Sunday, November 19, 2017

Nicholas Kristof strikes out

He is seriously misleading at best:


Charitably, "often" isn't intended to be synonymous with "tend to", "usually", or any other word or phrase that indicates liberals are more likely to live 'family values' than conservatives do. Instead, Kristof is taken to be merely stating the bland and obvious fact that there are some liberals who often family value better than some conservatives do, just as there are some women who are taller than some men.

To continue with the undeserved grant of magnanimity, it must also be assumed that the evidence offered--that these indicators tend to look better in blue states than in red states--is incidental to the assertion rather than serving as evidence for it.

One obvious reason for the blue state-red state disparities is that red states are 26% blacker than blue states are. The larger black populations in red states make all of the indicators Kristof mentions worse than the smaller black populations in blue states do, but the black populations in those red states--like blacks everywhere--overwhelmingly vote for the left.

Another reason is laid out in Andrew Gelman's book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State which, using data from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, shows that while across the country Republicans tend to be wealthier than Democrats, that trend is more pronounced in red states than it is in blue states.

That is, in blue states there isn't much difference in class and status between Democrat and Republican voters. In red states, however, Republicans tend to be of higher status and social class than Democrats.

Given the positive relationship between wealth and desirable outcomes on the indicators Kristof includes, this means that--especially in red states--it is those on the left who are disproportionately having the teen births, getting divorced, cheating on spouses, and renting hookers. Kristof is attributing the poor outcomes largely caused by these mostly Democrat voters in red states--where leftists tend to congregate at the bottom of the social order--on conservatives in general.

Using the GSS, the following tables show, by political orientation, the percentages of first births conceived by teenage parents, the percentages of ever-married people who were either divorced or separated at their time of participation in the survey*, the percentages who have cheated on a spouse, and the percentages who have paid for sex. The first table shows total population results. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are large--the smallest N for any of the results presented is 3,946:


The second table shows the same restricted to non-Hispanic whites:
 

Kristof goes 0-for-4. Self-identified conservatives do a better job embodying the family values they "preach" than self-identified liberals do.

* This method counts those who've remarried as "married" rather than as "divorced" or "separated". It consequently understates the number of marriages that have ended in divorce or separation but there is no obvious reason why this should systematically 'favor' liberals or conservatives in terms of perceived marital success.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), MARITAL(1,3,4), AGEKDBRN(10-19), EVPAIDSX, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR(2000-2016), POLVIEWS(1-2)(5-6)

Saturday, November 18, 2017

White woes

Via Z-Man, more generational survey data to chew on. This one explicitly and almost exclusively focuses on race among those aged 18-34 (mostly millennials but also the leading edge of Gen Z), so I'll make a tl;dr series of observations on it here.

- Cathy J. Cohen is the founder and principal investigator of the survey, so it's not particularly surprising that "Latinx" is used throughout in lieu of the more conventional "Hispanic" or "Latino". Incidentally, the plural of Latinx is "Latinxs" rather than "Latinxes". I wouldn't have thought! Taking a cue from Jordan Peterson, "Hispanic" will continue to be used as the description of choice here, though.

Nor is it surprising that in the section asking about which ethnic--yes, (((ethnic))), not racial--groups have the most economic power in the country, "Jews" are not included among the list of potential choices. "Whites" are and they come in on top, followed by Asians.

It's also unsurprising that the survey deals with sex differences in the following manner. Sample excerpt, my emphasis:
... signaling an important and consequential divide between Millennials that identify as men and women ...
However, no variation of the pronoun "Xir" appears in the survey, suggesting that at least one of Cohen's grandparents is a gentile.

Speaking of identifying, the string "identi"--not counting a single occurrence in the word "presidential"--shows up 29 times in the survey report. The cucks urging those on the right to reject identity politics are doing a tired Rush Limbaugh redux from the nineties. It was quixotic then and it's suicidal now.

Identitarianism is the future. Find your team now or prepare to be hanged alone in the future.

