making $10,000 a year to people making $10,000,000,000 a year. Ever used H&R Block or TurboTax, to pick at random two leading providers of personal income tax filings? Guess what--they, like every other income tax filing provider in existence, market their services by promising to lower their customers' tax bills as much as is legally possible.

- The number of missed opportunities is depressing to think about (Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell do a thorough job going through them point by point if you're interested).

The "basket of deplorables" is the single biggest piece of low-hanging fruit and though a little rotted from time, it will still be hanging there when the next debate takes place.

Hillary's rape-enabling and mafia-style intimidation of Bill's victims for the sake of their mutual political benefit is a close second. In one of the subsequent debates Trump needs to ask it as a "do you still beat your wife?" question. "Hillary, how many of the women Bill has abused have you threatened if they ever said anything publicly about it?"

If that isn't the impetus for a coughing fit or a seizure, Hillary's "I have never done that" response will be futile. Trump can respond with something like, "Sure, Hillary, sure. So you're calling all these women--Paula Jone, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers--liars? All these cases going on for twenty years, all made up. Sure, Hillary, sure. You defended the most powerful man in the world from the helpless women he victimized."

- Hillary's best moment:

- The Cathedral made some unforced errors. Lester Holt, an affirmative action midwit, favoritism was too over-the-top for Hillary's own good. Until the end of the debate, when both sides began clapping raucously, the audience broke into applause twice for Trump and five times for Hillary. They also laughed at Trump's expense a couple of times. Yet Holt only admonished the crowd for clapping for Trump!

Holt interrupted Trump far more often then he interrupted Hillary.

He grilled Trump about his alleged support for the Iraq war but didn't ask Hillary--who actually voted for it--anything about it at all. Trump was non-committal before the war--certainly no visionary like Pat Buchanan--but he was one of the few prominent 'mainstream' Republican voices to break ranks and turn against it. Crucially, he did so before the 2004 presidential election, which was in large part a referendum on the Iraq invasion before it became universally unpopular.

In fact, Hillary didn't face a single tough question, they were all directed at Trump or were neutral policy questions. Trump had to bring up the email scandal up himself.

I talked to several people today and every single one of them, even Hillary supporters, said Holt's bias was glaring.

Ted Cruz is offering to help Trump with debate prep. Trump could use it.

- Finally, my favorite image to come out of the debate. It's a pathetically self-indulgent one, but it's too fitting to pass up. Intellectually I fall somewhere between these two and I'm a faceless extra who happened to momentarily be caught on screen with two of the leads:

Monday, September 26, 2016

Deplorable omission

Trump missed a huge opportunity with the "basket of deplorables" comment. Of course the house slave Lester Holt--who doesn't want to end up as dead as Ron Brown--wasn't going to ask Hillary Clinton any challenging questions, but Trump should've known ahead of time that he had to take the initiative.

"You said half my supporters were a 'basket of deplorables'. Are you saying a quarter of the country you're prepared to lead is deplorable?"

It was so easy. There is no possible answer she could've given that would've lessened the damage that question would've wrought.

Nothing on immigration, Benghazi, Hillary's rape enabling, and only a veiled reference to her health issues with "stamina". Tons of missed opportunities.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Gennifer Flowers


As search volumes indicate, there were a lot of Americans who had no idea who Gennifer Flowers was until Trump mentioned her yesterday. She was the subject of three times as many searches as Mark Cuban:

I'm in my early thirties and just vaguely remember the sordid history of Bill Clinton's sexual predation and the mafia tactics Hillary Clinton used to enable that sexual predation. The under-30 crowd has virtually no idea, and yet the Clintons' crimes look even worse in the current zeitgeist than they did a couple of decades ago, especially to millennials--an important part of Obama's electoral success but one that is markedly cooler towards Hillary than they were towards him.

Blowing up the Hillary-as-feminist-hero conception that Team Clinton has put forward and hoped would hang around without serious scrutiny through November is something Trump should start doing now.

