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%