- A majority--52%--of blacks identify "racism" from a list of 22 possible choices as one of the top three most important problems in the contemporary US, with 29% of blacks identifying it as the single most important problem in the country (health care comes in at a distant second, at 13%).

No matter what happens, this will never end. No amount of prostration to or deification of blacks will mollify them. Transferring trillions more in various welfare programs from non-blacks to blacks won't do it, either. It's with us as long as blacks are with us.

Large numbers of Hispanics and Asians--33% and 32%, respectively--also put racism in the top three. All racial problems in the US will continue to accentuate rather than ameliorate as time goes on.

In contrast, the issue of "women's rights" gets single-digits across the color spectrum, with just 4% of the total survey pool prioritizing it.

"Military strength" is another one that elicits yawns, with only 5% of respondents pointing to it. It's going to be increasingly difficult for an internal empire of squabbling tribes to maintain a functioning external empire outside its own crumbling borders.

- While there's scarcely a more reliable social formula than Diversity + Proximity = War, lots of millennials don't think Diversatopia can come fast enough. Interestingly, whites and blacks--Old Stock Americans--are more wary of increasing Diversity! than the new settlers are:

Pulled directly from the survey--color scheme designed to be unintuitive as Noticing is evil
- While a slight plurality, 23%-19%, of whites think ill of Black Lives Matter, non-whites are supportive. Blacks cheer BLM on 56%-5%. Hispanics and Asians do, too, by respective margins of 27%-10% and 43%-11%. Natural Republicans, those Asians are!

- White support for free speech and non-white opposition to it is a hobby horse of mine, and this survey doesn't disappoint.

The following graph shows free speech index scores derived from responses to the statement that "All groups should be entitled to hold parades and demonstrations, even if they represent causes most Americans oppose, such as communism, Nazis, or white supremacy". The index scores are created by assigning +2 points for "strongly agree" responses, +1 point for "somewhat agree", 0 points for "somewhat disagree", and -1 point for "strongly disagree":


- There's often consternation expressed among media types who report on the rightward shift of white Gen Zers. It's compounded by the fact that on the chic social issues of the day like same-sex marriage and drug legalization, Zyklons aren't "conservative" at all. But on issues of identity, they are (in the generally accepted parlance--as Richard Spencer argues, it's not clear why identitarianism is right or left, it's simply an inevitable necessity brought on by increasing diversity). They are more so than millennials, Gen Xers, and possibly even Boomers.

When America was over 80% white, special privileges for non-whites weren't something that effected--and affected--most whites. Only those on the very bottom of society had much to lose. That America is long gone.

In today's disUnited States of Diversity, white Zyklons are teetering on the edge of minority status. Special privileges for non-whites threatens the prospects of the vast majority of them. They're reacting accordingly.

To the question "Do you agree or disagree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities?", whites split almost evenly with 48% agreeing and 51% disagreeing. These responses are mostly from millennials, with a dash of the front end of Gen Z thrown in. I suspect that whites currently in junior high and high school will push that "agree" figure over 50% in the coming years, probably drastically so.

- Individualism is a(n outbred) white thing. The following table shows an individualism index score, by race, computed by taking percentages of respondents who said they are "not very similar" to other members of their own race and subtracting it from the percentages of respondents who said they are "very similar" to other members of their own race. The higher the score, the more individualistic the group:

RaceIndividualism
Whites+23
Asians+14
Hispanics-11
Blacks-18

If the "Asian" category didn't amalgamate people as disparate as the Japanese and Sri Lankans, the Asian score would likely move down towards NAM levels.

Diversatopia is necessarily collectivist, lolbertarians be damned.

- Relatedly, while 85% of whites think whites and non-whites "share common problems and can be political allies", just 49% of non-whites think the same.

That's right, a slim majority of non-whites think white and non-whites cannot be political allies. Ekow Yankah is speaking on behalf of huge numbers of non-whites.

