Sunday, April 30, 2017

Coming collegiate collapse

The previous post on the apparent decline in the average IQ of college graduates in the US over the last fifty years used the GSS' 10-question Wordsum vocabulary test as a basis for those IQ estimates. As was pointed out, vocabulary tends to increase with age (through the late fifties before peaking and then beginning to decline). That incremental increase through adulthood is very modest, however, reducing the gap between those who graduated in the 1960s and those who graduated in the 2010s by less than 1 IQ point.

To illustrate the change over time more starkly, the following graph shows, among those who spent at least four years in college, the percentages by year of participation in the survey who scored either 9 out of 10 or a perfect 10 out of 10 on the Wordsum test. Responses are restricted to those aged 25-40 at the time of participation so potential age confounds are eliminated:

The questions have been the same since the survey's inception (see them here).

Forty years ago, 1-in-2 graduates could ace the Wordsum test. Today, 1-in-6 can. That's just about perfectly in line with what we'd expect to see if the top 6% or so of the population is capable of acing the test.

Four decades ago, 12% of the population had degrees. Today, 33% does. If, in the early seventies, that 12% roughly corresponded with the top 12% of the IQ distribution, then the 6% of the population that aced the Wordsum test would comprise 1 in 2 of those grads. If today that 33% roughly corresponds with the top 33% of the IQ distribution, then the 6% of the population acing the Wordsum test would be a bit more than 1 in 6 of today's grads. QED*.

This is a devastating refutation of contemporary educational romanticism. College isn't anything close to a panacea. Education doesn't increase intelligence. It doesn't even appear, for most people, to do much in the way of increasing knowledge. These ten vocabulary words are all common enough that it's almost inconceivable that after four years of college a student who paid attention and engaged with the classroom material would not have come into contact with all of them on multiple occasions.

The incentive structure for higher education is extremely perverse (or more charitably, is setup on the genuine presumption that spending time in college reliably increases earning power).

Student loans are the most difficult types of loans to have discharged, so lenders who lend to students are making what amount to government-guaranteed loans. After a few years interest on those loans runs at 5% or 6%. Lenders are thus earning 5% on things that putatively carry zero risk. It's easy money.

The universities are getting paid by lenders no matter what so they have no incentive to restrict student enrollment either (unless they're top-tier universities who trade on restricted access).

The zeitgeist says if you don't go to college then you're a loser, so lots of people who have no business being there end up going.

Outstanding student loan debt in the US is now at $1 trillion and climbing, but a huge chunk of that value is illusory value. Many of those loans aren't going to be paid back. The people holding them do not have the prospects or the ability to ever pay them off. Lenders are booking them as essentially no-risk assets, but they're not.

I don't purport to be a financial expert--let alone an Economist!--but I can't shake this feeling that we've seen something eerily similar to this before.

As the Z-Man is fond of saying, this will not end well.

GSS variables used: YEAR, EDUC(16-20), AGE(25-40), WORDSUM(9-10), BORN(1--except for 1974 and 1976 as the variable wasn't introduced until 1978)

* Okay, not quite. About 12% of the population aces the Wordsum test. There is a correlation between intelligence and educational attainment, but it's far from perfect and is becoming more and more attenuated as time goes on.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Average IQ of college graduates by decade of graduation

The mean IQ scores, converted from GSS wordsum results, assuming a national average of 98 and a standard deviation of 15, of those who attended college for at least four years by the decade they graduated in* (n = 5,124, though n for 2010s is only 49 and should be seen as merely suggestive--the trend is clear regardless):

Graduated inIQ

The change in the intelligence of the average college graduate over the last fifty years approaches the IQ gap separating whites and blacks.

This is an inevitable consequence of increasing the share of the population that attends college. In the sixties, 10% of American adults had college degrees. Since then that figure has more than tripled, to 33% today.

To say we're well into the territory of diminishing returns is to understate the problem--we're past the point of negative returns. Most Americans in college today are not benefiting from being there. They're foregoing work to accrue debt for degrees that, if they increase earning power at all, do so only marginally and they're picking up an unhelpful sense of entitlement in the process.