"Crooked Hillary's no protector of women, believe me. She persecutes women. Many, many people will tell you so. Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Connie Hamzy, Juanita Broaddrick. Gennifer Flowers, this a brave woman--a successful woman--who has been persecuted by Hillary. Hillary has stepped on women--and done much worse to them, let me tell you--to get power."

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Roughtly 1-in-30,000,000 police stops of blacks result in unjustified killings

Another small bridge connecting the races together was burned in the virtual world last week. A black guy I went to high school with, Brandon, wrote the following in response to the Charlotte shooting:
I was thinking last night as I drove home.

I live in LA.

Not afraid of gangs, muggings, car jackings, or black on black crime.

Not afraid of domestic terrorists, Al Qaeda, or ISIS.

The only thing in this world that truly scares me are police.

I say this not to create animus. I say it because its true. I would literally jump out of an airplane again before I called 911 for anything other than a fire. You cannot understand or empathize with what you fear. You fear me because of the sins of your ancestors. You fear my strength and promise. You fear my potential. You fear my forgiveness as much as you fear my vengeance.
The line about "the sins of your ancestors" is particularly remarkable because if whites ever lose the religiously-tinged sense of racism as Original Sin, it's game over for blacks. Without the white guilt life vest most blacks would drown in WEIRDO societies.

Blacks need whites. Whites don't need blacks. To the contrary, fewer blacks means fewer problems. That assertion is true almost irrespective of what the metric is--criminality, intelligence, health, family stability, innovation, financial viability, violence, longevity, poverty, infant mortality, time preference, on and on and on.

At some level it's easy to sympathize with Brandon. He's modestly intelligent for a black guy, affable in person, and proud of who he is. He almost has to rationalize here because ratiocination would lead him to human biodiversity, and human biodiversity to the rather obvious conclusion that people of sub-Saharan African descent need to live in societies predominantly populated by, managed by, and maintained by Asians or Europeans unless they want to have a standard of living and quality of life that is on par with what's on offer in Detroit, Haiti, Baltimore, Zimbabwe, or Ferguson.

I responded:
The fear may be true because you're experiencing it. That's subjective and consequently not something anyone else can evaluate.

What we can evaluate, though, is that your fear is irrational. Black-on-black crime kills 2000% more blacks than police shootings do. Between this police shooting and the next one that takes a black life, hundreds of blacks will kill other blacks.

And avoiding being killed by cops is easier than avoiding being killed by other blacks (or whites or any other group for that matter)--simply follow police instructions to the letter and you'll virtually always be fine. It may be humiliating, it may constitute a miscarriage of justice, it may even mean subjugating yourself to the whims of a racist, but if you follow instructions you won't end up dead. That's not necessarily the case when it comes to an armed robbery, a carjacking, or an assault.

This isn't to pick on you for experiencing a visceral reaction. Humans are more rationalizing creatures than they are rational creatures. I'm more apprehensive about lightning than I am about driving my car. You may be more scared of spiders than you are of driving your car. We are both, of course, far more likely to be killed in our cars than we are to be killed by lightning or spiders.

That said, if reconciliation is so unattainable, if these feelings are so embedded, so incorrigible, that we're effectively stuck with them forever, why don't we separate from one another? Secession is the political equivalent of divorce.

Why not? This country of 330 million has so many major fault lines of disunity--economic, political, religious, racial, linguistic, cultural, geographic, ethnic--that it's crazy to think that the tensions and the acrimony are going to do anything other than continue to get worse until we reach a breaking point, one that will likely be more violent and less civil than any of us would prefer.
He immediately deleted the response and unfriended me.