Political dissolution now or later, then?

Friday, November 17, 2017

Liberalism is a mental disorder?

The apoplectic reaction to the questionable allegations about Roy Moore from nearly four decades ago is something to behold. To the extent they are accurate, they are evidence of a healthy--perhaps too healthy!--male sex drive, the kind of thing normal men fantasize about. This is in stark contrast to the pathological degeneracy of Weinstein and Louis CK, men who engaged in behavior that is repugnant to well-nigh everyone.

Some of the hatred for Moore is so viscerally unhinged as to suggest mental illness in those expressing it. Indeed, liberals have worse mental health than conservatives do. The percentages of whites who report having experienced poor mental health in the previous 30 days, by political orientation (N = 5,530; for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward):


Among those who suffer from especially poor mental health--experiencing it at least 15 of the last 30 days--the differences by political orientation are even more pronounced. Again for whites since 2000:


A sitting senator, Bob Menendez, is alleged to have paid for underage prostitutes while occupying his august position. The current case ended in mistrial, but the evidence against Menendez is stronger than it is against Moore, and Menendez is said to have been engaged in this stuff last year, not last century.

Who? Whom? explains a lot, but the audacity of such blatantly selective outrage still seems remarkable.

Parenthetically, Who? Whom? is not synonymous with partisanship--not even close in this case. Mitch McConnell is calling for Moore to drop out of the Alabama senate race but hasn't called for Menendez to resign the senate seat he currently holds! He hasn't called for Al Franken to, either.

The special election in December is the current active front in the middle American insurgency against the bipartisan Cloud People. We can imagine the extent to which Moore's anti-establishment shitlord instincts are being accentuated through this process. Or we can simply watch the man in action.

If he wins, he'll work to make their lives a living hell. It's why he must win.

GSS variables used: MNLTHLTH(0)(15-30), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), POLVIEWS(1-2)(3-5)(6-7)

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Double-digit increase in anti-White hate crime from 2015 to 2016

From recently released FBI hate crime statistics, we find the number of white hate crime (HC) offenders declined by 3.0% from 2015 to 2016 while the number of black hate crime offenders grew by 15.2% over the same time period.

Similarly, the number of anti-White hate crime incidents increased 14.9% between 2015 and 2016 while the number of anti-Black hate crime incidents marginally decreased by 0.3% over the same time period.

HC offenders who are...Δ'15-'16
White-3.0%
Black+15.2%

Incidents of...Δ'15-'16
Anti-White HC+14.9%
Anti-Black HC-0.3%

Trump is obviously to blame here. All the supporters he brought out to rallies or just around town in their MAGA gear were fostering an oppressive atmosphere of hate. It is poetic justice, then, that these haters turned out to be the victims of the hatred they so hatefully released unto the world!

Parenthetically, in absolute numbers blacks are heavily overrepresented both as perpetrators of and victims of hate crimes. The sliver of crime with the designated "hate" prefix is politically charged, primarily serving as a way of making black criminality and victimology appear much more sympathetic towards blacks than figures on total criminality do.

Comprising far less than 1% of all crime, hate crimes tell us little about the actual nature of criminality in the country. The directional changes are worth noting, however.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Epigonian aesthetics

Commenter Candide III:
Please, Anepigone, please don't do this to graphs. Yes, the numbers are there, but visual impressions count, and your graph, with the bottom at 40%, gives the misleading impression that the Mohammedans' support is only half of even blacks' (never mind that all this is self-reported and not revealed-preference) when really the ratio of the largest to the smallest bar is less than two. It's bad enough that everyone else does this with the small print, but Carlylean veracity is the only way for us.
Here is the graph he's referring to:


The sentiment is well received. The main reason it was presented as such in this particular case is because the questions considered were dichotomous ones without "don't know", "no opinion", etc as possible responses. To have visually expressed this across a fully displayed y-axis would've looked like this:


The numbers are all plainly included so it's not much of a bait-and-switch. If the worry is that it'll leave a skewed impression for those who don't give it more than a glance, well, I'm not writing in a scientific publication and I do have a subjective position on just about everything that is posted on.