GSS variables used: COHORT(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999), EDUC(16-20), WORDSUM, BORN(1)

* Values for each decade come from those born two decades prior, so the time of actual graduation is approximate. For example, the result for the 1960s comes from the wordsum scores of those born in the 1940s; the result for the 1970s from those born in the 1950s, and so on. The approach isn't perfect--some people graduate later in life and a few while still in their teens--but it is an improvement on previous approaches.

**Update** Restricting the age of those evaluated only very marginally lowers the mean wordsum for the earlier cohorts (less than half of 1 IQ point on average).

Also, to reiterate, this measures respondents by total number of years spent in school. There are some--more now than in the past, presumably--who spend eight years in college without ever actually getting a degree.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

The United States is not and has never been a nation of immigrants

While the US is not and has never been a "nation of immigrants", Israel was almost from the beginning. In the 1950s, around half--maybe more, it's tough to tell with certainty--of those living in the country were immigrants. Still today a larger share Israel's population is foreign-born than has ever been the case throughout the entire history of the US.

The following countries* also have larger immigrant population shares--right now, in 2017--than the US ever has at any time from 1776 to the present:

New Zealand
The United Arab Emirates
Hong Kong
Saudi Arabia

Parenthetically, while technically further refuting the "nation of immigrants" mendacity, this list largely serves rhetorical and polemical purposes.

Other things being equal, geographical size substantially factors into determining the population share of a country's immigrants. If One Worlders had their way and the globe became a single political entity--called, say, the United Nations--the percentage of immigrants would drop to zero overnight. If the US dissolved into multiple countries, the immigrant share in each would likely (though not necessarily) be higher than was the immigrant share of the former United States as a whole.

That said, Canada is larger than the US and Australia is nearly the same size as the contiguous 48 states.

"Immigrant" is a political description and as such is of less importance than are cultural or identity descriptions. Identity is greater than culture and culture is greater than politics. Consequently, in addition to being inaccurate, referring to America as a "nation of immigrants" is ultimately a politically arbitrary designation. It's importance is consequently limited and superficial in significance.

The culture and especially the identity of immigrants--or non-immigrants--is what matters. The immigrant in 1890 and the immigrant in 2017 have as much--or as little--in common as they have in shared--or unshared--culture and identity.

* Among countries with populations of at least one million people. The list gets substantial longer if smaller countries are included.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Half of those 50 or older who voted for Clinton support airstrike on Syria

From Reuters-Ipsos polling (n = 2,918), support among Hillary voters aged 50 or older for the airstrikes on Syria:

Hillary voters under 30 and aged 30-49:

A similar age pattern exists among Trump voters, just depressingly shifted nearly 50 points in the direction of support:

Stripping away political orientation, then, we see that there is a substantial generational divide when it comes to policing the world:

This is Feryl's wheelhouse. Boomers hate the idea of being "isolationists".

Supporting that assessment, there are marginal differences among white and non-white Hillary voters, with the former only slightly more supportive. The modest differences we see among Hillary's coalition is accounted for by age, as older Hillary voters are of course whiter than younger ones are:

For those who want to maintain the 666-dimensional-chess analogy, the attack could be seen as trying to further split the Hillary and Bernie wings of the Democrat party by driving the wedge hard into the coalition of the fringes, while simultaneously bringing butthurt cucks and neocons back into the fold without much political downside.

That strikes me as fanciful thinking, however. And I intentionally use "fanciful" rather than "wishful" here. As Z-Man puts it:
Trump is wildly unpredictable, at least he seems unpredictable. That’s a big part of how he plays the game. He wants everyone to think the range of choices for him include some collection of unknown options that no one has yet to consider. That keeps foes on the defensive, making them tentative, even when they have the advantage. By appearing to have no clear strategy and routinely breaking old habits, Trump appears to be a wild man, who is capable of anything. Therefore, there’s no way to plan for him.
He greatly expanded the Overton Window and provided a template for hungry, aspiring politicians to follow in the future. We can hope for him to be something more than a transitional figure, but we'd be foolish to expect it.

Friday, April 21, 2017


America is a white nation.

