Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Diversity is strength! ... It's also tax cheating

Excerpting TWCS, Heartiste talks about quantifying the costs of Diversity!, the structure of which is characterized by an iceberg effect with the most conspicuous costs representing a small fraction of the total while the most go unnoticed by all but the few who deliberately look for them.

While TWCS defeated the kraken, I'll throw my slippers at the beast's carcass. In the nineties the GSS asked respondents how they felt about cheating on income taxes. The following table shows the percentages who answered either it wasn't wrong or it was only "a bit" wrong among whites (n =  1,534), blacks (n = 304), and Hispanics (n = 123) (the question was only asked twice and consequently sample sizes were too small for Asians):

The ethnic group most morally repulsed by tax cheating*? Surprise, surprise, it's those of English or Welsh ancestry (n = 298), with just 9.9% judging it to be either not wrong or a bit wrong.

* Among groups with at least 35 responses

GSS variables used: RACE(1,2), ETHNIC(1-16,18-29,31-97)(17,22,38), TAXCHEAT(1-2,3-4)

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Immigration decreases trust

Among many other things, a modern economy requires a high-trust society. As social trust continues to decline across the West, so will the the standard-of-living and quality-of-life the West enjoys.

The immigration trends over the last fifty years are accelerating this process. Immigrants to the US are less trusting of others than natives are. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by whether they are native- or foreign-born, who say that "generally speaking most people can be trusted". For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 11,221):

All immigrants are not created equally, of course. The percentages of the foreign-born who say most people can be trusted, by place of origin*:

Ice People are more trusting than Sun People are. America's Magic Dirt doesn't change that.

Parenthetically, trust is neither universally adaptive nor universally maladaptive. There are cultural and biological differences across different populations. In WEIRDO countries, being a highly trusting person is generally beneficial because most people are trustworthy.

However in much of the rest of the world, where corruption is rampant and transparency rare, to trust other people is to be a sucker who gets taken advantage of.

As the US and other western countries increasingly fill up with Sun People, trusting other people will steadily move from being adaptive in those countries to being maladaptive in them.

This outcome is evitable. Avoiding it is simple. Simple, but not easy.

* Sample sizes for Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are 297, 246, 60, and 502, respectively.

GSS variables used: TRUST(1-2), BORN, YEAR(2000-2014), ETHNIC(1)(17,38)(5,16,20,31,40)(2-4,6-15,18,19,24-27,32-36,41)

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Ann Donnelly, America Last

Fantasizes about filthy romps
with swashbuckling Saracens
A black robe from Brooklyn, on behalf of the ACLU, thwarts the electoral mandate given to the president by the American people in favor of Iraqi immigrants to whom the US constitution does not apply.

America First meets ethnomasochistic leap-frogging loyalties, certainly not for the last time.

While the dumb ones are calling him Hitler, those with a little more on the ball see him as another Andrew Jackson. How I'd love to see Trump agree and amplify by giving them the Jackson treatment vis-a-vis John Marshall with regards to Georgia and the Cherokee!

That's not going to happen (yet), but the bully pulpit shouldn't be used for the purposes of reconciliation, it should be used to grind our enemies into pulp.

Obama, divider in chief

When Obama was sworn in as the 44th president, 46% of the population thought the country was more politically divided than ever before to 45% who did not think so. During Obama's eight years, perceived political division steadily increased all the way to the extent that when Trump was sworn in as the 45th president last week, 86% of the population thought the country was more politically divided than ever before to just 12% who did not think so.

Trump didn't cause this divisiveness, he's a consequence of it. And he might just be the manifestation of what will reverse it. More likely, though, is the political dissolution of the country in our lifetimes.

Barren baronesses

With Heartiste's recent post entitled "Childlessness And Mass Female Hysteria" as an impetus, the percentage of childless middle-aged women in the US, by decade (n = 13,549):

1970s: 7.9%
1980s: 13.4%
1990s: 17.6%
2000s: 17.9%
2010s: 18.0%

The female labor force participation ratcheted up beginning in the mid-seventies before peaking around 2000 and steadily but modestly declining since then in line with the overall decrease in labor force participation. During that time, the percentage of childless middle-aged women more than doubled and has continued to inch upward since then. We've gone from fewer than 1-in-12 middle-aged women being childless to nearly 1-in-5 being so.

GSS variables used: SEX(2), AGE(30-50), CHILDS, YEAR(1970-1979,1980-1989,1990-1999,2000-2009,2010-2014)

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others

In the previous post showing the inverse correlation between fertility and pro-abortion views, Jayman asserted the following:
The fertility difference you're seeing is just the standard liberal-conservative fertility divide.
It's a reasonable assumption, and there is of course an effect from political orientation that is distinct--in the sense that we understand these things as being distinct, not necessarily distinct in terms of causation for which our understanding is incomplete at best--from fertility. Liberals with kids are considerably more pro-choice than conservatives with kids are, and liberals without kids are considerably more pro-choice that conservatives without kids are.

But the effect is still quite pronounced even among women who share a political orientation. The following graph shows the percentages of white women who believe abortion should be legal in any circumstance by the number of children they have and by political orientation. For contemporary relevance are responses are from 2000 onward (n = 2,408):

GSS variables used: ABANY, RACECEN1(1), YEAR(2000-2014), POLVIEWS(1-3,5-7), CHILDS, SEX(2)

Monday, January 23, 2017

Abortions for all, miniature American flags for no one

Feminism is putatively about gender equality, yet granting "reproductive rights" exclusively to women is anything but. That unrestricted access to abortion is the issue that motivates so many mountains to move is more than a little macabre.

Biology has a way of sorting things out, though. The women who are so motivated are the least nurturing members of the covenhood. The following table and graph show the percentages of women who believe that abortion should be legal in any circumstance by the number of children they have. For contemporary relevance and to avoid racial confounding, all responses are from non-Hispanic whites and are from 2000 onward (n = 4,072):


Restricting abortion is a clumsy, blunt tool for moving closer to sexual parity, but it's the only one men have for asserting any reproductive rights of their own. I write this knowing women are more likely to be pro-life than men are. The fact still remains that more than half of American men do not believe a woman should be able to abort on demand. These are the people who truly have no reproductive rights of their own.

Cases can be made that advances in our understanding of various things strengthen the argument in favor of progressive causes, like the normalization of homosexuality for instance. In the case of abortion, though, the opposite is true. Many babies are now viable at less than six months in the womb. Childbirth is less painful and less dangerous for mothers today than it has been at any other time in human history. Couples wait years for the opportunity to fork over tens of thousands of dollars to raise someone else's (white) infant.

And yet these grotesque women never miss an opportunity to praise the practice.

Parenthetically, my view is that abortion is the termination of a human life, but that not all life is of equal value, either objectively or subjectively. Who? Whom? looms large.

Objectively, terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester is less repulsive than doing so in the third trimester. Euthanizing an infant is less repulsive than euthanizing a twenty year-old, while euthanizing an octogenarian is less repulsive than destroying either of the fetuses, the baby, or the young adult. Subjectively, I care about abortion in Uganda about as much as I care about civil war in the Congo. Abortion inside my Dunbar Number, in contrast, is abhorrent, and in the case of my wife, unthinkable.

That said, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to require as a general practice both the woman getting the abortion and the man who impregnated her to sign off on it for it to be permitted.

GSS variables used: ABANY, YEAR(2000-2014), RACECEN1(1), SEX, CHILDS

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Social class among Jews and non-Jews in the US

Bernard-Henri Levi is the archetypal elitist Jew. His admonition to his people to be wary of Trump reads like it was written by a caricature that makes Kevin MacDonald an apologist for Jewish ethnomasochism in comparison. To middle American gentiles like myself, it really is something to behold.

If nothing else I'd expect an Ashkenazi intellectual to produce analogies that don't directly undermine the thrust of his argument. For example:
Rabbi Yehudah ran a school that a young Roman swineherd would pass by nearly every day. The students at the school, their heads full of knowledge and a sense of their own superiority, never missed a chance to mock and beat the pig farmer. 
When the rabbi appeared before Diocletian, he recognized the former swineherd, who said to him with spite, “Just because your god performs miracles, you think you can scorn the emperor?”
Diocletian is conventionally credited with pulling the empire out of the so-called "crisis of the third century"--a time of vicious civil wars, barbarian invasions, economic collapse, and general chaos--by reorganizing the empire, instituting badly needed reforms of the political, economic, and military systems, and creating a power-sharing agreement with other rulers so as to avoid having so much power invested in a single person at the top.

Parenthetically, Diocletian is also famous today for his persecution of Christians. There were other emperors, like the Flavians and Hadrian, who are more notorious for their persecution of Jews than he is.

And then there's this:
I cite this story because it provides a good metaphor for the West today, where, as in ancient Rome, the triumph of nihilism can enable a pig farmer — anybody — to become emperor.
So it turns out Trump wasn't actually born with a silver spoon in his mouth! Instead, his life is the story of a rags-to-riches story of an uppity nouveau riche who has gotten way too big for his britches.

Anyway, the takeaway from the paranoid ramblings of this neutoric is that social class is a big deal to Jews, and they're of a higher class than you are, especially BHL himself.

From the GSS, social class among Jews (n = 359) and everyone else (n = 19,387). For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward:

While more than half of non-Jewish Americans are either lower-class or working-class, fewer than one-in-five Jews are. Jews are no more likely to be working-class than to be upper-class. Non-Jews, in contrast, are more than 15x as likely to be working-class as to be upper-class. Jews are also over 400% more likely to be members of the upper-class than non-Jews are.

Trump's working-class appeal is repulsive to Jews, who view the Dirt People with a mixture of pity and scorn.

GSS variables used: RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(2000-2014), CLASS

Just another mess for the patriarchy to clean up

Inadequate intersectionality among feminists and environmentalists
No easy task--imagine wearing five 20lb weight vests while you walk!

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Be careful what you wish for

The idea that violence is primarily being done by Trump supporters against Trump opponents has become increasingly risible over the last year-and-a-half. It's long since passed the point of absurdity and has now reached the point of being embarrassing even for most moderate leftists to treat seriously.

The quantity of video evidence refuting the blood libel mendaciously spread by fake news and their lickspittle lackeys is overwhelming. The cache grew larger still during Trump's inauguration yesterday:

Psychological projection is an important concept to understand in making sense of how cultMarxists are constantly warning about violence being done by Trump supporters. These people are characterized by a dangerous mixture of self-righteous zeal and a bully's intolerance for anyone who disagrees with them about anything. There are lots of comments to news stories on these events about how Trump supporters have it coming to them, that violence against "Nazis" is justified, etc.

The danger they pose is dwarfed by the danger they are exposing themselves to, however. The vast majority of the people doing the attacking are devoid of any actual relationship with violence--they aren't in shape, they're not physically strong, they've never trained in any martial art, they don't own guns (let alone have any idea how to use them), etc. These are self-entitled, prospectless omegas living off student loans or their parents in urban and suburban aquariums. If they acted like this in the ocean they'd be hanging from street lights in a matter of minutes.

With Trump in the White House and Jeff Sessions as AG, law enforcement across the country is probably going to significantly step up the severity of how they deal with the left's violent street rabble. If the authorities to whom we've outsourced the execution of violence fail to do so, middle Americans will do it themselves.

It's going to be an interesting eight years.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Diversity is strength! It's also... unhappiness and mistrust

Happiness quotients, by race, computed by taking the percentages of GSS participants who self-describe as "very happy" and subtracting from them the percentages who say they're "not too happy", presented in both table and graph formats. The higher the score, the happier the group. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 15,414):

American Indians7.3

We can speculate about causation until we're blue in the face but it doesn't change the conclusion that a whiter America would be a happier America. A country for Ice People would be only modestly less sunny, while a Sun People society would be quite frigid indeed.

Blue people are happiest of all
A whiter America would also be a more trusting America. The following table and subsequent graph show the percentages of people, by race, who say that "generally speaking, most people can be trusted". Again for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 11,715):

American Indians16.2

Among many other things, a modern economy requires a high-trust society. As social trust continues to decline across the West, so will the the standard-of-living and quality-of-life the West enjoys.

There's a way for the Occident to avoid this fate. It starts with more Orban and less Obama, more Trump and no more Merkel.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1,2,3,4-10,15-16), TRUST(1-2), HAPPY(1,3), YEAR(2000-2014)

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Weaselly Reuters

Currently the featured item on Reuters' Polling Explorer site:

Here are the results of the poll among the general public since it began a month ago (restricted to just registered voters, Trump does slightly better, with 49.5% agreeing). It asks respondents if they think Trump will put the country's interests ahead of his own:

Some glass-half-empty headline that is! Yes, technically fewer than half of respondents agreed with the statement, but considerably more agreed with it than disagreed with it. The results are presented as though the question is a binary one when in fact it is trinary, with a "not sure" option included. To see the results broken out requires drilling down further into the particular poll. If a reader is just scrolling through the headlines, he'd have no idea.

If respondents had to either agree or disagree, a majority would almost certainly say they expect Trump to put the country's interests ahead of his own. That he is doing ten points better on this issue than he did in the election itself should objectively be perceived as a positive thing for him. Such an assessment doesn't fit The Narrative, of course, so that's not what we get.

To the contrary, push-polling this result was the primary purpose of fake news outlets BuzzFeed and CNN taking out fourth mortgages on their credibility by publishing the risible troll job pretending that Putin trapped Trump using Russian prostitutes giving golden showers.

It's only slightly hyperbolic to say that if the allegations are controversial, a heavy dose of skepticism is warranted until at least one of the following conditions is met; 1) Verifiable primary source material is produced, 2) There are non-coercive admissions by the parties involved, or 3) WikiLeaks reports it.

While there's plenty of schadenfreude to be had as the legacy media crumbles, Trump is now the single most powerful person on the planet. We have a vested interest in holding him to account, but the legacy and SJW media machines have forfeited every ounce of good faith they used to enjoy among non-partisans. The boy-who-cried-wolf dynamic in play is potentially dangerous.

Speaking of "fake news", now that the media is urging the retirement of the phrase that has been appropriated as devastatingly as Pepe was, it's imperative we keep using it emphatically and repetitiously. Anytime you'd have previously written or said "the mainstream media" or "the major media", consider writing or saying "fake news" instead.

When they start issuing trigger warnings for the phrase, we'll know we've done our duty:

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Contact your senators on Sessions' behalf

The single most important confirmation fight for the new Trump administration is going to be over before a lot of people even realize it's begun. Contact your senator (information here) and urge him or her to support Jeff Sessions for attorney general. These constituent 'votes' really do matter. Feel free to cut and paste the weasel words below. It's something you can have done in less than five minutes.

Especially important are so-called class one senators who are up for reelection in 2018. Lots of them are Democrats from red and purple states. It might be worth slightly editing the wording to urge those who've said they won't support Sessions to do so--say you're an independent or a Democrat who voted for Trump in your call or email, etc--and to thank Manchin for having the courage to support Sessions' appointment.

It is imperative that the following Democrats fell the pressure:

Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (says she'll oppose)
Joe Manchin of West Virginia (says he'll support)
Sherrod Brown of Ohio (says he'll oppose)
Bob Casey of Pennsylvania (says he's leaning against but still undecided)
Joe Donnelly of Indiana (leaning against)
Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (leaning against)
Claire McCaskill of Missouri (non-committal)
Bill Nelson of Florida (non-committal, but he's teamed up with Sessions to lower H-1B visas)
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (non-committal, has also teamed up with Sessions on legislation)


Dear Senator [name],

After a contentious election it is now time for the new presidential administration and Congress to get to work addressing the problems our country faces and coming together in good faith to arrive at solutions to these problems. Allowing president Trump to assemble the best team he is able to is critical to making this happen.

Jeff Sessions has served with distinction in the Senate for two decades. He brings with him the experience and determination to ensure the laws of land are enforced fairly and firmly. As a previous state Attorney General he is the right man for the job. I strongly urge you to vote to confirm him.

Thank you for your consideration and your continued service,


Saturday, January 14, 2017

They do until they don't

Red-tailed hawks being mobbed is a common sight here in the central provinces:

I remember as a kid wondering why these hawks didn't turn on their harassers. They could put a lethal stop to these things if they wanted. It's not natural for them to do so, though, so they don't. They put up with it because they can afford to. It's a hassle they tolerate--until they don't:

Whites tolerate the misbehavior and dysfunction of non-whites, too, until they don't. Like crows (or the invasive starlings in the case of Muslims in Europe or Amerindians in the US) mobbing a hawk, non-whites attack whites at the pleasure of whites. When European-descended peoples' commodious grace stores are depleted, the harassers' fortunes will change drastically and with stunning rapidity.

And changing they are--not just through the US presidential or Brexit campaigns, either. Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are both now allowing AmRen to carry their columns.

In a recent video, Stefan Molyneux approvingly mentions one of the most important formulas for understanding human societies, Diversity + Proximity = War. He also mentions human biodiversity, population differences in IQ, and how these things preclude non-East Asian non-whites from functioning in Western societies.

Less cerebrally, there are viscerally images like this that illustrate the same:

There's a reason the aphorism about a picture being worth a thousand words has such staying power. Still, supplementing pictures with words often accentuates the effect, as is the case here.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Of Trump and Putin

Some immediate questions and observations about the BuzzFeed article alleging Trump's "deep ties" to Russia follow.

- The dossier reports that Trump was offered several sweetheart real estate deals inside Russia but elected not to capitalize on any of them:
TRUMP has declined various sweetener real estate business deals offered him in Russia in order to further the Kremlin's cultivation of him.
This is excerpted verbatim. Notice how clunky the sentence above is. The supposed source is a British intelligence agent. Editing the sentence thus, "In order to further cultivate its relationship with him, the Kremlin offered various sweetener real estate deals that Trump declined", makes the sentence much easier to read. Maybe it's just a consequence of a certain technical writing style, but it could benefit from the services of an editor.

- The following is subsequently reported, however:
Regarding TRUMP's claimed minimal investment profile in Russia, a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want of trying. TRUMP's previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end TRUMP had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success.
This has the feel of a clever high school student's trolling effort to it. Well, I couldn't close the deal but it's a good thing I have all this coven of courtesans as a consolation prize!

Incidentally, the dossier also asserts that Russia "compromised TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him" by way of his "perverted sexual acts". I suppose no one is totally impervious to sex scandal fallout, but Trump is as close to it as they come!

More substantively, there's an apparent blatant contradiction here--Trump was offered plenty on the cheap but turned it down on the one hand but couldn't find anything to invest in despite trying hard to do so on the other.

- The report was prepared by "political opponents of Trump". An obvious question is why, given that the documents are dated from June through October of 2016, they are only now being released.

Even heroic anonymous agent isn't free of -isms!
- The dossier repeatedly mentions an organization referred to as "Alpha Group". The consortium is actually spelled "Alfa Group". Looks like Pepe, or maybe Heartiste, has gotten inside their heads!
name is actually

- It is alleged that Putin has been cultivating a relationship with Trump for "at least 8 years", efforts aimed at "splitting the US hawks inimical to Russia and the Washington elite more generally". Even with hindsight being 20/20, this seems incredible. Trump was utterly inconceivable as a presidential contender during the early years of the Obama administration. Even 18 months ago his bid was dismissed as attention-garnering fantasy. Russian prescience is astounding if they accurately divined how things would pan out a decade ago.

- The dossier alleges that Trump's business dealings in "China and other emerging markets" involved:
The payment of large bribes and kickbacks which, were they to become public, would be potentially very damaging to [the Trump] campaign.
Coupling the ChiComs knowledge of and involvement in business dealings throughout the middle kingdom and Trump's harsh rhetoric towards China it seems curious that these widespread bribes weren't made known during the presidential campaign.

It's also noted that Trump made payments to various computer hackers in multiple countries. None of the many, many people who should have evidence of putative Trumpian bribes and kickbacks are providing the proof that would vault them to messianic status in the eyes of the Establishment and have major media organizations the world over beating paths to their front doors? Hmm.

- The dossier also implicates Jill Stein, who--peacenik that she is--identified Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate most likely to start a war with Russia during the campaign:

On the one hand, the overall narrative presented is plausible. On the other, it's too plausible. All of Trump's friends in the fevered imaginations of those with Trump derangement syndrome--overt in the case of Putin and covert in the case of Stein, etc--are there in their caricatured roles. It reads like "just so" fan fiction designed to cast a lingering cloud of suspicion over the Trump administration. The contradictions, sloppy errors like the Alfa Group error and Paul Manafort's last name being misspelled "MANNAFORT" on p32, and grin-inducing terms like "golden showers" included make it difficult to take seriously.

Trump is vociferously denying the whole thing. That's his style, of course, but he's been briefed on the information from US intelligence agencies, so if he thought there was something to all of this the strident denials will turn out to be a series of unforced errors.

Given the CIA's atrocious history of fabricating so-called intelligence for the purposes of toppling governments--both foreign and domestic (see Iraq)--and the total lack of anything beyond anonymous allegations completely devoid of hard evidence, incredulity is the most prudent position to take for the time being.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Trump phenomenon trumped Obama's

As Obama gives his farewell address leaving the party he's lead for eight years in shambles, now is as good a time as ever to point out how much more interest the Trump phenomenon garnered than the Obama one ever did. From Google Trends, search volumes over time since the beginning of 2007:

Trump generated two-and-a-half times as much interest when he won the 2016 election as Obama did when he won in 2008. That won't stop the major media from attaching the prefix "historic" every time Obama's election comes up without granting the same to Trump's election, of course.

Parenthetically, using the adjective to describe a US presidential election is stupid, as though there could be any sort of presidential outcome that wouldn't make its way into the history books.

Now just consider the last 18 months. It's been written and said multiple times, as far back as 2015, that Trump had already effectively become the president by way of driving every discussion. And so he was, averaging about 1200% more interest than the sitting US president did:

You call that change? This is change.

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Criminality by political orientation among whites

Stefan Molyneux's recent interview with John Wright focused in large part on liberal criminality relative to the conservative tendency to abide by the law.

My immediate reaction was "racial confounding, this is why understanding HBD is imperative to understanding society".

Yes, political orientation among blacks is less predictive of partisan affiliation than it is among whites--that is, blacks vote Democrat whether they identify as liberal, moderate, or conservative--but blacks are still considerably more likely to identify as liberal than whites are (for contemporary relevance all data in this post are from 2000 onward):

Ergo, it's hardly surprising that self-identified liberals are more criminally prone than self-identified conservatives are.

The GSS chastises me for my lazy assumptions, though. Even among whites exclusively, liberals are more likely to engage in criminal activity than conservatives are. The percentages of whites who have ever been arrested or charged with a crime by police, by political orientation:

Among white men, 35% of liberals and 27% of conservatives, respectively, have ever been arrested or charged.

These differences aren't huge but they do serve as a handy rhetorical rebuttal to the Narrative's insinuation that heterosexual conservative white men are the Real Danger to society.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1,2), YEAR(2000-2014), ARREST, POLVIEWS(1-3,4,5-7), SEX

Saturday, January 07, 2017

Trump's pledge to to deport 2-3 million is electoral gold

From an NPR story headlined "Cities Ready to Resist Trump Calls for Deportations":
In many cities, local officials are getting ready to defy Trump if he carries through on a campaign pledge to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.
Bring it on. This is a fight Trump should welcome. The mawkish crap about breaking up families--the report approvingly quotes (even leaving in the applause line!) NYC's communist mayor Bill de Blasio asserting Trump will do as much--are total lies. The deportees will be welcome to take their children home when they are reunited with the families they left to come to the US in the first place. The lying media's ability to tug at cuck strings is grossly exaggerated.

The breathless warnings about Trump's popularity collapsing if he pushes forced deportations are nonsense. The professional opinion makers are paper tigers. Crush them. There will be no popular backlash against a reclamation of national sovereignty, only more middle Americans jumping on the Trump Train.

Trump's expressed intention to immediately begin deporting 2-3 million of the worst illegals is a political (and civilizational) winner. Reuters-Ipsos conducted a poll last September asking respondents about their views on deporting illegal immigrants living in the US. The results among "likely general election voters" (n = 3,810):

An outright majority, even with almost 10% unsure, favor the deportation of most or all illegals. Trump didn't get an outright majority of the vote, of course. Trump's position on immigration is more popular than Trump himself is.

Given that 11 million is the lower-bound estimate for the size of the illegal immigrant population, deporting 2-3 million comes to around one-in-four, a figure that is reasonably categorized under the response "most should be able to stay in the US".

For those of us who want most or all illegals deported, well, something is better than nothing, and after decades of nothing we're glad to see something. Our jobs will be to ensure that Trump's actions signify an opening salvo in a battle that is just getting started rather than a one-and-done campaign promise kinda sorta being fulfilled.

That leaves 5% of the electorate to gnash their teeth in opposition to the deportations. They're welcome to follow the re-pats back home.

Even among NAMs, support for either deporting most or all illegals is at 30% (with 12% unsure), higher than Trump's vote share. Nearly half of NAMs say most illegals should be able to stay but some should go. Less than 1-in-10 NAMs say all illegals should be allowed to remain in the US.

 Absurd misuse of the word draconian
Here's Durham councilman Steve Schewel:
"What's more important? Is it more important to use your police resources to try to stop violent crime? Or is it more important to use your resources to enforce draconian immigration rules that you don't even believe in?"
Durham's non-Hispanic white population is 37% and dropping, so Schewel may be angling for a political alliance between the city's growing Hispanic population and it's remaining white contingent against the 41% that is black (the city council looks to be about half black, half white, and no brown). For my part, I'll be happy when he's replaced by someone with a last name ending in "Z" or "O".

The objective, neutral NPR reporter--Adrian Florido, who studied history with an emphasis on Latin America and who has a particular love of traditional string music from the Mexican state of Veracruz--throws this line in at the end:
Now that immigration reform seems less likely than ever, Newman says many local leaders are realizing it may be up to them to defend immigrants.
Less likely than ever?! We're potentially looking at the biggest change in immigration enforcement since the Eisenhower administration. ... Oh, what's that you say? "Immigration reform" is just a code phrase for the coupling of amnesty and open borders? I see, never mind then, he seems to be correct.

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

United against free speech

The following graph shows the percentages of adults under 40 years old--the cohort that shapes the zeitgeist--who are opposed to allowing a racist to speak publicly, by political orientation and over time:

Note: Y-axis runs from 20% to 50% in the graphic

We're increasingly a nation united when it comes to stamping out HateSpeech! in the public square. This petition on Change.org is something putative moderates at The Hill and True Conservatives at National Review are presumably on board with.

Given the runaway inflation in what constitutes racism (specifically that blacks are "inferior" in the context of this GSS question) since the seventies--to the point that tens of millions of Americans now believe voting for the winning presidential candidate is evidence of it--we might expect support for a blanket restriction on it to have lessened over time.

To the contrary, it appears we're a decade or two away from an outright majority opposing the first amendment. If you're relying on centuries-old parchment to hold the line against civilizational collapse, you're clinging to straws while drowning.

On the other hand, this data only runs through 2014. There's plenty of reason to think that 2016 is the year everything changed. When the GSS releases results from the Current Year just ended it will be interesting to see if we're able to detect a reversal in the trend towards restricting free speech.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, YEAR(1970-1979,1980-1989,1990-1999,2000-2009,2010-2014), AGE(18-39), POLVIEWS(1-3,4,5-7)

Monday, January 02, 2017

Golden State's Core America hate

SurveyUSA commissioned polls in California and Minnesota after the 2016 presidential election. Both asked Clinton supporters if they thought Trump voters were racist and also if they thought Trump voters were sexist. The wording of these questions were identical in each survey.

Perceived racism, by state:


Clinton voters in California describe the basket of Trump voters as "racist" by a 4-to-1 margin. Among Clinton voters in Minnesota, it's 2-to-1.

Hillary dominated California 61.7%-31.6% while narrowly winning Minnesota, 46.4%-44.9%, so it's not just that California's leftists more viscerally hate Core America than Minnesota's leftists do, it's that there are a lot more of them, both relatively and absolutely.

The survey indicates that more than 40% of all Californians--not just among those who voted for someone other than the god-emperor!--think Trump supporters are racist. Putting aside the vapidity of that term as a normative descriptor, consider that it is about the worst thing someone can be called in contemporary America.

It's not as if Minnesota serves as a generic red state stand in, either. It was the only state primary or caucus contest Rubio won (he took DC and Puerto Rico as well). It was also the only state in the country to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984. It hasn't voted for a Republican since 1972--only the Imperial Capital itself has a longer blue streak. Californians' hatred for heritage America is truly in a league of its own, as was amply evidenced during the primaries.

Perceived sexism among Trump supporters, by state:
No white fecundity in Cali


More of the same, albeit marginally milder at more than 3-to-1 in California and less than 2-to-1 in Minnesota.

California is only going to get worse. It is one of 17 states where whites are dying off faster than they're being born. Those who don't kick the bucket are heading for the hills--only New Jersey and Rhode Island are losing whites at faster rates than California is. Additionally, it's one of the least fiscally solvent states in the country.

Hadrian knew Trajan's gains in Mesopotamia would cost more than holding them was worth. Giving it up wasn't an easy thing to do but it had to be done. There are times when a body part must be amputated so that the entire organism doesn't die. Let California go.

Sunday, January 01, 2017

Dave Matthews wishes he was a socialist

I'd meant to pass comment on this last year but let it get lost in the sauce. It's an illustration of leftist logic at its finest. Dave Matthews in a Rolling Stone interview:
[Bernie Sanders is] a guy who is talking about something real and that isn't insulted by being called a liberal. Someone could call me a liberal, and I'd say, "Thank you." Someone could call me a socialist, and I'd say, "I wish I was a socialist." I should get a shirt that says, "Tax me! Tax the fuck out of me!"
We have the front man for the most successful touring band in history, his net worth is estimated at $300 million, claiming to support the idea of wealth equality through mandatory confiscation and redistribution while incapable of voluntarily bringing himself to redistribute a sizable chunk of his own massive fortune, something the state would graciously allow him to do if he so chose.

That is, he favors the state taking for the purposes of redistribution from those who don't have one-tenth of one percent of what he has even though he refuses to voluntarily offer a share of his pile of gold, a pile that is 1,000 times larger than theirs. He'd be a good person if only someone would just point a gun at him already!