Here are a couple of other ways the same data could've been presented. This one possibly would've been more objectionable (it's not uncommon for polling outfits to restrict the upper end of the y-axis):


And this one definitely would have been:


That it's a coin toss as to whether or not a Muslim living in America thinks controversial speakers should be permitted to speak in public and that 1-in-3 NAMs believes they should be precluded from doing so is quite jolting for a lot of people, and my intention is to design the graphic accordingly.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Monday, November 13, 2017

Free speech and the Coalition of the Fringes

The following graph shows free speech index scores by selected demographic characteristics.

The index is a simple average of the percentage of respondents who said that five different categories of controversial advocates should be allowed to speak publicly. The higher the score, the more supportive of free speech the group is. The five categories are pretty well balanced politically with three on the 'far left' (atheists, homosexuals, and communists) and two on the 'far right' (racists and militarists). For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 11,930):


Moderate and conservative whites are grouped together because their scores are so similar (73.6 and 74.8, respectively) that separating them out unnecessarily cluttered up the graph.

The first amendment is the Coalition of the Fringes' thermal exhaust port. That's where it will be blown up.

Blacks shouting down the ACLU with chants of "liberalism is white supremacy"; Bernie Sanders being shut down by a couple of sassy land whales in Seattle; BEANERs DREAMERs humiliating Nancy Pelosi at a televised speaking event; countless numbers of liberal academics being swarmed and interrogated by miscreant mobs of blacks and browns--these incidents and others like them should be mentioned whenever the opportunity presents itself.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Like a lead balloon

The following graph comes from data from a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking about support for the Republican congressional tax reform plan. The poll has been running since mid-October, so the results are presumably mostly in response to the House plan rather than the one from the Senate, which came out last week (N = 4,390):


Inspiring.

The graph only shows "support" responses. The other two--"oppose" and "don't know"--are not shown. Thirty percent of the total population falls into the latter of the two responses that are not shown. If they were discounted, public opinion wouldn't look as bad as it does at first blush in the graph presented above.

It wouldn't look as bad, but it'd still look bad. Among those who either "support" or "oppose" among the total population, the plan gets 38.9% support to 61.1% opposition.

However it's presented, the odds of passage are long.

This would not appear to be a political hill worth dying on. Unless the intention was to ensure the Stupid Party moniker remained alive and well, that is.

Meanwhile, the WALL remains 0% complete.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Majority of Americans with a favorable view of communism are non-white

In this week's Power Hour, Z-Man discussed a poll headlining with the finding that more millennials say they'd rather live in a socialist country than a capitalist one. Z gives several reasons not to read too much into this, the most salient one being that millennials don't know what socialism is--just 33% of millennials surveyed correctly defined socialism from a list of five possibly choices.

That understood, here are a few other observations of potential interest from the survey:

- Among whites, Gen Z has a less favorable opinion of communism certainly than do millennials and also probably than Xers. The survey doesn't breakdown results by both race and generational cohort, but as seen below, support for communism is much higher among non-whites than it is among whites.

Given that Gen Z is about 55% white while Gen X is closer to 70% white, it's likely that white Gen Zs report being modestly less favorably inclined towards communism than even white Xers do. Again among whites, zyklons are probably even knocking on the door of boomers, as the latter generational cohort is over 80% white.


- The following pie charts show the racial distribution of survey respondents who report having a favorable view of capitalism and who report having a favorable view of communism:



With demographic change comes economic change.

Libertarians, are you taking note? Libertarianism is a white thing. No amount of Mises or Rothbard is going to convince non-whites to come on board. The aggression principle exercised by the state on their behalf is how the gibs are got!