America is a Christian nation.

America is an Anglophone nation.

America is a nation built and led by white men.

America is a heterosexual nation.

America is a nation of male breadwinners and female homemakers.

America is a nation of natives born on its soil.

All of these assertions have been accurate for most of the country's history and remain accurate today. In contrast, the idea that America is a "nation of immigrants" is not accurate now nor was it accurate at any point in the past.

Despite that, none of those true statements are perceived as legitimate arguments for why America should continue to embrace these aspects of its character, while the mendacious falsity is treated as an argument for finally making it true by deluging the country with foreigners.

The phrase "nation of immigrants" first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935:

Truman, in 1952, was the first president to make use of it while in office.

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country's population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.

Anyone who claims America is a nation of immigrants is appallingly ignorant, lying through his teeth, or both--and there's a good chance he has to go back.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Playing with fire

The real tough cookie on getting acquainted with violence for the first time in her privileged life:
“Me and my friends were fleeing. As we were running away I lost my friends,” she said. “I was trying to follow my boyfriend, but he just disappeared…I was just trying to block myself away from different people who were just pushing me and attacking other people.”
As has been noted here several times, if the civil authorities refuse to intervene against leftist street fighters, the new populists will take action into their own hands. And we are much better prepared for violence than the agitators are.

Antifa was better armed--they brought banned items like glass bottles and pepper spray--and still got their asses handed to them.

While her recounting of events should be taken with a grain of salt, it is telling that as she was allegedly trying to follow her boyfriend, "he just disappeared".

In 2004 the GSS asked respondents if they agreed with the statement "I would rather suffer myself than let the one I love suffer." The percentages, among men, who gave a response other than "strongly agree", by political orientation (n = 610):

Not only are the leftist street brawlers no match for MAGA berserkers in a melee, they are--as the GSS illustrates--more likely to flee the fray to save themselves when the going gets tough. As every student of history knows, that's devastating to the tactical effectiveness of any fighting unit. When the line breaks is when the route begins. They will leave their wounded on the battlefield. We won't.

Parenthetically, absorbing punishment so one you love does not have to is not white knighting. White knighting is absorbing punishment for someone who does not love you, often someone you don't even know.

If Billy Petit had staggered up the stairs with a lead pipe in his hands and bloodlust in his heart instead of scampering off to a neighbor's house while his wife and daughters were burned alive, it wouldn't have made him a white knight. It would have made him a man worthy of the name.

If Abdullah Kurdi would have swam under the waves in a frantic search for his two-year-old son until his lungs filled with water, he wouldn't have died a white knight. He would have died a man worthy of the name.

Were you planning on living forever? No one gets out of this alive. If there aren't things you're willing to die for, yours is not a life worth living.

GSS variables used: AGAPE1(1)(2-5), SEX(1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Tax cheating among whites

The Derb, excerpting George Orwell:
The masses still more or less assume that “against the law” is a synonym for “wrong.” It is known that the criminal law is harsh and full of anomalies and that litigation is so expensive as always to favour the rich against the poor: but there is a general feeling that the law, such as it is, will be scrupulously administered … An Englishman does not believe in his bones, as a Spanish or Italian peasant does, that the law is simply a racket.

The English People, Collins, 1947
With all the caveats about self-reported data, especially on ancestry among the European mongrels who make up America's contemporary white population, as well as the limitations caused by having just two years of survey data and thus suboptimal sample sizes on the question under examination taken into account, the following graph shows the percentages who say it is morally acceptable to under-report income for the purpose of paying less in income taxes, by ancestry among whites (see here for NAMs):

Spain is included among "Other Southern European" responses, and then there are the Italians.

When Orwell was writing in the 1940s, the masses of England were English and so what he wrote was accurate. No longer.

WEIRDO societies require WEIRDOs to make them work. The less WEIRDO a society becomes, the more being a WEIRDO--characterized by high social trust, reciprocity, political compromise, generosity to those in need, isonomy, etc--switches from being an advantage to being a disadvantage. Social trust declines, reciprocity disappears, political compromise is replaced by a winner-take-all ethnic spoils system, generosity is exploited to the point that it is seen as an entitlement, and the legal system gets hijacked by racial grievance concepts like "social justice". It's a vicious circle.