An ally, Kaoswear, crunched the numbers to figure out what the actual likelihood of a black being fatally shot during a police stop actually is and sent me this (slightly edited):
172 Blacks shot by police in 2016 (15 unarmed). Projecting that forward to the end of the calendar year gives us 229 (17 unarmed).
Roughly 1,100,000 sworn officers in the US. Realistically the number on the street is probably closer to 700,000. 
If we give the police absolutely no benefit of the doubt whatsoever and assume that every single black that was shot by the police was shot unjustly (armed or not), that means over the course of the year 0.03271% of cops--1 in 3,075--have unjustly killed a black person. 
If we eliminate the armed suspects, that is 0.00243% of cops--1 in 41,176--shooting unarmed blacks. 
Cops stop 3-4 people per shift. With 700,000 cops who work 50 weeks a year and five shifts per week, that is 875 stops a year per cop, for a total of 612,500,000 stops. If 40% of those stops involve blacks, that gives us 245,000,000 blacks stopped per year. 
If 100% of all blacks shot by police are unjustified, we're at fewer than 1 in 1,000,000 black stops resulting in the shooting death of the suspect. If, again, we only consider unarmed black suspects, we're at nearly 1 in 15,000,000.
The odds of winning the state lottery are several times greater than the odds an unarmed black will be killed by a cop.

If we allow that sometimes cops get it right and the suspect complies with with the commands he's given (which by definition does not occur in the case of armed shootings), the likelihood drops to some fraction of those unarmed figures.

For simplicity's sake let's say it's half the time the unarmed shootings are justified. That suggests a black being stopped by a cop has a 1 in 30,000,000 chance of unjustifiably being killed in the encounter.

Be ready to raise the drawbridges. The path to war is becoming inexorable. The Alt-Right arrived on the scene not a moment too soon.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Reuters-Ipsos oversamples those with college degrees, undersamples those without

The poll has come under criticism for oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans and independents. That suggests Trump will outperform Reuters-Ipsos' expectations.

In response to a reader's inquiry, I looked at the respondent polls from August 1st through September 23rd to see about the educational distribution. The poll has drawn 53% of its responses from those with at least a four year college degree and 47% of its responses from those without a degree. In 2012, exit polling showed those two figures swapped, with just 47% of the vote coming from those with a degree and 53% from those without.

That seems highly suspect given the strength of Trump's appeal among working-class whites--period, but even more especially so relative to Romney's appeal. And to a lesser extent, that also seems suspect given Hillary's appeal relative to Obama the SWPL wet dream's appeal.

If the Democrat primaries and caucuses are any indication, black turnout will be down from 2012 but that won't be enough to overcome Trump's middle American blue collar appeal by six points. It probably won't even be a wash. I suspect it'll be something like 55% without, 45% with.

In other words, the Reuters-Ipsos poll sample is more Democrat and has higher levels of educational attainment than the electorate will in November and the poll only has him down by 4 points.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Minnesota, migrants, and a migraine for Hillary

All of the the weekend's attacks are rib kicks to Hillary as she tries to pick herself back up off the phlegm-covered ground--New York because it's New York, New Jersey because it's within Trump's reach and along with a flipping a smaller state like Iowa or New Hampshire from 2012 would allow him a clear path to electoral victory without having to win Pennsylvania, but most of all Minnesota because it packs so many transgressions against the CultMarx narrative into a single incident.

Consider, Dahir Adan, the attacker, apparently asked at least one of his victims whether or not he was Muslim before stabbing him. A Muslim terrorist targeting Midwestern-nice white Christians? It's supposed to be Core America oppressing Fringe America, not the other way around. 

The attacker struck from a distance so close to his first victims that the only possible defense said victims would have been able to utilize was to profile him ahead of time. A young black guy of east African descent, probably Muslim? If you're aware of your surroundings, he should be on your radar as soon as he comes into view. The Talk could've saved some unfortunate mall-goers some pain and suffering.

He wielded a knife. While not necessarily as deadly as a gun--none of the victims died, after all--it's psychologically even more horrifying for the victims experiencing it than a firearm is. There's a reason why slasher horror movies involve antagonists armed with hand-wielded sharp objects instead of projectiles.

The attack was stopped by an off duty cop who shot the Muzzie dead. This incident will go down as a single fatality from a firearm. 

Taken in isolation, of course, that stat gets the story exactly backwards. The application of the second amendment kept this incident from being as deadly as it otherwise would have been. These scenarios don't show up in the statistics (or if they do, they make the US look more violent rather than less so, ceteris paribus), allowing misleading and unfavorable comparisons to be made between the US and [insert Northwestern European country] when it comes to violence, particularly gun violence. 

But the reason the US is so homicidal in the aggregate is because the US has so many people of African--and, Amerindian, and increasingly MENA--descent inside its borders. White Americans are as well behaved as other Northwestern Europeans are.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Deportation more popular than Trump is

The latest Reuters-Ipsos results from a poll asking respondents what should be done about illegal immigrants in the US. Among likely general election voters, the breakdown is as follows:

An outright majority--52.7%--prefers either that "all should be deported" or "most should be deported, with some exceptions". Back out the 8.2% who are "unsure" and we get all/most deported beating few/none deported by a 57.4%-42.6% margin. If Trump wins by half that margin in November we'll have the electoral Trumpslide Vox Day has been predicting.

The self-important cuckservatives who lament the rise of Trump have no one but themselves to blame for being such willing accomplices in the demographic transformation that has infected the West.

The Alt-Right is the Occident's latent immune system response to an infection that may yet prove fatal. It is up to us to ensure that its ascendancy is not too little, too late.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Marriage gap wider than gender gap

Support among married women who are "likely general election voters" (n = 3,458):

And among unmarried men who are "likely general election voters" (n = 938):

Trump is also winning among married men and Hillary among unmarried women.

So Trump is beating Hillary among married people, both men and women, and she is beating him among unmarried people, both men and women.

Once again a voter's marital status is shaping up to be far more predictive than his or her sex is.

Parenthetically, this data is pulled from Reuters-Ipsos, a polling outfit that habitually oversamples Democrats and undersamples Republicans.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Underclass, overweight, and out-of-wedlock

Heartiste asserts:
So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accouterments like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom). 
In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.
He's entitled to his own opinions but he's not entitled to his own facts! Let's see what the data say about those assertions.

The following table contains corpulence scores computed by taking the percentages of women, by social class, whose weight was deemed to be "somewhat above average" and adding that figure to twice the percentages judged to be "considerably above average". The higher the score, the fatter the women. All responses are from 2004, the only year the GSS asked its survey conductors to record the perceived weight of the people they interviewed (n = 1,228):


It's been long remarked that in the Western world the poor aren't starving, they're obese. And so nearly half of them are.

What about the bastard spawn? The following table shows the percentages of women, by social class, who had at least one child and who were married (or widowed) at the time of their participation in the survey. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2004 onward (n = 6,087):


Looks like what we have here is empirical verification of trends detected by perspicacious field observation. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.

GSS variables used: INTRWGHT, SEX(2), YEAR(2004-2014), CHILDS(1-8), MARITAL, CLASS

Alpha Trump

Agree and amplify:

Trump on his way to the podium in Miami today

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Curiosity trumped the cunt

Pulling up the NBC forum from earlier in the week today on Apple TV reveals yet another instance of greater interest in Trump than in Hillary:

While the age distribution of electoral support doesn't look as distinctive this year as it has in years past, Hillary still does better with people the younger they are and Trump the older they are, so watching an NBC production on youtube should give Hillary an artificial edge, yet here we are.

Trump has generated 3x the interest Hillay has
since he announced his candidacy

None of this matters, of course. Hundreds of thousands of people are taking half an hour out of their day to watch Trump in a tame, formal setting because they hate him or are at most merely carnival-curious. Don't be fooled into thinking this has anything--anything!--to do with what people will do on election day. We already have a foolproof system for determining that!

Who the Hill would replace her?

Steve Sailer's been asking about the feasibility of Hillary stepping down. Around 20 states have already finalized their ballots so such an action would require an enormous amount of rule-breaking. That's her forte so maybe it's a viable option anyway.

What seems more 'problematic' from Team Clinton's perspective is the assumption everyone considering Hillary stepping down seems to be making, that Tim Kaine would naturally take her spot at the top of the ticket.

Many Bernie supporters were, to put it mildly, dissatisfied with the nomination process but will end up voting for Hillary anyway. After all, the birdman himself is committed to doing so, so they can hold their noses and do the same.

But by falling in line when he represented a minimum of 45% of primary and caucus voters--quite possibly more given the DNC rigging--how would those reluctant Hillary-voting Bernie supporters take their man being passed over again and the nomination being given to Kaine if Hillary drops out? Had Kaine competed in the primaries, he would've been neck-and-neck with Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee at 1%-2% of the vote. He's a non-entity.

Giving the nomination to Elizabeth Warren would be even more conspicuously undemocratic. While she's more popular among Bernie supporters than Kaine is, she's not Bernie, she didn't run for the presidency, and she wasn't even picked for the VP spot by the person who won the nomination.

Tangentially, "basket of deplorables" is a staggeringly stupid phrase for Hillary to have employed. "Basket" is a word that brings an old maid at a retirement home to mind, right as it's becoming difficult for Hillary to speak or walk without assistance. "Deplorables" isn't a noun (until now--and Hillary owns the credit for it becoming one, to the unending delight of her opposition everywhere). By superciliously dismissing the concerns of a roughly a quarter of the electorate, the contrast with Trump's "I am your voice" couldn't be any starker.

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

One-third of blacks amenable to Trump's message on immigration

John Derbyshire provided some prudent advice to the Trump campaign a couple of weeks ago--don't talk about race. Just don't do it.

Nationalism is implicit white nationalism. Propositionalism is fantasy. The propositions are propped up by WEIRDOs of northwestern European descent. Without them, the requisite propositions will always fail because it's not in NAM nature to honor them.

With regards to talking about race as far as electoral consequences go, it's all drawback for the god-emperor. As president Trump, sure, give us the honest conversation Eric Holder said he wanted but most certainly did not actually want.

Let Diamond and Silk do their thing. Let Darrell Scott do his, too. Frame everything in terms of America First for Trump, America Last for Hillary. Bring Jamiel Shaw Sr. out at rallies and speeches. While blacks are less hostile towards immigration than whites are, there's still a sizable minority who are skeptical. A Reuters-Ipsos poll found that, among likely general election voters, 1-in-3 blacks (compared to 1-in-2 whites) say immigrants weaken society by being a "threat to beliefs and customs":

That's a much larger share of blacks than will vote for Trump. It indicates that Trump's masterful Arizona speech has at least the theoretical potential to peel some slaves off the Democrat plantation.

Monday, September 05, 2016

In case Hillary's too much of an immigration restrictionist for you

Then the Gary Johnson godsend is your guy:

Several months ago cuckservatives were crying that Trump was a Clinton plant to get Hillary elected. That was ridiculous, of course, but if you told me today that Gary Johnson is a plant to get Trump elected, well...


This clip is going as viral as whatever it is Hillary is suffering from:

There's frustration apparent in Kaine's claps after the koffing attack begins (see 53 seconds in, specifically). His is an intensity almost to the point of being violent. He doth protest too much. He knows she's not well.

Imagine if she's hit with one of these fits during the debates. Trump will interject in the midst of her coughing fit with something like, "She's unfit to be president, literally. I've said for a long time--and many other people have said--she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. You see this, folks? She needs to go take a nap. Who thinks we should stop this debate so she can go take a nap?"

He's been well aware of Hillary's health problems for months if not years. Here he is talking about it long before the Iowa caucuses took place:

No wonder he doesn't go in heavy on media consultants. His instincts about people are extraordinary. When he was weighing the sobriquets "heartless Hillary" and "crooked Hillary", most people favored the former, an alliteration that flowed more easily off the tongue.

But Trump correctly gauged how vulnerable the most corrupt politician of our lifetime would be to the charge of being crooked. He stuck her with that angon months ago and we're now watching her slowly bleed to death from the wound. Hillary's lack of strength and stamina is another Trump spear stuck in Hillary's hide. The hildebeest is in trouble.

Friday, September 02, 2016

Open-minded blacks

According to a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking likely voters if they've decided who they're going to vote for or if they could still be persuaded to change their minds, the percentage of blacks who say they could change their minds is 12.8% (n = 532). Among non-blacks, it's 23.4% (n = 5,289).

White identity has some catching up to do (of course).