Non-whites understand interests come before principles. If you want a society where principles come before interests, your society has to be a white one. Being white isn't a sufficient condition for the existence of a libertarian society, but it is a necessary one.

- Gen Z's whites presumably tend towards free speech absolutism more than white millennials, boomers, and silents do, and possibly even more so than white Xers--71% for Gen Z on the whole compared to 80% of Xers on the whole support free speech being "protected regardless of what is said"--though it is again uncertain due to the survey failing to breakdown responses by both race and generational cohort.

Thursday, November 09, 2017

All of Gillespie's losses relative to Trump came from outside DC suburbs

Trump lost the outer Swamp* 31.8%-68.2 to Clinton (in a two-way race). Gillespie lost the outer Swamp by a nearly identical 31.9%-68.1% to Northam. The outer Swamp represents nearly one-third of the state's total electorate.

Trump won the rest of the state by 6.6 points, 53.3%-46.7%. Gillespie won it by a narrower 2.4 points, 51.2%-48.8%.

How, if Gillespie kept an inch in front of Trump in the marshes and fell 3 points behind him in the rest of the state, do we get to the much reported on 4 point difference between Gillespie and Trump? 

A bit of the explanation is a consequence of a larger third-party presence in the presidential election than in the gubernatorial race. If we assume third-party votes would, if given instead to one of the two leading parties, split in the same way votes to the leading parties in the state among those who actually voted for a leading party did, then the greater the third-party share, the smaller the absolute gap between the two leading party candidates will be. 

The rest of the explanation comes from the fact that while turnout in the governor's race was down from the 2016 presidential election by 29% in the outer Swamp, it was down by 32% in the rest of the state.

Gillespie underperformed Trump because he couldn't get the state's rural and working-class whites out like Trump did. Gillespie failed to do that without compensating with better numbers among traditional Republicans than Trump managed.


The state's westernmost county, Lee, is illustrative. While Northam dropped just 300 of Clinton's voters, Gillespie dropped over 2,200 of Trump's--and this in a county where just 6,500 votes were cast this time around.

The veracious narrative, then, is that Gillespie lost relative to Trump not because motivated SWPLs and non-whites stormed the voting booths to stick it to Trump, but because R-Bugman Gillespie's campaign lacked Trumpism. Consequently, voters who weren't keen on voting for a Republican unless he espoused America First policies failed to activate for a globalist, establishment shill like Gillespie. The loss would've been even worse for Gillespie if not for the late stage ads attempting to pin support for sanctuary cities on Northam.

The Official Narrative will be the opposite of that. It will be that Gillespie's resort to xenophobia failed miserably, showing that Trump's 2016 victory was an aberration incapable of being repeated and that the GOP's answer in 2018 must be to return to the Principled Conservatism of Paul Ryan, running as many of his doppelgangers as possible.

It's not called the stupid party for nothing.

* Loudon, Fairfax, Prince William, Arlington, Manassas, Manassas Park, and Alexandria counties

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Meet Virginia


R-Bugman
Gillespie is a longtime murk dweller who was part of Dubya's presidency and of Romney's failed 2012 candidacy. He's been in the lobbying 'business' for decades. As physiognomy confirms, he's the epitome of cuckservative boomer nationalism.

The only reason to pull for him was because, during the gubernatorial campaign, he feigned to care about the worst aspects of illegal immigration for the first time in his life. If this particular GOPe creature could ride immigration restrictionism to an upset victory in an increasingly blue state, other pols would likely follow suit.

It wasn't close to enough, but there are lessons to be learned in the exit poll results if the stupid party cares to learn them.


The pickup truck ad that served as a window into the leftist id was salient, but it didn't move the needle much. Among those for whom immigration was the most important issue, Gillespie crushed Northam. The problem lies in the fact that just 1-in-8 considered it the most important thing in the race. Everything, including health care, is downstream of immigration. Demographics is destiny.