And so the progress takes away what forever took to find.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Omnivores on the right

In a podcast on veganism, two red-pilled herbivores lament the putative association between veganism and leftist politics. Richard Burgess implies this is some sort of new phenomenon*.

If Hitler's vegetarianism gave it cachet on the right, that effect had long since worn off by the nineties. I can still vividly recall a time during my coming of age when a group leftist activists throwing paint on patrons coming out of an Alaskan Fur store.

A couple of times in the mid-nineties the GSS asked respondents if they avoided eating meat for "moral or environmental reasons" (I realize this is effectively grouping vegetarians and vegans together, but we work with what we have). The percentages of those who said they did so either "always" or "often", by political orientation (n = 2,792):

Compare that to hunting, the following showing the percentages who hunt or have a spouse who hunts, by political orientation:

Two decades ago liberals were 51% more likely to avoid meat than conservatives, while conservatives were 49% more likely to hunt than liberals.

It's as reasonable to associate not eating meat with political liberalism as it is to associate hunting with political conservatism.

GSS variables used: HUNT(1-3,4), NOMEAT(1-2), POLVIEWS(1-3,4,5-7)

* It's worth noting that he is from Canada and Tara McCarthy is from Great Britain while the subsequent evaluation of their assumptions comes entirely from US data, so the trends may not hold across the Anglosphere.

Thursday, April 13, 2017


Google Trends on search volume for "intersectionality":

The program analyzes words or phrases as a percentage of all searches at any given period of time, so these results show searches relative to all search activity, not just the absolute number of searches. This is far more useful than if the program returned absolute numbers of searches, since most things would increase over time simply as a consequence of ever greater internet penetration.

The peak up to this point came during the women's marches in January that followed Trump's inauguration.

Vermont tops the list of states in search volume interest. Here are the top ten:

That's fitting, since intersectionality is largely an effort by privileged goodwhites to artificially glom themselves onto the inherent virtue enjoyed by members of established Victims, most notably blacks. Your chains and my experimental lesbianism against The Man!

Speaking of blacks, they're not interested. Some affirmative action transgendered mulatto leading an ivy league community organizing group on campus, maybe, but xe's the exception.

That exception, and all the Victim group trough-feeding--my cousin works for Claire McCaskill's office in the Imperial Capital and his wife for an LGBTTXHFPLOLZ 'advocacy' organization there)--explains DC's spot near the top, but the black South fills out the bottom of the list, with Mississippi ranked dead last:

Schadenfreude is on the horizon as we watch the Coalition of the Fringes come apart. The 2020 presidential election is full of potential. There aren't any viable white candidates on the Democrat side.

Bernie Sanders and creepy Joe Biden will be in nursing homes. Fauxcahontas, whose national appeal is reminiscent of Michael Dukakis', is the youngest known quantity of any significance and she'll be older than Trump was when he was elected the oldest president in US' history.

As 2016 illustrated, with Lincoln Chafee and Martin O'Malley polling at 1%, this geriatric generation of white Democrats is the last of a dying breed when it comes to top leadership roles.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Fully restore Trump's Twitter privileges

Trump takes a lot of crap for allegedly getting all his news from cable TV shows, but that clearly wasn't the case during the primaries, as anyone who followed his Twitter feed was well aware of.

He got a lot of it from other Twitter accounts. He retweeted Heartiste at least once and for awhile followed the DemsRRealRacists parody account (now J Burton). That's how he ended up retweeting politically incorrect stuff about black crime and Israel's wall, among many other things.

In the interim he has been relentlessly advised and admonished to stay away from Twitter as much as possible. It's not "presidential", they say. Even many of his Alt Right supporters recommend this. I heard Black Pigeon Speaks say as much on a recent podcast.

A couple months into office, it looks like Trump's taken this advice to heart. While he is still fairly active on social media--though not nearly as active as he was during the primaries and the general election--he now uses it for little more than what are basically press releases. If he's a person very much attuned to what is directly in front of him, as seems to be the case, this has to have been, from our perspective, a change for the worst.

