Monday, June 27, 2016

Lesbians are rare



That female sexuality is more malleable than male sexuality is, that women are more likely to 'experiment' with same-sex intimacy (the majority of whom still identify as heterosexual after having done so) than men are, and that men who self-identify as bisexual tend to really just be homosexuals who don't want to come all the way out of the closet are all ideas I'm familiar with and assume to be generally correct.

The GSS, which began explicitly asking about sexual orientation in 2008, provides some relevant data.

That data appears to prove Milo correct. While 65.6% of self-identified gay men say they have never had a female sexual partner, only 33.9% of lesbians say they have never had a male sexual partner.

Additionally, women are twice as likely to identify as bisexual as men are while also being about one-third less likely to identify as lesbian as men are to identify as gay (rather than bisexual). If non-heterosexual men and women were, in practice, exclusively homosexual and bisexual at equal rates, we'd expect the fact that women are more likely to identify as bisexual and men more likely to identify as gay to mean that, among those women who did identify as lesbian, exclusive homosexuality would be even more pronounced than it is among gay men. That, however, is not the case.

At a minimum, gay men are twice as likely to be exclusively gay as gay women are, and the true multiple is probably even higher than that.

Milo knows his his stuff, gay and otherwise (or most of it, anyway).

GSS variables used: SEX, SEXORNT, NUMWOMEN(0-989), NUMMEN(0-989)

Saturday, June 25, 2016

No apologies



Those of European descent do not have an ancestral claim to any unique evil. Slavery, colonization and conquest, subjugation, natural resource extraction, war--these are all just things Euros have done more effectively than non-Euros have, often at the expense of other Euros and often at the expense of non-Euros.

The one exception to this assertion is our conception of a morality universal in scope and application, a universality detectable in the history of Western philosophy and of Christianity, a catholicism ultimately the consequence of several centuries of outbreeding.

This universalizing tendency, often referred to as pathological altruism, has increasingly come to be seen as the source of many of the existential problems the Western world faces today. Excepting some fringe groups like the Amish, Euros aren't becoming less outbred, but we're being pushed to the limits of what that universalism permits us to tolerate.

The royal "we" in this context refers to Euros generally. For those plugged into the dark enlightenment, this realization isn't a new one. But it is for an increasing number of ordinary whites, Brexit being the most spectacular illustration of as much.

Survival requires we not fall victim to an is-ought problem. Just because something feels natural to us doesn't mean it isn't destructive. It is unnatural to those pouring into Western countries and we are, collectively, beginning to realize that side-by-side coexistence means an erasure of our way life. Either they go or we get a rigid police state. Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.

More than one-third of Labour party supporters voted to leave the EU. This is an admonition for Hillary Clinton, one she will ignore to her own electoral detriment. The parallels with white Democrats crossing over to Trump in November are obvious.


As the Cathedral sees signs that the faith is wavering everywhere, it lets loose volleys of opprobrium and invective at skeptics. But like the Fed when interest rates are already at zero, there aren't any arrows left in the quiver. The -ists and -phobics suffixes don't have the chilling effect they used to. Virtue-signalling becomes ineffective when the priors that make the belief appear virtuous are increasingly questioned.

The Cathedral disdains badwhites who are so lacking in virtue-hygiene that they don't even realize what reprobate they are, but reserves Its most visceral hatred for those who know the framework but not only refuse to play along but instead attack that framework, carving it apart at the joints. The next generation of weapons it will deploy include commanding security forces to stand down when badwhites are physically assaulted and surreptitiously shadow banning those espousing intolerable views.

Parenthetically, here's Trump on Obama vis-a-vis Brexit and the supreme court ruling:



The alt-right is leading where Conservative, Inc has perpetually failed to, the opening video being but one of many, many examples. It's imperative we not yield or apologize--most especially when we are commanded to by CultMarx vengeance seekers--and that we not make enemies of those we deem more 'extreme' than ourselves. There are plenty of roles that need filling.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Swing states more white, black and less Hispanic, Asian than rest of US

The electoral emphasis given to Hispanics and to a lesser extent Asians is exaggerated because voter participation rates among members of these groups are lower than they are for whites and for blacks.

That's not the only reason their putative importance is exaggerated, though. It is also exaggerated because the swing states are whiter and blacker, and less Hispanic and less Asian, than the rest of the country is.

The following table and graphs show the total population racial/ethnic distribution in the 12 states Real Clear Politics lists as toss ups and the total population racial/ethnic distribution in the other 38 states plus DC.

Race%SwingRestofUS
White66.159.5
Black15.311.3
Hispanic13.319.6
Asian3.36.7
Other2.02.9


While Hispanics are the largest non-white minority group in the country, they're heavily concentrated in electorally safe states like Texas and California. In the states most likely to decide the outcome of the general election, blacks outnumber Hispanics (in addition to being more likely to vote than Hispanics are).

Florida is the swing state with the largest number of Hispanics, but Florida's largely Cuban and Puerto Rican Hispanic population cares less about Mexican immigration into the US than the country's non-Floridian Hispanics do.

Proportionally, the non-Hispanic white population in the swing states is a little more than a decade 'behind' the country as a whole. The 2016 swing states are about as white as the country was in 2004.

Appealing to Old America looks to be a better electoral strategy than Hispandering to New América is.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Vera Lynn's veritas confirmed as the English vote to leave

As I was following Brexit coverage, this caught my eye:


There may not always be an England, but the assertion that there is no England now is at best premature. What has become abundantly clear, however--as this Telegraph reporting illustrates--is that London is no longer part of England. It's less English now than it was as Londinium during Boudica's uprising.

Paul Ryan, capitulating cuckservative

Mara Liasson, who has spent most of the last year smugly missing the mark, hit the bullseye yesterday in an article with the descriptive title "Trump Just Gave The Speech Republicans Have Been Waiting 20 Years To Hear".

I couldn't agree more. This is Pat Buchanan with even more moxie, with independent wealth, and without the religiosity.

This isn't an act. Trump has learned a lot in the last few years. He's internalized it. The Snake. The gene thing. The existential threat non-Western immigration into Western countries presents. The phrase "America First", unapologetically, over and over and over again (four times in yesterday's speech). The wall. Interests over principles.

Paul Ryan, epitome of a cuckservative, doesn't get any of it. As just one example, Ryan stands resolutely alongside Hillary and Obama and against Trump on the Muslim Question.

The following graph shows the percentages of people, since the Orlando shooting prompted Trump to reaffirm the call for a 'temporary' stop to the movement of Muslims into America, sans those answering "don't know", by partisan affiliation, who agree with his proposal for a moratorium on Muslim immigration and a ban on travel from majority-Muslim countries into the US (n = 1,793):


Women, especially fertile young women without children, have little desire to stop the invasion. The more likely the chances of that invasion being successful the less likely they are to resist, desiring submission to the invaders instead.

That tendency shows up here as well. Unmarried women under the age of 40 on the Muslim ban (n = 264):



Saturday, June 18, 2016

Trump to join Hadrian, Aurelian, Theodosius II

I remember more than a decade ago regularly encountering arguments that building a wall along the US-Mexico border would be a prohibitively expensive undertaking. It was a risible argument then and it's a risible argument now.

Trump says he can do it for under $12 billion. Skeptics say it'll cost upwards of $25 billion. Financially ruinous!

For some perspective, that's one day of current federal spending on the low end and three days on the high end. Three days! Factoring in maintenance costs for the next couple of decades could bring the total price tag to five days worth of government spending--almost a whole week's worth of government profligacy to construct a 50-foot high concrete barrier along the entire border and maintain it for twenty years! (It won't actually have to run along the full 1,951 miles of land border, of course, since there are natural barriers that preclude human crossing without the need for any additional artifice).

Trump has begun alluding to this in his speeches:



WEIRDOs tend to operate in a moral universe where anything that cannot be justified by an appeal to Kantian principles is to be dismissed. When a fecund, expansive West was conquering the world that approach was viable, laudable even. With Europeans on their way to having comprised one-quarter of the world's population in 1950 to less than one-tenth of it by 2050 while non-European and thus non-WEIRDO populations immigrate into European countries in massive numbers, the approach has rapidly become suicidal.

Trump offers a new paradigm (at least for those of European descent--it's standard operating procedure for non-Europeans all over the world): Principles are out, interests are in. He doesn't articulate it so explicitly, but this approach is detectable in virtually everything he says. For example:



Here's another example from the same speech, this time referencing article 9 of the Japanese constitution:



One of the most significant realignments taking place in this presidential election is the partisan reversal in which of the two major party nominees support military interventionism, nation-building, and cultural imperialism and which party nominee opposes it.

Hillary has backed every major military intervention the US has embarked on over the last two decades--Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. For guys like John Kasich, that wasn't meddlesome enough--he thinks the US should treat a Russian attack on Finland as an attack on America itself. It's why the neocons have so much animus for Trump and why many of them are backing Hillary. Conversely, it's why libertarians like Walter Block are supporting Trump.

Here's Trump horrifying warmongers everywhere by nonchalantly noting that Russia isn't an enemy:



Finally, some fine shitlordery on display. Another reminder that physiognomy is real (the stencil-necked, low-T twerp holding the microphone is the video host, not an actual Trump supporter):




Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Trump opposes Zeroth amendment

Trump's speech on the history of Clintonian corruption was postponed so he could deliver one in response to the mass shooting in Orlando where an inanimate carbon assault rifle killed fifty people. The topic was to be covered was billed as terrorism. Substantively, though, it was more a speech on immigration that also included terrorism insofar as terrorism is downstream of immigration. A few highlights follow.

Channeling Derb, Trump recognizes that maximum freedom within the nation's borders requires maximum security at the nation's borders:



He also channels Steve Sailer's sagacious suggestion that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging:


Trump points out fissures in the Coalition of the Fringes:



Trump has emphatically and vociferously proclaimed his unwavering support for the second amendment. He does not appear, however, to support the zeroth amendment:


A refreshing phrase to hear from a Republican presidential nominee:



After rhetorically boxing him in, it was clear that Trump had gotten under Obama's skin. He and Hillary read from the same talking points, They don't like Trump's renewed call for a ban on Muslim immigration into the US. That was only supposed to be a stunt to win the primaries--he wasn't supposed to be serious about it!

Parenthetically, from the second link in the preceding paragraph, note Lester Holt's smug remark that Trump's call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration wouldn't have prevented the Orlando shooting, as though he's just let loose some kind of polemical kill shot. To the contrary, if the US had adopted Trump's proposal generations ago, Omar Majeed wouldn't have been in the country at all, let alone a citizen. The time to adopt the moratorium was after the first battle of Poitiers. Better late than never, though.

Paul Ryan, GOP head cuckety-cuck, doesn't see it that way, of course. He agrees with Obama and Hillary.

This bipartisan attack on Trump, led by three of the government's highest profile establishment puppets, is coming hard and fast because Trump's idea is popular. After shuttering the ongoing poll over the last couple of weeks--apparently thinking they'd heard the end of the Muslim ban, too--Reuters-Ipsos opened it back up, asking respondents if they agreed or disagreed that "the United States should temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States". A plurality agreed:


The question is worded so that the proposal appears more strict than what Trump has actually called for. He's said it would only apply to non-citizen Muslims, but the poll--and Obama--mendaciously imply that it would apply to citizens, too. Even so, there's a lot of support for it.

Since Reuters-Ipsos began tracking responses in May, "disagree" holds a narrow edge over "agree" among likely general election voters in aggregate (N = 4,407):


To Ryan's dismay, it's massively favored among Republicans, 67.1%-28.2% (see here to support his primary challenger). It's also favored among independents, 49.0%-44.0%.

Ryan shouldn't assume he's safe behind the arena's walls. The gibbet glistens:



Sunday, June 12, 2016

Trump checkmates Obama (and Hillary)

Take a moment to appreciate Trump's instinctive rhetorical brilliance:


This was posted just a couple of hours after the Orlando news broke. He beat Hillary to the punch, getting to it before she was able to get her thrice-consultant-approved boilerplate nothingness blather response up.

If Obama refuses to use the perfectly descriptive and contextually appropriate phrase "radical Islamic terrorism", the salience of that omission makes everyone aware of what a PC-whipped pussy he is.

If he uses the perfectly descriptive and contextually appropriate phrase "radical Islamic terrorism", he looks like Trump's bitch.

Check mate, pussy.

Inanimate carbon assault rifle

An exploding Muhammad shoots up a hedonistic bugger dance club on "Latin Night" in the wee hours of a Sunday morning. It's going to really be something to see the left twist itself into a pretzel trying to explain this one.

This time around the culprit isn't inanimate carbon rod, of course, it's the gun that is to blame. It's imperative that guns not be exposed to hateful rhetoric, especially during their formative years, and to make sure that they are assembled and grow up in tolerant, non-judgmental environments.

As horrific as this tragedy was, if we miss an opportunity to blame it on the homophobic, gun-toting culture of conservative white Southerners, that would be an even greater tragedy.



Saturday, June 11, 2016

Trump's victory speech

With the Republican primaries culminating in Trump going 13 for 13 in the thirteen colonies, the GOP nominee gave a speech demonstrating the perfect blend of the god-emperor and the presidential candidate.

There's an elegance in being able to describe oneself as a "Trump Republican". For the good of the cause, clemency will be granted to those who probably don't deserve it. But there will be no question who is leading this charge:



On the morning Trump gave the speech--the same morning that California, New Jersey, and four other states held their contests--the major media dumped salt on to the Sanders supporters' wounds. The Cathedral's organs all ran lead stories on how the Puerto Rico results from the weekend--conveniently certified the night before the most populous blue state in the country held its primary--had officially given Hillary the nomination (which wasn't true since the super delegates who will get her there are unbound and thus could theoretically be persuaded to back Sanders if he'd managed a strong showing that day).

Hillary finished Sanders off by focusing on the two issues he was the viewed on the left as being the least reliable on, gun rights and immigration. Two issues, incidentally, that many of the less vociferous Sanders supporters agreed more with the Sanders of a year ago than they do with Sanders today.

Trump, who has been stoking resentment against the Democrat party for several weeks, lost no time letting these burned white folks know there is still a candidate in the race who doesn't hate them:



Presaging a line of attack that Hillary will be hit with perpetually over the next five months, Trump comments on how a political system that enriches so-called public servants is inherently corrupting. There is scarcely a better illustration of that than the Clintons:



This promises to be a blast:



A trenchant response to the lugubrious crap about how enforcing immigration laws tears families apart:



No apologies for America First. Toxic term my ass:



It's become blase to assert that this is going to be a political realignment year. Deservedly so, as we find ourselves in a situation where the Democrat is the meddling military interventionist and the Republican is urging caution and restraint:



What at first blush might sound like typical cuckservative pandering is actually a tactical part of a campaign theme so aptly termed "citizenism". To the extent that our hearts will bleed, they will bleed for our fellow citizens in St. Louis and Detroit, not for settlers from Mexico or the Middle East:



Hillary decisively won the black voters who showed up in the primaries. Her problem is with the ones who didn't bother showing up in said primaries and who won't bother showing up in November.

Change the name to Brownie Girls already!

According to The Atlantic, the brownies are "still mostly white" (still? But of course. They need to change, they have to change, and they will change!). The first several photos or pictures depicting actual people, as opposed to just the green and white logo or cookie boxes, returned from a Google images search on the phrase "girl scouts":

Acceptable suburban diversity

This ugly photo of an actual troop rather than a choreographed
miscellany reveals the horrible whiteness of the organization

The retrograde logo is only one-third non-white

White scout leaders keep the desirables away

Found just as frequently in the wild as three white girls or three black girls

Arlen looks like America

While the Boy Scouts bowed to buggery, it's not until several photos in that we get a non-white scout.

Perhaps they're safe for now. The Eye of Soros is momentarily focusing all its attention on the most serious threat it has ever faced.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

#NeverTrump is comprised of self-important chiefs without any indians

National Review reports that David French isn't running for president. Rich Lowry somberly remarks that French's decision was faced with integrity and patriotism. Bill Kristol is encouraging French to pass the torch to someone like Lindsey Graham or Carly Fiorina.

Yawn.

Here's French's most (in)famous tweet:


Conservative Pundit (@DemsRRealRacist), prior to his character boarding the Trump train, should've tweeted the exact same thing, verbatim. It's tough to come up with parody this good.

The level of delusion is stultifying. This #NeverTrump movement is comprised of self-important chiefs without any indians. Age gracefully, the saying goes. Well, National Review refuses to fade into irrelevance gracefully.

Meanwhile, Scott Adams humorously welcomes our new harpy overlord. He echoes what Steve Sailer has pointed out before--comparing people to Hitler is murderously dangerous. A lot of people eagerly say they'd kill baby Hitler if they could go back in time to do so. As Adams puts it:
Once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him.
While Adams' concern for self-preservation is understandable, I'll die on my feet to a bullet through the chest. I sure as hell won't die on my knees to a bullet through the back of my head.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Democrat black primary turnout down 11% from 2008

We've seen Hillary's problem with whites. In the 26 state primaries and caucuses where exit polling was conducted in both '08 and '16, this time around she received fewer white votes in 23 of them than she did when she lost the nomination to Obama in '08.

But the Democrats have a black problem, too. Across those same 26 states, black turnout in '16 was down 11.1%--over 600,000 votes--from '08.

It's not as dire a problem as the party's white flight is. White turnout was down 26.5% in '16 compared to '08 in those 26 states. It could end up being the difference in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, though.

The Democrats' runaway whites and their unenthusiastic blacks are two major problems Hillary will face in November.

Parenthetically, over the course of Obama's presidency the Democrats have been making progress towards successfully (re?)branding themselves as The Black Party. There was one black voter for every three white voters in the '08 Democrat primaries and caucuses. In '16 that changed to one black voter for every 2.5 white voters.

Saturday, June 04, 2016

Percentages of household income earned by married men and by married women

George Gilder discusses this in his book Men and Marriage but the data he uses is three decades old. There may be a way to get at the question via US Census data on households but the questions differ from survey to survey and tend to report household totals without breaking down individual income contributions.

Fortunately, there are a couple of GSS items perfectly suited for investigating the sex distribution in income among married couples. The GSS asks about both a respondent's individual income and the respondent's household income. Both figures are inflation-adjusted.

In contemporary married American households, men account for 64.7% and women for 35.3% of family income by median average and a virtually identical 64.1% and 35.9%, respectively, by mean average.

A few technical notes:

To avoid racial confounding, only whites are considered.

For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2008 onward.

The age range considered is 30-65. Mean and median household incomes are very similar for men and women. We're looking at a random sample of male and female spouses however, not a sample of married couples with data for each spouse in each particular marriage. Men show up a couple thousand dollars higher in aggregate here, presumably because men tend to be a little older than their wives and income increases with age into a person's sixties.

Men's and women's individual reported incomes both come to modestly more than family income, presumably on account of investments, dividends, savings accounts, etc being counted both individually and when reporting the entire family's income.

For example, the husband makes $50k, the wife makes $25k, and together they have $5k in investment income. This leads to the husband reporting his annual individual income as $55k and the wife reporting hers makes $30k. The total household income will be reported by both of them as $80k, but if each of their individual incomes are summed without regard to reported total household income it will appear as if that total household income is $85k rather than $80k. This is easy to adjust for and is adjusted for in the reported results.

The male and female sample sizes using the parameters listed above are 867 for men and 791 for women, so the law of large numbers kicks in. Extending back to the year 2000 increases the total sample size to 4,478 and the median average and mean average splits are 65.4%-34.6% and 64.6%-35.4%, respectively.

In other words, the data is good. Among married couples in the US (at least among whites), men earn on avearge a hair under two-thirds of the family's income and women a hair over one-third of it. That's basically the way we think it should be.

GSS variables used: SEX, YEAR(2008-2014), CONINC, CONRINC, AGE(30-65), RACECEN1(1), MARITAL(1)

Friday, June 03, 2016

Open season on dissidents

++Addition++Throwing Trump supporters to the wolves doesn't appear to have been the result of incompetence or ineptitude. It looks like it was premeditated and intentional. See here.

---

My initial reaction to Milo Yiannapolous being assaulted at De Paul while security personnel stood by idly was that I was watching a Cathedral tactic in its seminal stages.

This reaction has been confirmed in San Jose, with widespread instances of peaceful Trump supporters being viciously assaulted by hordes of swarthy miscreants:













Trump has largely neutralized the Watsoning method. By doubling down instead of prostrating themselves, dissidents are realizing that the cause isn't as hopeless as they thought it was a year ago. The Alt Right is skinning alive the quisling cuckservatives who had helped maintain the climate that kept dissidents in fear. The Cathedral is being assaulted from several sides and the standard responses aren't stopping the onslaught.

So this is next. The Cathedral will simply allow physical violence to be perpetrated against dissidents. Out in the open, in plain sight. Soft intimidation will be replaced by hard intimidation. The dissidents may have found intellectual courage--now they're going to have to find physical courage.

Winter is coming. Bring it on.