Speaking of health care, it's hard to understate how poorly the Stupid Party has handled it. Premiums are skyrocketing everywhere. I've gone from paying $80 a month for myself and my family to $400 a month over a span of two years. The unAffordable Care Act is a bomb the Democrats constructed that is now exploding in the GOP's hands.

Despite nominally opposing the passage--and then campaigning for years on the repeal--of Obamacare, said Stupid Party has somehow managed to own the frustration and anger over this assault on middle America's monetary standard of living the bill has wrought. If the adults in the Democrat party are able to shut the SJWs up about all the -isms and -phobias for the next year and concentrate on health care costs instead, the 2018 mid-terms could be a route.

Northam's margin of victory was twice that of Hillary Clinton's, even though Northam did worse among non-whites than Clinton did. The WaPo helpfully includes exit poll results from 2016 alongside those from tonight's governor's race:


The numbers in the columns on the right show how much better (or worse) Clinton and Trump did relative to Northam and Gillespie. Northam's performance among non-whites was marginally weaker than Clinton's, but he stole 7 points from Gillespie among whites.

Who were these whites? See here:


They were the whites outside of northern Virginia who came out strong for Trump last November but who were unimpressed by globalist Gillespie's late-life, half-hearted appeals to national sovereignty. As a consequence, the mean white voter shifted away from the western heartland and towards the northern Virginia government feeding troughs.

Racially, Virginia is pretty representative of the country as a whole, albeit with an extra helping of black thrown in to keep it real. It has a large number of both goodwhites and badwhites engaged in a perpetual cold civil war with one another that mirroring the one that is being waged at the national level. Trump mobilized a lot of those Virginian badwhites and managed to make an increasingly blue state halfway competitive. Gillespie was unable to do the same and got clobbered.

To repeat, there are lessons to be learned from this.

I'm skeptical that'll happen. Instead, the Narrative will likely be that Gillespie lost because he doubled down on Trumpism by talking about MS-13 (never mind that he's distanced himself from Trump since Trump announced his candidacy in the summer of 2015 and that his former bosses are two of the highest profile #NeverTrumpers in the Republican party). Paul Ryan and John McCain will call for a message of optimism and inclusion in 2018, and another chapter in The Decline and Fall of the American Empire will be written.

Ideal parental arrangement, by generational cohort

There isn't much difference in conceptions of ideal parental arrangements for families with young children by race or sex, but what about by age?

The following graph shows perceived optimal family arrangements by generational cohorts, organized into three categories--father as breadwinner and mother as caregiver (father FT and mother PT/home), mother as breadwinner and father as caregiver (mother FT and father as PT/home), or shared sex roles (both PT or both FT) (N = 975):


It may be gender egalitarian creep, it may be a perceived necessary adjustment to declining monetary standards of living in the US (housing prices and medical costs are what matters here--cheaper, more powerful iGadgets only make an impact at the margins when the affordability of family formation is being evaluated), some combination of the two, or something else.

Something like a relative lack of firsthand experience for younger respondents, maybe. It was never much of a question in my household, but my best friend and his wife had their first six months ago. Before their baby was born, the wife was eager to get back to work after maternity leave. When the three months were up, she was dreading it and is now contemplating staying home instead of keeping the baby in daycare. Seems like an easy call to me (money is not an issue for them) but we live in deluded times!

The question was only asked in 2012, so there are no Zyklons included in the results (the oldest were 17 at the time and the survey only includes those 18 or older). I'll be looking out eagerly for quantitative information on what they think in the coming years.