Of his children and children-in-law, Don Junior is by far the most sympathetic to the shitlord memery that helped put his dad over the top. He is, not coincidentally, the most fiery of the brood on Twitter:

Top of Don Jr's feed at the time of this posting
He recently retweeted an account with 1,300 followers, something Trump himself used to regularly do.

Someone close needs to convince the president to reengage on social media to fire up in the morning and blow off steam at night, critics be damned. It's something he clearly enjoys doing that includes, as a side effect, the salvation of the Western world.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Overwhelming majority thinks Assad a threat to US

Reuters-Ipsos ran a poll in December and January querying people on whether or not they thought "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad" poses a threat to the US. The results, for everyone, for Trump voters, and for Hillary voters (n = 3,246):

To call this highly discouraging would be an understatement. It is that, but it's also a hard reality check. When the bombs dropped last week, I thought "why would an America First populist allow himself to be dragged into this mess?" without realizing that the question contains the answer--because doing so was popular, overwhelmingly so.

The answer to Ron Paul's rhetorical question in reaction to the airstrikes may be "never":

Even if Assad hoodwinked the world over the last few years by making it believe he didn't have chemical weapons before using them at the most inopportune time to kill 70 people in a civil war that has claimed 400,000 lives, it's still difficult to see how one gets from there to the understanding that he is a threat to the US.

A secular ruler who shaves his face every morning before putting on his suit and tie, who protects religious minorities--including Christians, dead without him--is ISIS' biggest enemy in the area, and has been desperately hanging on by a thread to part of his little plot of sand (that doesn't contain much in the way of natural resources) is a threat to America?

Maybe some of that 70%+ of the American public would point to Syria allowing groups like Hamas to operate within its borders as constituting the threat, but I bet they're in the minority. Most probably can't articulate a way from here to there at all.

So maybe America First, no more being the world's police force, making our allies pay their fair share, etc works in the abstract but the invade-the-world specifics remain reliable winners. After all, letting God's babies be gassed is not "who we are".

At least we still have reason for guarded optimism on the even more important invite-the-world front, right?

Oh boy, and here comes Kevin Hassett:
President Donald Trump has picked an economic advisor who believes in growing the nation’s economy by importing workers and consumers, and by expanding free-trade outsourcing, despite Trump’s “buy American, hire American” campaign promises.
How does a guy who seemed to feed off all the hatred and disgust he generated over the last two years fold now, when he has maximum leverage and a base so loyal that it's hard to think of any amount of blackmail that could lead to impeachment?

I expected a mixed bag as president, with some solid stuff and some silly stuff and lots of internal sabotage, but I'd be lying if I said I thought we'd see what looks like a capitulation coming from the top.

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Diversity! and Big Government go together like a hand and a glove

The 2016 iteration of the GSS asked respondents about who should be the primary provider for the sick, the old, and of education, along with five possible responses--the government, private businesses, non-profits, religious organizations, or family and friends.

The following graphs show the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics*, who said the government should be the primary provider for these things:

Open borders and Diversity! kill libertarianism dead. The schools are long gone. Overwhelming majorities, across the board, favor government funding of education. Throw on the political clout of the teachers' unions and it's clear government education is here to stay.

When it comes to government funding for the care of the sick and the old, roughly corresponding to medicaid and medicare, native-born high IQ whites--the only demographic where libertarians can be found--are fairly skeptical. Immigrants, NAMs, and those of modest intelligence, in contrast, are big supporters. They want the government to do everything. Open borders and its attendant Diversity! gives us more of the latter at the expense of the former.

The Derb supports libertarianism within one country. I naturally share those inclinations, but have come to realize the libertarian part of that objective is of picayune importance. The one country part is the part that matters. "Libertarianism" is about ideology and principles. "One country" is about interests and identity. I'm ready and willing to make concessions on ideology and principles in return for gains on interests and identity.

PRVDHLTH, PRVDOLD, PRVDSCHL, RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), WORDSUM(0-3,4-5,6,7-8,9-10), BORN

* Respondents are broken up into five categories that roughly forms a normal distribution; Really Smarts (wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 12%).


Happy Spring.

Friday, April 07, 2017

Neoconned in Syria

Trump's facebook posts on Serbia Iraq Libya Syria:

The like/love-to-angry/sad reaction ratios are 27-to-1 (216k to 8k) and 24.5-to-1 (208k to 8.5k), respectively.

This is discouraging, to put it mildly. Trump's not a deep thinker, but he learns from his mistakes. He's floated trial balloons several times in the last couple of years, most famously going soft on immigration in one of the primary debates, before promptly correcting course in the wake of the angry response he received from his base.

As ominous as the airstrikes were, they're not catastrophic on their own. The damage comes from what they likely portend. That might be averted on account of an uprising from the base but it's not going to happen if the base doesn't rise up.

I remember in 2012, when the tea party movement was at its height, lots of people celebrating this putative embrace of the Ron Paul revolution. It sounded good to me at first blush, but the exit polling data showed that desirable narrative to be a false one. Self-identified tea party members were the least likely to vote for Ron Paul and the most likely to vote for Newt Gingrich. In other words, they were uber-conservative Republicans in the popular political conception of the term, not revolutionaries in any meaningful sense.

I'm getting this sinking feeling that a lot of Trump's most devoted supporters are the same types of people. If the Alt Right is the new anti-CultMarx vanguard, our absolute numbers correspond to that position in a military formation, at least for now.

As such, expectations need to be calibrated to the reality of Trump as a transitional figure. He's the first progression of steps towards a resurgent West favoring its own, an Occident unapologetically putting the interests of ourselves and our posterity ahead of the interests of sub-Saharans and Sunnis. If he comes up short on a lot of fronts--even if he misses the mark on all of them--his electoral victory is not a Pyrrhic one. He's laid the rhetorical, polemical, and issue-based groundwork for other aspiring 'outsiders' to imitate. Before Caesar there was Marius and before Marius there were the Gracchi brothers.

The indefatigable Deplorable Primate has changed his handle to #ImpeachTrump.

His sentiment is entirely understandable but I'm not there. Trump's remained relatively strong on immigration, and the "invite" part of the invade the world, invite the world, be indebted to the world is the most damaging part of the treasonous trinity.

Wreaking havoc (and blowback) in the globe's garbage cans and putting everything we purchase from China on credit is akin to taking out a second mortgage on the house and, well, maxing out the credit card. It sucks climbing out of a self-dug hole, but it can be done. Replacing our native stock with Mexicans and Somalis, however, is akin to being fired and lighting the master's degree on fire--there's no coming back from it.

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Twitter is a CultMarx club, God is dead, fat women are ugly, and fidelity is a hetero thing

The 2016 iteration of the GSS is out. There are some new items that will further highlight how open borders and diversity kill libertarianism dead. They'll take some time to work through. For now, a brief miscellany of interesting tidbits:

- The survey is primarily funded by the National Science Foundation and administered by the University of Chicago. The only explanation for the inclusion of and ability to cross-reference the following two variables is that the Chateau's virtual visitors are everywhere, operating at all levels of society--mostly clandestinely (for now)--and that a few of them were surreptitiously able to include interviewer assessments of respondents' weight and physical attractiveness.

The following graph shows the percentages of women in each assessed weight class who were judged to be unattractive and attractive by those conducting the surveys. Ratings of average physical attractiveness are not shown (n = 1,473):

We see that 34.4% of the "very overweight" were rated as unattractive (first black bar) while just 3.7% of those who are "about the right weight" are evaluated as such (third black bar). That is, war pigs are an order of magnitude more likely to be viewed as unattractive than are women who maintain a healthy weight.

The more pictures of Lena Dunham there are in the world, the uglier a place the world becomes.

If a woman maintains a healthy body weight it's unlikely she'll be aesthetically offensive. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking a Goldilocks on the scale is at least a Plain Jane as a tail. It's also easier for a woman who could use a little more meat on the bones to be pretty than it is for a chubster.

- Even if it's magnanimously granted that the push for and acceptance of same-sex marriage was primarily driven by a desire for perceived equality, it looks like a redefinition of the institution is going to be a consequence.

Over now the last six consecutive survey years, the GSS has asked married respondents, categorized by sexual orientation, whether they have ever had sex with someone other than a spouse while married. While the sample sizes for gays and bisexuals are still small (46 and 108, respectively), the results have stayed consistent from year to year as more data points are added. Here are the most up-to-date figures on the percentages of those who have had sex with someone other than a spouse while married, by sexual orientation:

That meshes perfectly with the 2010 New York Times article that mentioned a survey of San Francisco gays finding that half of them had sex outside of their relationships, often with the approval of their partners. It's not so much that fags aren't faithful as it is that they aren't monogamous.

- The Twitterverse was on its way to being an SJW echo chamber before the proscription lists started netting Jack Dorsey his dissident scalps. The following table shows the distribution of broad political orientation among Twitter users and the broad political orientation of the US as a whole:

Get on Gab. Even if we're unable to troll quisling Goodwhites, we need our own comparable platforms.

- Christian America fades further back in the distance of post-Christian America's rear view mirror. In 2016 the share of all Americans who have no religious affiliation, 21.7%, hit its highest mark in the survey's more than four decade history. A new record was also set among those under the age of 30, with 32.3% claiming no religious affiliation. Fewer than half of those under 30 now attend a religious service more than once a year.

Most millennials only see the inside of a church--if they ever see it at all--for weddings, funerals, or maybe with the extended family on Christmas or Easter. As an early millennial, my age cohort will be the last for whom the shared generational experience of going to church on Sundays, sitting through Sunday school, being involved in a youth group, will exist.

Or at least that's the way things appear to be heading. But we are not passive agents in the future ourselves and our posterity will inhabit. If you're feeling pessimistic about the future, remember that through your veins runs the blood of people who have done more with less.

GSS variables used: RLOOKS(1-2,4-5), POLVIEWS(1-3,4,5-7), EVSTRAY(1-2), SEXORNT, TWITTER, RELIG

Saturday, April 01, 2017

Majority of US births are to whites

The reports of white death have been slightly exaggerated!

Five years ago the US Census, in an announcement that was joyfully picked up by a host of media outlets, announced that non-Hispanic white (from hereon just "white") births constituted a minority of all births in the US for the first time ever.

The claim came from the annual population estimates the bureau produces every non-decennial year, in this instance from 2011. They announced that whites constituted 49.6% of all births that year. With estimation comes error, and the Census appeared to miss the mark by several points.

HHS, which tallies all reported live births for each calendar year and releases them in late Spring the following year, shows that the Census report from five years ago claiming that whites made up fewer than half of all births has yet to go through the formality of actually occurring.

The following chart shows the racial birth distribution for 2015, the latest year for which there is complete data:

That's 0.3 points closer to giving truth to the Census estimates than in 2014 when whites made up 54.0% of all births, and also virtually unchanged from 2007, when whites constituted 53.5% of all births. As far as natural population increase is concerned, we're nearly holding the line.

That'll be for naught in the face of a continual stream of reinforcements for the other side in the form of foreign-born settlers calling our country their own, of course.

Still, to falsely believe that things are worse than they actually are runs the risk of perpetuating an avoidable self-fulfilling prophecy. We're not licked yet.

A simple (if not easily realizable) three-part prescription to effectively treat the National Question:

1) A moratorium on immigration

2) The repatriation of non-citizens

3) An increase in native fertility to at least replacement

Of related interest, the subsequent map shows in white the states where white births make up over 50% of all births. White births make up less than 50% of all births in the states shaded brown:

Cut out California and we're close to 60% of all American babies being white. What? Just saying.

Politically, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and especially Texas are swords of Damacles' hanging over the GOP. Effectively addressing the National Question is the preferred way to remove the blades from the rafters. Barring that, the Sailer Strategy that Trump executed successfully in 2016--flipping the mostly white upper Midwestern states red--is the only other viable alternative to permanent Democrat rule at the national level.

For those interested in the state-by-state differences, the following 51 pie charts depict the same at the state level as the graph presented above does for the country as a whole: