Friday, March 31, 2017

Americans overwhelmingly say they're satisfied with their health care coverage

Given the amount of attention it receives, costs it imposes, and passion it engenders, I'm surprised by this Reuters-Ipsos polling result. In a sample of 5,199 Americans, (admittedly vague) responses to the question "How satisfied are you with your health coverage?" breakdown thus:

Only 1-in-8 express some degree of dissatisfaction.

The demographic differences are modest. Men are more satisfied than women, black are more satisfied than members of other races, the young and the old are more satisfied than the middle-aged, the wealthy are more satisfied than the poor, and Democrats are more satisfied than Republicans and independents, but just about whatever way it's sliced up, 85% responding either "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" is the satisfaction floor.

Repealing Obamacare was one of Trump's oft-repeated campaign pledges, but it wasn't unique to him--most of the Republican field advocated the same thing. I'd have expected that to show up here, but perceptions among Trump voters are only marginally distinguishable from those of Clinton voters:

Compared to questions about trust in various institutions or approval ratings of political figures, this suggests an astounding level of public contentment.

Is the frustration over costs? Access? Is it mostly ideological in nature?

It's something I'd like to better understand. Prior to having kids, I never saw the inside of a doctor's office, visiting just twice in probably 15 years, both times for fractured ribs. My firsthand experience is limited. Nowhere do I have better access to based, candid, and insightful opinions than here so I'll throw out my general perceptions, none of which are firmly held:

- The contemporary zeitgeist contains two overriding objectives with regards to health care in the US--that it be affordable for everyone and that everyone have access to the best health care available. Realizing both of these simultaneously is impossible, of course. Moving towards one inevitably pushes us away from the other.

- Requiring insurance be provided to everyone who applies for it without allowing rates to adjust according to risk profiles guarantees that the system will not be viable without coercion to force those who would otherwise elect not to purchase insurance to purchase it.

With Obamacare, this manifests itself most spectacularly by restricting premium rates to narrow ranges based on general demographics like age so that insurance providers have to provide insurance to those with pre-existing conditions even though it is obvious that these people are going to cost providers much more than they pay in premiums.

If providers of home owner insurance had to provide the guy dumping gasoline all over his roof as his wife set up a fireworks display on the driveway with coverage for the same price they charged everyone else even if he waited until after his house caught on fire to purchase the insurance, no one else would purchase home owner insurance until their houses got on fire, either. Given these priors, the only solution is to force everyone to buy home owner insurance whether they want it or not

- The mechanism for determining perceived value in consumer goods and services, namely price, is so obfuscated when it comes to health care that it might as well not exist. Neither those providing health care nor those receiving it have a clue how much it costs to provide or how much those receiving it are being charged.

I've had plans where, in addition to a co-pay, I would be billed 10% or 20% of the total and my insurance would cover the remaining 90% or 80%. Since I wouldn't know the total beforehand, this pricing structure would've had no influence on my purchasing behavior.

My current employer charges a flat rate depending on what type of medical provider I use ($200 for an ER visit, $25 for a pediatrician, etc). That's an improvement. I now know what my cost will be and am able to act having at least taken it into consideration.

- Single-payer is a bad deal for younger whites with their stuff together. Government health care expenditures result in the large scale transfer of resources from the young to the old and from those with family-supporting incomes to those without them. It's a double-whammy.

Additionally, the socialization of costs means that access becomes the rationing factor--after all, something has to be and in single-payer access is the only option since cost isn't one. That, or the decision of an oversight board of some kind. Horror stories of excruciatingly long wait times are legion from countries with single-payer systems. Lots of similar experiences come out of the VA. One thing young whites trying to build a family do not have a surfeit of is time.

- The more insurance covers, the more often it will be used unnecessarily. If automobile insurance covered tire rotations, car washes, and paint detailing, people would take their cars in on a whim. What would keep everyone from washing his car every single day? As noted above, time. Car wash lines would be long all the time, everywhere.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Strumpets unlocking the gate

Over the course of the last month, Reuters-Ipsos has polled Americans (n = 9,397) on whether they approve or disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration. Discounting the "don't know" responses shows a slight majority, 52%-48%, approving to some degree.

That top line nearly even split disguises significant demographic differences. Whites approve 59%-41% overall. It will come as little surprise that most non-whites do not. They disapprove of Trump's immigration approach 69%-31%.