GSS variables used: FAMWKBST, COHORT(1900-1945)(1946-1964)(1965-1980)(1981-1995)

Monday, November 06, 2017

Perceived reasons for black failure among whites

The year 2016 was one of cultural upheaval, the full significance of which will become fully apparent only with the passing of time. Since the late seventies, the GSS has regularly asked about the reasons for black underachievement in "jobs, income, and housing" (correctly assessing it to be a relevant question to be put included indefinitely in the future!). As the following graph shows, in 2016, the egalitarian responses jumped up among whites while the race realist answers went down (N = 8,212):


The graphical color scheme corresponds to the people relatively likely to give a particular reason (or reasons, which is why the totals add up to more than 100%). They are as follows:

1) Discrimination (black) -- favorite of Black Geniuses and (((whites))) like Tim Wise

2) Less in-born ability to learn (green) -- a crass option that allows for a suboptimal expression of HBD-informed race realism

3) Lack of education (baby blue) -- politically correct conventionalism favored by moderate leftist SWPL-types, Jews of goodwill, and some of the more cuckier cuckservatives

4) Lack of willpower or motivation (white) -- some less cucky cuckservatives and libertarians are here, though HBD-informed race realists may be as well, as "willpower" and "motivation" certainly have genetic components

Why did discrimination and education go up among whites in 2016 relative to 2014, while willpower goes down? The 2016 result records the highest percentage of whites blaming irrational discrimination on black failure since 1989. Did BLM browbeat whites into submission? Wasit increased salience of the goodwhite/badwhite divide on account of the 2016 election? Simple noise in the year's survey sample?

With GWAS results pouring out into the public and CRISPR 2.0 coming on the scene, we're headed towards an ugly reckoning. As Z-Man is fond of saying, this will not end well.

Parenthetically, if those echo parentheses strike some as unfair, those people have partial standing. Jews go for the discrimination explanation more than white gentiles do, but their favorite explanation is the lack of educational attainment. If only Trayvon Martin could've received his aeronautical degree before a life of petty criminality was cut short instead of after it was!

The following graph shows the percentages of Jews and of white gentiles who favor each of the four explanations on offer for black underachievement (Jewish N = 217):


GSS variables used: RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR(2000-2016), RACDIF1, RACDIF2, RACDIF3, RACDIF4

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Mean gay sex

To conclude this brief foray into faggotry, the following table shows the mean number of sexual partners of the orientation's desired sex in adulthood, by sexual orientation:


Nearly one-quarter of gay men report having 50 or more sexual partners. They're living the lifestyle portrayed at pride parades and in so doing are driving the average up far higher than it is for any other group.

Orthogonally, the issues with reliability inherent in something as personal as self-reported data on sexual experiences being what they are, it's worth noting that among heterosexuals the male mean is 2.8x that of the male median, while the female mean is 1.8x that of the female median. This suggests there is a subset of men who bed an exceptionally high number of women (they pull the mean up without doing much to the median). Alphas, in the Game lexicon, do indeed exist.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1)(3), SEX, NUMWOMEN(0-949), NUMMEN(0-949)

Saturday, November 04, 2017

How do we know Mexicans aren't too keen on being Americans? They tell us

The following table shows the percentages of respondents, by ethnicity (with sample sizes of at least 150), who "strongly agree" they would rather be citizens of the US than of any other country:


Does Vox Day's characterization of "Fake Americans" apply to those who don't much pretend to want to be Americans in the first place?

This is another thing for future historians writing about the decline and fall of the American empire to include in the chapters discussing precipitating factors.

GSS variables used: AMCITIZN(1), ETHNIC(1,8,11,14,15,17,30)

Friday, November 03, 2017

Median number of adult sexual partners by sexual orientation

The following table shows the median number of sexual partners in adulthood respondents report having had, by sexual orientation and by the sex of those partners:


The stereotypes for gays and straights hold. Sperm is cheap, and gay men put a lot of it into a lot of orifices. Reliably male orifices. 

A figure 'only' twice that of straight men may seem low. It may in fact be low, as self-reported responses about sexual behaviors are not the most reliable data in the world--that heterosexual male means and medians are consistently higher than heterosexual female means and medians indicates as much, since this is not mathematically possible (assuming a 50/50 gender distribution). It's not clear, though, why gay men would low-ball (heh) the estimates more than other men would. 