Among whites, there is a now familiar marital and gender dynamic at play. The following graph shows the percentages who disapprove subtracted from the percentages who approve among married and unmarried white men and women and among all non-whites:

With regards to whites we must once again ask which of these things is not like the others?

The distribution for single white women is 34% approve, 66% disapprove, about the same as for non-whites. Among married white men and women and single white men, it is 65% approve, 35% disapprove.

The woman featuring here disapproves. Her unfortunate son, in contrast--if he survives to adulthood--will approve with a zeal so intense it would make the Spartans at Thermopylae blush.

Z-Man's recent observation seems applicable:
She really meant every word of the nonsense she was saying. That or she was sexually aroused by it. Who knows, maybe the thought of being slaughtered by Muslim savages is arousing to these people. It’s not entirely out of the question, given the state of men these days.
If you haven't already, see Heartiste's characteristically trenchant discussion of white America's major fault line. His rhetorical krav maga is something those who crave #MAGA need more of.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Nothing worse than an old white guy

As a closing follow up to the previous post, here is the very first image returned for a search on "racist":

Here are the top results on "hate":

There are no victims, only volunteers. This is what we're up against. Do not ever forget it.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Getty Images gets after white men

I'm doing a little work on a textbook. The publisher has free access to, a service I hadn't previously heard of but provides images similar to the Shutterstock pictures you've probably seen included in various online articles and the like.

I was looking for an image of a shoplifter for one of the modules I was finishing up. On the first page of results, containing 59 images, I noticed not a single perpetrator was black. I went through the other four pages of results, all of which were similarly completely devoid of black perps. I literally found a thieving pig before I was able to find a black filcher!

Part of the Mythril Crime Syndicate
I scanned the first page of results, around 60 per, for other criminal search terms. Some images only showed victims or no people at all. Among those that did include perpetrators, the percentage distributions are as follows.

For "shoplifting":

White male -- 42%
White female -- 56%
Asian female -- 2%

For "rapist":

White male -- 100%

For "assault":

White male -- 88%
White female -- 12%

For "burglar":

White male -- 100%

For "robbery":

White male -- 91%
White female -- 6%
Asian male -- 3%

For "terrorist":

White male -- 53%
Arab/MENA male -- 47%

Not a single result from any of these searches returned a black or Hispanic perp. This despite the fact that non-Asian minorities are drastically overrepresented among criminals in the US.

When I tried "black burglar", just two of the 60 images contained black male perps--the vast majority of the rest were white men!

This service is a major content provider for academic publishing and it is thoroughly anti-white.

Whenever the thought crosses my mind that I may becoming too cynical, something like this comes along to knock some sense into me by reminding me that I'm not cynical enough.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Marriage and gender gaps in presidential elections since 1968

Steve Sailer has been pointing out since at least the 2004 presidential election that the marriage gap is a bigger deal than the much more media salient gender gap. The GSS reveals that Steve's perspicacity has been descriptive extending much farther back than that, since at least 1968.

Parenthetically, this is often the case with Steve's insights. He's portrayed as an extremist by all the usual suspects even though his observations tend to be quite modest and parsimonious given the data--both quantitative and qualitative--he bases those observations on.

The following graph shows the marriage and gender gaps, in black and red respectively, by presidential election. The marriage gap values are computed by taking the Republican candidate's performance in a two-way race among unmarried voters and subtracting it from his performance among married voters. The gender gap values are computed by taking the Republican candidate's performance in a two-way race among female voters and subtracting it from his performance among male voters:

The GSS asks about each presidential election for no more than seven years--three or four survey iterations, as they're conducted every couple of years on average--after that election occurs. So the 1988 election between the elder Bush and Dukakis gets a question in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993. Since these responses are being cross-referenced with marital status at the time of survey participation, there's going to be a little noise in the marital status figures. Someone responding in 1993, who may have been single when he voted for Dukakis in 1988 but who married in the interim, will show up as a married who voted Democrat even though he was unmarried when he actually voted.

This will modestly understate the real size of the marriage gap in each election while leaving the gender gap untouched (excepting the handful of trannies who may be hiding in the data sets!). Consequently, the difference in magnitude between the marriage gap and the gender gap is modestly greater than what is depicted in the graph above.

We can thus confidently conclude that in every US presidential election going back to at least Humphrey and Nixon in 1968 the marriage gap has been wider than the gender gap has been.

GSS variables used: PRES68(1-2), PRES72(1-2), PRES76(1-2), PRES80(1-2), PRES84(1-2), PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), MARITAL(1)(3-5), SEX

Saturday, March 25, 2017

A couple more polling stragglers

- Multiple people have balked at Trump's apparent Mormon support. This comment at Heartiste's is illustrative:
45.5% of Utahns voted for Trump, but you’re claiming that 72% of Mormons voted for Trump? Sorry, but those results don’t line up. There’s definitely some sampling error in there.
Keep in mind the results were in the context of a two-way race. Evan McMullin, the Mormon who was futilely pushed by cuckservatives in a ridiculously far-fetched attempt to send the election to the House of representatives, sucked up a lot of Mormon support. He got 21.5% of the vote in Utah. If we back this out and just compare Trump vs Hillary, we see that Trump crushed her, 62.4%-37.6%.

One-third of Utah's population isn't Mormon. Given that Mormons are the most reliably Republican demographic in the country, it's probably reasonable to assume that Utah's non-Mormon population was less likely to vote for Trump than its Mormons were. If we estimate non-Mormons in Utah went 50/50 for Trump/Hillary, we get a Mormon Utahan result of 68.6%-31.4% in Trump's favor, close to the Reuters-Ipsos result of 71.6%-28.4% among Mormons nationwide.

While Utah is majority-Mormon, the majority of America's Mormons do not live in Utah. Of the 6.5 million Mormons in the US, 2 million live in Utah. Since most McMullin voters, if forced to choose between Trump and Hillary likely would have gone with Trump, it's reasonable to assume that relative to Mormons in Utah, non-Utahan Mormons in states where McMullin wasn't on the the ballot--like California, which has the second-largest population of Mormons in the country after Utah--were more likely to vote for Trump than for Hillary.

So if Mormons outside of Utah went for Trump 73%-27% in a two-way contest with Hillary--which seems quite plausible--we'd be exactly in line with the R-I result.

- Similarly, there have been assertions that the marriage gap is actually just a disguised age gap. Again, from a commenter at Heartiste's:
If you had broken all your groups down by age, you’d find that young white women are more likely to be single and that single white manginas who voted for thecunt were…young!
Age is positively correlated with the likelihood of being married, but the marriage gap is present within age cohorts (at least among women). Among whites under 35, Trump's support among whites breaks down as follows:

Young single white men were marginally more supportive of Trump than young married white men were, though the difference is within the margin of error. The difference between young single and young married white women, however, is yuge.

Now let's look at whites aged 35-65 (beyond 65 we start running into widow confounding):

Here, too, the marriage gap is more of a chasm among women.

We might want to refine our focus on the marriage gap to an emphasis on the female marriage gap in particular.

Note too that age isn't much of a factor here. Younger and older single white women vote pretty much the same, as do younger and older married white women, etc. Among whites, it's mostly single women on one side and everyone else on the other.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Fight the invasion

I found this flier near a construction site this morning:

Google translates as follows:

High to deportations!

Sunday, March 26, 2017/4 PM - 6 PM Church Our Savior Lutheran Church KC 4153 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, Kansas 65103

A KC Fight invites you to a conversation with immigration experts, they can answer your questions to create plans of action and resistance. There will be music in LIVE!

Food on sale to raise funds for Johnathan and Andres; Who were unjustly arrested in the protest 'A Day Without Immigrants.'

Doesn't helping scofflaws and their sympathizers create plans of "action and resistance" against a federal agency carrying out a legally mandated function constitute the aiding and abetting of illegal activity?

Let's see if we can move ICE to take a look at this civilizationally seditious gathering. Here's the ICE tip form page. For selected violation, I chose "human smuggling" and for who the complaint involves, I selected "business/company" and entered the church's information a second time.

In the summary box I put "I have been tipped off to a meeting this Sunday, March 26th from 4pm-6pm at the address above that will feature advice on how to take action against ICE and help illegal immigrants avoid deportation. The people planning this are aiding and abetting illegal activity and their audience will be illegal immigrants and those assisting them."

If you'd prefer to call, ICE's toll-free phone line is (866) 347-2423.

Here is the homepage of the church hosting the invaders, and here is the email address of organizers:

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Miscellany of exit polling items

If you haven't, see Steve Sailer's and Heartiste's reactions to the Reuters-Ipsos detailed exit poll data.

First, Heartiste notes a commenter at Steve's pointing out what I should've emphasized:
Which of these things is not like the others?

Single white women: 39.0
Married white women: 61.4
Single white men: 59.0
Married white men: 61.0
A couple of clarifying comments. Steve's subsequent post looked at work from professor George Hawley who asserted that "the relationship between marriage and voting declined" in 2016 from 2012.

Maybe--Trump was more Fishtown and less Belmont than Romney--but the correlation he looks at is at the state level, not at the level of individual voter. I've not run the numbers, but I suspect that at the state level the relationship between IQ and voting Republican increased between 2012 and 2016. The upper Midwest states, where Trump outperformed Romney the most, do pretty well on measures of intelligence.

Given Trump's much stronger performance with working-class whites, modestly stronger performance with non-whites, and poorer performance with professional whites relative to Romney's, however, it's almost certain that the average IQ of Republican voters decreased between 2012 and 2016 even though the average IQ of the states that went for Trump was higher than the average IQ of states that went for Romney (clever sillies aren't going to save the West, Alt Knights will).

The officially commissioned exit poll released on election night shows a marriage gap that is narrower than what the R-I results show. I wish I'd saved all the initial releases on November 9th. I did happen to screen shot a few in the course of doing a little post-election analysis before they were changed again and again and again, presumably to adjust to official electoral results as those trickled in for several weeks after the election. Of the four exit poll tables captured in this post from November 12th, the results for every single one subsequently changed.

In other words, there's reason to be skeptical of the commissioned exit poll. In any event, R-I's results provide another similar but not identical data set.

Heartiste, pointing out Trump's strong performance among married Jewish men, cautions that this might more accurately be described as a strong performance among married Orthodox Jewish men on the presumption that a lot of secular, irreligious ethnic Jews identify as having "no religion" rather than "Jewish".

It's hard to know how things shake out precisely from survey to survey, but the GSS--when asking "What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?"--shows that only 36.1% of those who identify as Jewish say they "know God exists". The corresponding figures for Protestants and Catholics are 74.9% and 62.2%, respectively.

In other words, barely one-third of self-described Jews--self-described in response to a question about religion rather than ethnicity or cultural heritage, no less--are firm theists. Some number of secular ethnic Jews do not identify with any religious tradition, but a not insubstantial number of them--the majority if I had to guess--identify as Jewish.

GSS variables used: RELIG(1,2,3), YEAR(2000-2014), GOD(6)

Monday, March 20, 2017

The future belongs to those who show up for it

From the GSS, responses from white survey participants on the ideal number of children for a household to have, by year of participation in the survey:

Even as our TFR has been sub-replacement, our collective assessment of what we should be doing hasn't changed. We know replacement should be the floor. Fewer than 1-in-20 white Americans put the ideal number of children to have at 0 or 1.

Knowledge isn't enough, though, in this case or any other. We all have 10,000 Library of Alexandrias in our butt pockets. The sum of all human knowledge is 0.91 seconds away. Only when knowledge is put into practice does it become functional.

What we lack is the will. For more than a generation now the native populations of every Western nation--excepting Israel, if it is included as part of the Occident--have been failing to replace themselves.

This first manifests as an upward shift in the median age as the leading low-fertility generation grays. The total population doesn't actually start declining until that low-fertility generation begins dying off. It's already happening in Japan, and it will happen here when the Boomers check out.

It's not just that the populations in "refugee" sending countries are numerous, it's that even if their fertility fell to Western levels overnight, their populations would continue to grow for several decades.

Here are the median ages of populations in several refugee-sending countries:

Syria -- 24
Iraq -- 20
Chad -- 18
South Sudan -- 17
The Congo -- 20
Nigeria -- 18
Somalia -- 18
Yemen -- 19

Compare that to the geriatric West:

Germany -- 47
France -- 41 (the figure for the 10%+ of the population that is Muslim is significantly lower)
Italy -- 45
Great Britain -- 41
Sweden -- 41
The US -- 38

Increasing our birth rates is not sufficient to save Western civilization, but it is necessary. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

There are three actionable, conceivable things to do in the US (and Europe) to preserve ourselves and our posterity:

1) A moratorium on immigration (more politically palatable than preferential status for selected ancestrally and culturally compatible countries)

2) The repatriation of non-citizens ("you have to go back")

3) An increase in native fertility (an uptick of 25% would do the trick)

These are achievable. While we still have some ground to cover to get to 1) and 2), we're much closer today than we were even two years ago.

I'm anecdotal evidence for 3). My wife and I have two kids, aged 3 and 1, and we're not finished yet. My decision to start a family was spurred in large part by a sense of civilizational and ancestral duty. I was set to be a ZFG--zero fecundities given--genetic dead end through my mid-twenties, including the first few years of this blog. After a couple of years hovering in the seminal mists of the Dark Enlightenment--roughly the precursor to the Alt Right--it became clear to me that sitting on the sidelines was no longer an option.

Those who forget about their ancestors soon forget about their descendants.

Parenthetically, here's suggestive evidence that choosing cats over kids isn't something childless post-menopausal women are satisfied with having done:

Childless women over the age of 60 (n = 679) put the ideal number of children to have at 2.75 on average!

GSS variables used: CHLDIDEL(0-7), AGE(60-89), SEX, RACE(1), YEAR, BORN(1), CHILDS(0)

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Jewish eugenics

Sparked by Steve Sailer's recent post, the following graph and table show the percentages of GSS respondents, by religious affiliation, who support eugenics at the practical, functional level.

The term is used accurately in this context. The question reads "Suppose a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect. Would you (yourself want to/want your partner to) have an abortion if a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect?"

The survey is not asking about policy prescriptions, questions of legality, or moral attitudes towards the idea of abortion or eugenics--it is directly asking if the respondent if he/she would abort his/her own unborn baby if it testing in the womb found that it had "a serious genetic defect".

Results (n = 4,006; the Jewish sample is only 77):

No affiliation50.8
Other traditions44.3

GSS variables used: GENEABRT(1-2), RELIG(1,2,3,4,5-13)

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Detailed demographic breakdown of 2016 US presidential election

[This post was updated on 3/18 from its original publishing on 3/16 to include the addition of a few subgroups. Source data is here. Additional follow-up posts here and here.]

In imitation of Steve Sailer's--epigone, after all!--detailed demographic breakdown of the 2012 presidential election with Romney and Obama going head-to-head, here's a less aesthetically appealing version of the same for 2016 with Trump and Clinton squaring off.

A few brief technical notes: Reuters-Ipsos never released official exit poll results, but they have maintained a daily tracking poll on Trump's approval rating with filters including who respondents voted for in addition to all the various demographic categories presented below. The data is taken from the poll's commencement on January 20 through March 14, the latest date for which figures were available at the time of this post's creation. The total sample size among those who voted for either Trump or Clinton is 13,381*. Trump shows a modest edge, 50.6%-49.4%, in the popular vote in this sample. I have no opinion on whether this is more or less accurate than the officially reported popular vote total when it comes to legitimate ballots cast by American citizens.

The following graphs show the vote share of each demographic group Trump received in November:

The marriage gap is a bigger story than the gender gap. The gap between married and unmarried women is 29 points, and the gap between all marrieds and all unmarrieds is 19 points. It is just 6 points between men and women. In other words, marital status is over than 300% more powerful a predictor of voting behavior than gender is.

Married women were considerably more likely--by a margin of 9 points--to vote for Trump than unmarried men were. They were even marginally more likely to vote for him than married men were! While only 3% of unmarried black women voted for Trump, more than 1-in-4 married black men did (n = 284). Married Hispanics were marginally more likely to vote for Trump than unmarried whites were. Marrieds were more likely to support Trump than singles in every category examined.

While Mormons didn't come out as overwhelmingly for Trump as they did for Romney, most of the latter's co-religionists did not reveal themselves to be made of the same quisling cuckery that the GOP's 2012 nominee is made of.

I inadvertently didn't include all Jews as a single category in the visual representations, but 35.2% of them went for Trump (n = 378). That's a significantly better performance than the 24.5% figure the officially commissioned exit poll reported.

I also failed to include the non-negligible chunk of the electorate without any religious affiliation (n = 2,119). Trump got 31.9% of the heathen vote.

Among those of family formation age, Trump wins by 6 points among those with kids while losing among those without kids by 12 points. This isn't just among whites, it's among all voters. Additionally, it excludes those aged 50 and over (who lean Trump). So sans immigration, Trump gains and Clinton loses as time goes on.

If there are other demographic subgroups of interest, let me know in the comments and I'll take a look at them (and eventually revamp the graphs to include those additions).

* Sample sizes for the following demographic groups numbered less than 200: Single Jewish men (39), single Jewish women (51), Hindus (53), Muslims (67), single other races (90), Married Jewish men (102), Black single mothers (104), married Jewish women (119), married Hispanics (157), married other races (165), other sexual orientation (166), single Asians (168), and single Hispanics (192).

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

It's MAGA again in America

In January of 2012, during Obama's first term, Reuters-Ipsos began a daily tracking poll asking respondents whether the US is "headed in the right or wrong direction". The percentage answering "right direction", is, at this moment, in March of 2017, at the highest level ever recorded during that entire period of time. Correspondingly, the percentage of people who think the US is on the "wrong track" is at its lowest level since R-I rolled the survey out over five years ago:

Those results are for all Americans. Among whites, the current "right direction" response isn't just at a record high, it's twice what it averaged through Obama's two terms. We want our country back:

Rasmussen's version of the same type of daily tracking survey began the week Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. It hit its highest "right direction" and lowest "wrong direction" marks the week of January 22, 2017, immediately after Trump's inauguration, and the relative optimism has held steady since then.

That is, in Trump's less than two months in office the percentage of Americans who feel the country is moving in the right direction is higher than it ever was at any point during either of Obama's two terms.

I stumbled onto this and was genuinely surprised by what I found. Shame on me for expecting fake news to alert us of something newsworthy, I guess.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Is black failure due to discrimination?

On the politics of grievance, Ryan Faulk writes:
The real takeaway is that a culture of “racism” and “anti-racism” and “discrimination”, all of these things are things that you get when you have non-whites in your country. They are the politics of grievance. They don’t just exist in the United States, and they have nothing to do with historical events.

Those historical events that they hype up – those are just the things that they latch onto for the United States in particular. Slavery, segregation, and now the new era of “white privilege” and “institutional racism”. These exotic, unfalsifiable and roundabout ideas will increase proportionate with racial diversity.

It won’t stop, there are zero signs of it stopping or even decelerating. It is a function of having Non-Europeans in a European country.
The Cathedral isn't going to relent in pushing the Narrative, even as advances in genetic science require its high priests to wield Occam's Butterknife in ever more elaborate ways. Badwhites, however, are increasingly refusing to play along.

For three decades the GSS has asked respondents if they attribute blacks having "worse jobs, income and housing than white people" to discrimination. The following graph shows the percentages of whites and blacks who attribute black failure to discrimination over that period of time:

Parenthetically, it's reasonable to read "discrimination" as "irrational discrimination" in this context. Most people reading this will distinguish between the two, but the average guy on the street will not. He accepts "discrimination" as a bad word (Cletus excluded).

The average sample size per year for blacks is 184, so there's some noise present but the trend is actually an encouraging one. The survey did capture an apparent spike between 2012 and 2014. It'll be interesting to see what the 2016 data, which will be out soon, shows. Black Lives Matter doing work, baby!

There's no arguing that non-whites are going to latch onto the politics of grievance, though. We WEIRDOs get caught up in quixotic principles. Non-whites don't care about that. They're focused on advancing their own interests. WEIRDOs see something and evaluate it on the basis of Good vs Evil. Non-whites see something and evaluate it on a basis of Good for Us vs Bad for Us.

Since 2000, the survey has branched out beyond the white-black-other trichotomy for race to include Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. The percentages since the turn of the century who, by race, attribute black failure to discrimination:

GSS variables used: RACDIF1, RACE(1,2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10)(15-16), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), AGE(18-39)(40-64)(65-89)

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Vermont privilege

As a side note to the post on Jewish privilege, the top five states by proportion of total Google searches dedicated to "White privilege":

The percentages of these states' populations that are non-Hispanic white are 94%, 83%, 71%, 82%, and 75%, respectively. Compare that to the 63% of the country as a whole that is non-Hispanic white and we see that the putative problem of "White privilege" is something whites treat more seriously than non-whites do.

While I'm partial to Z-Man's Cloud People/Dirt People distinction on account of my childhood fondness for 16-bit role playing games, the Derb, who has long used the Goodwhite/Badwhite distinction, underscores the intra-racial nature of America's great cultural divide:
Nobody’s passions are stirred by thinking about other races in the aggregate. What gets our juices flowing is thinking about our own status ranking among people of our own race. That’s what supplies the driving energy, the will to combat, in the Cold Civil War: How do other white people see me? No white person gives a fig about how blacks see him. Who cares what blacks think?
To "No white person" it might be added "who thinks systematically about meta issues involving race"--I've come across plenty of white proles who care far too much about what blacks think about them--but that's a tangential quibble with an important observation.

Wednesday, March 08, 2017

Jewish privilege

The following ten graphs come from GSS data. Because the US census doesn't ask about religious affiliation, empirical comparisons of Jews and Gentiles can be hard to come by. Sample sizes vary depending on the number(s) of survey years each question was put to respondents. Results are presented with default scaling from Excel 2003:

This post can serve general interest, but for me it's an intentional auto-response to assertions of "White privilege". Google returns over 500,000 results for the phrase "White privilege" compared to 34,000 for "Jewish privilege".

Jews write a lot about things through Jewish lenses and from Jewish perspective--mostly in the ethnocentric sense but also in the religious one--and from scrolling through those Google results, most of the interest about that Jewish privilege comes from Jewish writers of Jewish publications. Few goys have ever heard those two words together. Not surprisingly, public interest in Jewish privilege is virtually non-existent (yes, the zenith in searches for White privilege came in the month of January, 2017 when Trump was inaugurated. Fittingly, too--never before had anyone had the presidency handed to him on a silver platter, without any work having to be done to get it, like Trump did!):

If the intent is to leverage self-righteous morality as a will to power by throwing around phrases like White privilege, then be prepared to squirm. If whites get it for doing okay, then superwhites--that is, Jews--really must deserve it for doing great. If Ashkenazi Jews want to help make that bed then they can lie in it. If they want to use their outsized resources and abilities to dispense with the victomology moralizing altogether, then they have an ally here.


Sunday, March 05, 2017

Spanking doesn't make people stupid

Stefan Molyneux, an outspoken critic of corporal punishment, highlighting studies that have found a correlation between IQ and whether or not a child was spanked:

This video is from six years ago and Molyneux has made the admirable shift from libertarian to HBD realism over that period of time, so I'm not sure he'd insinuate causation now.

In any case, there's a perfectly plausible, empirically sound mechanism to explain the fact that children who are spanked tend to have lower IQ than children who are not that has nothing to do with the corporal punishment itself. Intelligence is heritable, and less intelligent people are more likely to spank their kids than more intelligent people are.

The average IQ, as converted from wordsum scores assuming a mean American white IQ of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, of adults by how they feel about the statement that it is "sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking" (n = 14,874):

Spanking needed?IQ
Strongly agree94.7
Strongly disagree102.9

Spanking doesn't lower intelligence, parents of relatively low intelligence--who, on average, have kids with relatively low intelligence--are just more likely to spank.

My guess is corporal punishment, so long as it doesn't result in serious injury, is about as consequential to life outcomes as other parenting behaviors are--that is, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. It's long-term effects are as consequential as the decision of whether to play Baby Einstein or the local pop 40 station as you rock your child to sleep. It comes down to preference--I'll opt for Baby Einstein and timeout, but everyone's mileage will vary.

If it's primarily a cathartic exercise for the parent, that strikes (heh) me as being closer to child abuse than good parenting, but people work things out in different ways. It's not something my wife and I practice, but I see no reason to prohibit, say, blacks from doing it if they feel it necessary.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM, SPANKING, BORN(1)

Saturday, March 04, 2017

Obama and Kerry requested Ecuadoran interference in the 2016 US presidential election

It's time for a new Anti-Imperialist League that is as ideologically and politically diverse as the one that opposed America's experiment in the Philippines over a century ago. It included bedfellows as strange as railroad magnate Andrew Carnegie and labor leader Samuel Gompers.

There is a bipartisan Establishment effort to reignite the cold war with Russia. Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham want it. The Hillary wing of the Democrat party wants it. The CIA wants it. The taxpayer-fed defense industries want it.

These people are so used to getting what they want by following the prescribed formula they've run for years that their sloppy approach leaves them vulnerable. It's a vulnerability that has been exploited--with the help of the god-emperor himself--again here. Almost immediately after it came out that US senator Jeff Sessions had communicated with Russian diplomats, the proverbial fools who have to say something rushed in to pile on and ended up getting knocked silly in the process:

Who? Whom? Know the answers to those questions, and you'll know everything you need to about whether an action or behavior is perfectly reasonable or unthinkably scandalous. Put in another way by the ineffable Z-Man:
We have reached a point where it is heads they win, tails we lose. The game has been rigged to make reforming the system within the rules an impossibility. When a majority of the people favor a policy that the managerial class opposes, the policy gets hamstrung by the rules of the game. All of a sudden, the process is sacred. When the managerial class wants something for their masters, they change the rules so it either flies through or simply happens without anyone noticing. The process is not all that important.
The pretense for a renewed war--that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential election--is absurd. The US regularly interferes with elections in other countries, most notably those in former Soviet countries where we've sponsored various "colored" revolutions over the last several years.

Unless it involves hacking voting machines, this "interference" is merely countries conducting foreign policy in an attempt to influence events so that they play out in a way most beneficial to the actors doing the influencing. Putin wanted Trump to be elected because Russia doesn't want war with the US. Mexico wanted Hillary to be elected because illegal immigration to the US is a great thing for Mexico (they export their social problems northward and get billions in remittances in return).

WikiLeaks--an organization with a far, far better track record than the CIA--reported that the Obama administration via John Kerry asked Ecuador to interfere in the 2016 election, and that the US interfered in the 2012 French presidential election. The US government is constantly interfering in elections all over the world.

There's common ground here for Trumpian America Firsters and the Bernie Sanders wing of the left, and it's ground we'll have to share if we want to avoid a military confrontation with a country that can't compete with the US using conventional military means but that does have thousands of nuclear warheads. This is the most important foreign policy question the Trump administration is likely to face.

Thursday, March 02, 2017

Ephialtes' candlestick

From a recent SurveyUSA poll asking residents of the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area about their opinions on reporting illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities when they come into contact with local law enforcement officers.

To get a sense of how lost California is to the cause of European civilization, only 53% of those surveyed said that local law enforcement should always turn over illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes to federal immigration authorities. Nearly half the population of the bay area does not think it a necessity that violent criminal illegal aliens be turned over to ICE. When it comes to those who are incidentally discovered to be in the country illegal, only 19%--fewer than one-in-five--favor always contacting federal immigration authorities. Calexit, please!

The following graph shows aiding and abetting invasion index scores by selected demographic characteristics. The index is computed by taking the percentage of respondents who say local authorities should never contact federal immigration authorities when illegal aliens are discovered and subtracting from it the percentage of respondents who say local authorities should always contact the feds when illegals are turned up.

That is, the higher the index score, the more members of a group favor hiding illegals from immigration authorities. Or to put it more pointedly, the higher the score the more likely members of a group are to scoff at the nation's immigration laws. Nancy Pelosi's district is in the heart of the area under consideration, so there's a lot of scoffing going on across the board, but the comparative differences across demographic groups are still informative:

Unsurprisingly Hispanics (Mexicans) are overwhelmingly complicit in turning California (and the greater American Southwest) into a northern extension of Mexico. Middle America, they want your dollars, your land, and your civilizational accouterments but you can take the rest and shove it.

Opposition to the invasion is strongest among young, Republican-leaning white men who haven't been indoctrinated in academia. Alt Right rising, in other words. Here's to hoping it's not too little, too late.

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Perceived intelligence of blacks and whites among members of various groups

Expounding on the average perceived differences in intelligence between blacks and whites, the following graph shows the mean score on a 7-point scale asking respondents separately if blacks and if whites "tend to be unintelligent or tend to be intelligent"--the higher the score the more intelligent members of each race are perceived to be--by selected characteristics of the respondents making the assessments:

With Jews, assessments of blacks are in line with how most other groups (except blacks) perceive blacks. The narrow black-white gap stems from Jews rating whites as being less intelligent than any other group does.

The story is reversed for Asians, whose view of whites is in line with how other groups perceive whites. They assess black intelligence at a markedly lower level than others do, however. Consequently, they perceive the overall black-white gap to be wider than any other considered group does.

GSS variables: INTLWHTS, INTLBLKS, YEAR(2000-2014), RELIG(3), RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), SEX, AGE(18-34,35-54,55-89), EDUC(1-15,16-20), POLVIEWS(1-2,5-6)