While there is a will, there is not always a way. Smearing a queer once he's been located isn't always the hard part--finding him in the first place can be the bigger challenge. There are of course gay bars and the notorious bathhouses, bathroom stalls, etc, and now apps like Grindr, but at 1%-2% of the total population, for a gay man to casually run into another one in the course of daily life isn't a common occurrence. 

For bisexuals, the attempt at empirically validating the stereotype is only partially successful. Point in favor--bisexual women are generally promiscuous, with more total partners than both normal women and rugmunchers. That every person is a potential bed mate isn't explanation enough--bisexual men trail gay men despite a broader range of people to choose from.

Point against (at least against my preconceived notion)--bisexuals tend towards more partners of the opposite sex than of the same sex. I'm especially surprised to see this among bisexual men, who I generally assumed to be gay men who didn't want to come all the way out of the closet. Instead, their numbers resemble that of heterosexual men--both have the same median number of lifetime female partners--with a couple fag flings thrown in on account of a hole being a hole.

Parenthetically, this week's episode of the Z-Blog Power Hour is what got me thinking about the material. Z-Man was reviewing some post-modern lunacy that passes for science in the academia these days about how the terms heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual were masculine constructions in service of the patriarchy or some such nonsense, which brought me back to a question I visit frequently in my head--how long will it be before the SJWs come after the GSS? The survey uses those toxically masculine descriptions, after all, and that's hardly the most Narrative-destroying thing it inquires about.

I tend to keep this question in my head most of the time. Here's urging you to do the same. The survey is a gift that keeps giving. 

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, NUMMEN, NUMWOMEN, SEX, AGE(30-89)

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Women want to be home with their children

Responding to the post on family breadwinning and caregiving arrangements, William Foster writes:
Can you break that out by gender? That is, what does the distribution look like if only women are surveyed; and what does it look like if only men are surveyed?

It might be a useful red-pill to women to let them know that their fellow women would generally prefer to stay at home.
Something this obviously in accordance with nature and at odds with feminism--but I repeat myself--holds strongly across sexes.

The following table shows the net desirability score for the six possible arrangements, computed by taking the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the best of the six and subtracting from it the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the worst of the six. To avoid any potential racial confounding, we'll limit it to the white sisterhood.

The higher the score, the more desirable the arrangement. The lower the score, the less desirable, with negative scores indicating generally undesirable arrangements (N = 363; PT = part-time employment; FT = full-time employment):

ArrangementDesirability
Mother PT, Father FT+45.3
Mother home, Father FT+28.9
Both parents PT(4.5)
Mother FT, Father PT(4.6)
Mother FT, Father home(28.7)
Both parents FT(36.3)

If women want to work at all, it's part-time, and there is reason to suspect that the perceived need to be working part-time as opposed to staying home is driven by a sense of necessity. Three of the six options include mothers working full-time. They come in at the bottom of the desirability index, while the three that do not include mothers working full-time fill the top spots.

For ease of visual digestion, the following graph shows the perceived optimal family arrangements, by race and by sex, broken down into three categories--father as breadwinner and mother as caregiver (father FT and mother PT/home), mother as breadwinner and father as caregiver (mother FT and father as PT/home), or shared sex roles (both PT or both FT) (N = 925):


This question was asked in 2012, not 1912. The striving careerist shrike strategy is held in low regard. It's one of the few things men, women, whites and non-whites firmly agree on.

Feminists wept, then bathed in their own tears. But few heard them and no one acknowledged hearing them.

Gregory Cochran has pointed out that no popular ideology acknowledges human biological realities in a serious way. Z-Man recently developed the idea further.

What if, instead of campaigning on helping working women be part-time mothers, as Trump and Clinton most recently did and every major party candidate always does, a candidate campaigned on making family formation affordable enough for women to be able to be full-time mothers? Despite the perceived need for the two-income household, it will happen, and sooner rather than later.

GSS variables used: FAMWKLST, FAMWKBST, RACECEN1(1)(2), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX