Sunday, December 31, 2017

Gen Z knows the score

The following graph comes from Reuters-Ipsos polling data on the question of how whites and blacks are perceived to be treated in "the community" and "at work". The residual percentages are that both races are treated equally. "Don't know/not applicable" responses are excluded (N = 3,065):

Nearly four centuries on, blacks overwhelmingly feel as though America society treats them unfairly. As long as we have blacks, we will have black grievance culture. It will never end.

Hispanics, and to a lesser extent Asians, buy into the black victim narrative. Most whites, being the good individualists they are, think race doesn't play a role in how people are treated. In a mostly white country, we could at least maintain the pretense of a colorblind society. As the US becomes less white, that pleasant fiction will become a relic of the past.

Gen Z knows boomer egalitarianism is as dead as 1950s America. By far the demographic most aware of how the deck is increasingly stacked against white men are young white guys (aged 18-34 because that is what the site allowed--"older" in this context are men aged 35 and up) who voted for Trump.

It's not included because the graph is bloated as is, but young white women who voted for Trump go 16% for whites treated less fairly to 11% for blacks treated less fairly. That is, young white women who voted for Trump are more based than Trump's boomer supporters.

As zyklons (I shouldn't, I know) are markedly different than millennials, it's reasonable to assume that lots of white men currently in high school and of college age are even more red-pilled than this graph insinuates.

The generation with its back against the wall may just be the one that delivers us all.

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Diversity visa lottery, chain migration in the process of being Trumped?

It's easy to be frustrated by the president's lack of legislative achievement in his first year. As Z-Man puts it, we didn't vote for Trump so he'd give us a tax cut, we voted for him so he'd roll out the unwelcome mat.

That said, Trump deserves high praise for bringing the diversity visa lottery and chain migration into the public consciousness. The dissident right has been railing against this nation-wrecking insanity for decades, but with the Trump administration, it's finally going mainstream:

Politics are downstream of culture, and Trump is changing the culture, first by shifting the Overton Window and now by getting to work on the zeitgeist. He even has our incorrigibly genial host feeling cautiously optimistic.

Awareness is half the battle. The diversity lottery is sheer, indefensible stupidity. It's a program so senseless that if it didn't exist, (((Tim Wise))) would accuse neo-nazis of making it up to whip white people into an anti-POC blood frenzy. At 50,000 people a year, though, it's small potatoes.

Chain migration is the big one. It's stupid too, even from the perspective of those who signal their general support for Legal Immigration on the unenforceable condition of cultural assimilation. Assuming such cultural assimilation was possible--an assumption contradicted by the evidence--bringing the whole clan over inhibits integration with and assimilation to American cultural norms.

Action on these things is, as the Derb puts it, "widely popular and politically plausible". For ourselves and our posterity, let's make sure  it is so.

Friday, December 29, 2017

Diversity is strength! It's also the death of charity

Riffing off a previous post and a stultifying example of pathological altruism in which a jury who convicted an illegal alien of theft paid her legal fine out of their own pockets (via Derb) comes a graph showing percentages of people, by race, who have made multiple charitable contributions in the last year (N = 5,237):

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), GIVCHRTY(1-4)(5-6)

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

La Raza's California DREAMing

From a survey of Californians comes more affirmation of Lee Kuan Yew's famous insight about multiracial democracies. They become a skins game.

The subsequent graph shows the percentages of Californians who favor opening up Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, to all adults (read illegal aliens) residing in the state. Currently only US citizens living in California are eligible.

The percentages, by race, who favor allowing illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal follow. "Not sure" answers, which make up less than one-fifth of all responses, are excluded:

California is one of a handful of states where whites often go blue. Even left coast SWPLs are more politically conservative than non-whites are.

The survey was conducted a couple of weeks ago and the can has since been kicked down the road again, but respondents were also asked "should Democrats link the government funding bill to the DREAM act, if doing so might cause the federal to shut down?" The percentages, again by race and with "not sure" responses excluded, who favor a federal government shutdown if the invaders aren't amnestied:

As kangz of the gibs, blacks have no patience for a government shutdown of any kind, for any reason.

Monday, December 25, 2017

Little Marco, short Nikki Haley

Over Christmas a cousin from South Carolina brought her boyfriend who, unbeknownst to me until last night, follows on twitter (which I promptly verified--thanks Ann!). The next couple of hours were reminiscent of the AmRen conference over the summer in that they flew by. He's a Gen Zer who worked on Rubio's presidential campaign. Some observations he shared with me follow. My sense is they're veracious, but take them for whatever you think they're worth:

- This is slap-in-the-forehead obvious, but I'd never paid close enough attention to notice that Rubio is not the son Abe Simpson could be proud of. I guess I'd assumed it was Rubio's childlike features and his neotenous mannerisms--hinting at closeted homosexuality--that Trump was drawing attention to with the "little Marco" sobriquet. That he is about 5'6" is a more parsimonious explanation, though.

- Through March of 2016, the Rubio campaign was most concerned by Cruz, who our guy is convinced had the highest IQ of any candidate from either party in last year's election. That was the case even before Iowa but especially so after it. They knew ¡Jabe! wasn't going anywhere months before the first state contest and thought Trump an unserious vanity candidate (so have a good laugh at the globohomo elites who bankrolled the former's campaign to the tune of over $100 million). They continued to dismiss Trump even after he won in New Hampshire. It wasn't until South Carolina that they began to orient themselves to their real threat.

- Speaking of ¡Jabe!, our guy went to one of his rallies as well (no, not the infamous please clap event). He was stunned by how incompetent the candidate appeared ("like Goofy"). There was visible confusion as to when the thing was going to start, who was going to introduce him, even where he was going to stand.

Gangly, uncertain, fawningly nice to the few supporters there who talked to him in person--an alpha male he clearly is not. When ¡Jabe!'s team found out our guy was working for Rubio, they offered him front row tickets to the then-upcoming South Carolina debate if he'd switch to team ¡Boosh! (he declined, and not just because he already had front row seats--desperation is repellent).

- Nikki Haley is a non-entity in person. Our guy met her and spent five painful minutes fumbling through an uninspired conversation with her. She wasn't emotionally or intellectually invested in anything she said. Short her on ever becoming president. The only thing she has going for her is that as a woman and a POC, she's a two-fer.

- Getting back to Rubio, he's naturally affable and moderately intelligent. Not intelligent enough to avoid the robotic implosion, though. That's when our guy left the campaign (he glommed onto Rubio initially because he thought he had the best chance of getting the nomination and was hoping that would create an avenue for him to get a staffing position in the administration), along with an exodus of others. Said exodus didn't get much attention, but it happened.
Or is this him?

Senator Tim Scott, an early Rubio backer, caught the debate at a watch party our guy also attended and when Rubio repeated himself for the third time, Scott got up and left while the debate was still taking place. This was just days after Scott had publicly endorsed the Florida senator. He never voiced support for Rubio after that.

- Our guy also met Hillary Clinton after going to one of her rallies. He estimated there were about 200 people in attendance, but unlike senor ¡Jabe!, her team managed on-air optics that made the event look packed from the perspective of the viewer at home. He got to talk to her for a couple of minutes afterwards. She caused him to experience the uncanny valley. She resembles a human, but something is off, and in an unsettling way.

- Our guy is now a MAGAman and regrets not having read the tea leaves a couple of years ago. He wasn't able to parlay his tenure on the Rubio campaign into a spot with the notoriously lean Trump operation. He's only 20 years old, so his wandering is understandable. Most of us have been there.

Whatever you make of that, it made for much better-than-average Christmas conversation for me!

As for Christmas, congratulations to VDare for fighting in the trenches for decades, slowly but surely reclaiming lost ground in the War on Christmas, so the god-emperor could swoop in for the coup-de-grace and take credit for the victory:

Deus Vult!

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Throw that worthless servant outside

The following is from a someone I went to high school with who holds some sort of outreach position in the state Democrat party. He's second-generation Afghani but, rather remarkably for a youngish POC in an official Democrat capacity, almost never has anything to say about race. It's all Old Left focus on economic and social class. He was a vociferous Sanders supporter who much less enthusiastically got behind Clinton after his man was taken out back and shot.

His post involves Jesus and provides multiple excuses to mine the GSS, so in the Christmas spirit I'll share it here:
Aren't Christians supposed to be charitable, helping the poor and needy? I'm not sure why the rich need to get a tax break when the economy is strong, stocks are at all time highs, etc., meanwhile the middle class is shrinking, public education is underfunded, infrastructure is crumbling, healing people via healthcare is getting more expensive therefore less accessible, and wages are stagnant for people working their butts off at a minimum wage job. Seems like the opposite of Jesus' teachings.
It may be the naivete of relative youth, but even though there is an odd conflation of Christians and "the rich" here, it's refreshing coming from the left. In a 90%+ white country, these would be the things--unadulterated by race and intersectionality--our national politics would revolve around.

Even as a thought experiment it's difficult to imagine as much in the current year. So many of these putative bread-and-butter issues--the shrinking of the middle class, educational expenditures, health care costs, stagnant wages--are downstream of immigration. The National Question is everything.

Stepping away from metaphysics and towards polemics, on a private per capita basis Americans are the sixth most charitable people in the world. A magnanimous population we are, pathologically so.

From the GSS, the following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by religious affiliation, who made multiple charitable contributions in the past year (N = 5,238):

Having a lot of money makes it easier to give some of it away, so--and this will come as no surprise to the ADL or the $PLC--Jews easily come out on top. Christians do better than the heathens and Saracens, though.

Looked at from a similar angle, the percentages of respondents, this time by theistic orientation, who made multiple charitable contributions in the past year (N = 2,547):

Biblical exegesis on this question isn't straightforward. In Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the talents, a story is recounted in which those who've shown they are able to better utilize resources are entrusted with more resources because those who haven't been able to productively use resources in the past fail to put them to productive use in the future.

In other words, people with money earned that money because they were able to create more value over time than people without money were. There are of course lots of extenuating circumstances and distortions--mostly in the form of crony capitalism, political lobbying, and other means of purchasing state power--but that's not something only to be accentuated rather than attenuated by coercive redistribution.

More directly, there is 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

The question is not what causes poverty. Poverty is the default state of mankind. The question is what creates prosperity. The record of redistribution at the behest of an institution that monopolizes violence is, to put it mildly, mixed.

Later, our Pashtun offers the following:
If the best philosophers in the world can't figure out abortion, then maybe the average voter shouldn't be weighing in on it?
The best philosophers couldn't come to a consensus on a lot of things! Aristotle looked at his feet, Plato had his eyes in the skies. The Cynics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics were all venerable philosophical traditions in their own right and also fierce competitors in their time. Today we tend to describe something resembling the Cynics as Epicureans and then juxtapose them to Stoics while ignoring actual Epicureans, who represent a middle ground between the two, but the differences remain salient.

And there was even less agreement among the pre-Socratics!

Abortion is one of a handful of moral issues where progressive gains are probably going to stall out as public opinion ultimately ends up moving in the tradcon direction. It's getting increasingly difficult to maintain that a fetus in the third trimester, viable outside the womb, is not a human worthy of the same societal protections extended to the rest of the population. The percentages of respondents, by year of participation in the survey, who say a woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason:

Steady as she goes
GSS variables used: GIVCHRTY(1-4)(5-6), RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(5-8,10-13)(9), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), YEAR, ABANY

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Yankees don't like blacks, educators are blank slatists, and family values are (not) an Asian (black) thing

- Gab Fam man BooksmartBaller wondered about differences in region (presumably among whites) with regards to how they feel about blacks.

In 2002, the GSS asked respondents how "warm" or "cool" they felt towards multiple groups, including blacks. The higher the score, the cooler (ie less trusting of and more hostile towards) a region's whites said they felt towards blacks (N = 2,048):

Feelings towards blacksIndex score
East south central4.27
Middle Atlantic3.84
New England3.83
South Atlantic3.79
West south central3.71
West north central3.59
East north central3.59

When it comes to white feelings towards blacks, the divide isn't north-south, it's east-west, with whites in the established east expressing more wariness of blacks than whites in the uprooted west.

- A couple of episodes back, on Renaissance Radio Jared Taylor guessed a lot of teachers know in their bones that there are innate differences among children of different races even if they, like so many others in the contemporary Western world, feel compelled to pretend that differences arise primarily from aspects of Nurture.

That knowledge must be buried in the subconscious marrow, as they're a bit less likely (21.6%) than the US population as a whole (25.3%) to attribute a significant genetic role to personality instead of to life experiences, as the balance of respondents do.

Orthogonally--or perhaps not, as IQ inversely correlates with tendency to attribute personality to genes rather than life experiences--the mean IQ of college and university lecturers and professors, of high school teachers, and of elementary school teachers, as given by the GSS assuming a native population IQ of 100 and a standard deviation of 15:

Teaching levelIQ
Middle/High school110.1
Elementary school108.7

Because Wordsum maxes out at a converted IQ of 129, nearly 30% of university and college professors and lecturers are hit by an artificial ceiling when it is used as a proxy for intelligence, while fewer than 2% of them are saved by the existence of a corresponding artificial floor. Consequently the Wordsum method of IQ estimation underestimates means of distributions to the right of the total population distribution and overestimates those to the left of it. The farther from the center of the population distribution, the more pronounced this effect is.

In other words, the university and college mean is probably more accurately pegged in the low 120s, middle/high school teachers around 112, and elementary school teachers around 110.

- The cuckservative canard about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" is so early-2000s, but with little yappers like Ben Shapiro trying to repackage 1990s Rush Limbaugh for Gen Z in the late 2010s, it's worth challenging the lazy assertion. By Nicholas Kristof's own accounting, family values is an Asian thing, and, to a lesser extent, a Jewish thing. It is most certainly not a black thing.

Using the GSS, the following tables show, by race, 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, the percentages who have paid for sex, and a "violation index" that simply averages percentages across the four aforementioned measures. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are large--in the several hundreds for Jews and Asians on the low-end and up from there:

GSS variables used: ISCO08(2310-2319)(2330-2339)(2340-2349), GENEEXPS, WORDSUM, BORN(1), FEELBLKS, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), REGION, EVSTRAY(1-2), MARITAL(1,3,4), AGEKDBRN(10-19), EVPAIDSX, YEAR(2000-2016)

* 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' certain racial groups in terms of perceived marital success.

Merry Christmas!

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Is the (intraracial) word gap narrowing?

Steve Sailer, via James Flynn, reports that the (credited) namesake's effect could be a thing of the past. Specifically, scores at the top aren't rising and may actually be declining.

This presents a good enough opportunity to point out what has caused me some low-level cognitive dissonance for years now--there isn't much evidence in the GSS for assortitative mating, at least when it comes to vocabulary (and thus presumably IQ).

First, the following graph shows the mean Wordsum score among whites born in the US who were between the ages of 30 and 65 when they participated in the survey, by the decade they were born in. That's a mouthful, but here comes an even bigger one it is so to avoid racial confounding, language fluency issues, and to allow respondents to have had at least three decades to build their vocabularies without pulling in people who have been beset by the cruel cognitive decline senescence brings:

The early boomers look pretty good, but there isn't much variation across cohorts. There's little to glean here with regards to the Flynn effect. That's not to suggest the effect is oversold--vocabulary is one of the areas of intelligence least effected by the, uh, effect.

What does stand out, though, is the reduction in the size of a standard deviation in scores by cohort over time:

The size of a standard deviation in scores has declined by one-quarter in little more than a generation. That is, there has been a bunching of Wordsum scores towards middling performance over time, with both especially high and especially low scores declining as a proportion of all results. Among those born in the 1940s, 1-in-7 either completely bombed or perfectly aced the test. Among those born in the 1980s, just 1-in-25 either bombed or aced it:

This is the opposite of what would be expected to happen if assortitative mating was increasingly leading to cognitively gifted men pairing up with cognitively gifted women to have cognitively gifted children and dull men procreating with dull women to have dull children.

Parenthetically, because the quiz is multiple choice with five possible answers per item, scores of two or fewer correct answers are expected from participants ignorant of any of the correct answers who merely guessed randomly on all of them.

GSS variables used: ETHNIC(2,7-15,17-19,21,23-27,32,35,36), WORDSUM, COHORT(1900-1929)(1930-1939)(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979), BORN(1), AGE(30-65)

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Big Daddy Gibs

Supporting Lott’s research that found female suffrage immediately shifted American politics to the Left and enlarged the State, a recent study likewise concluded that female enfranchisement accelerated the same Leftward lurch well into the late 20th-early 21st Century, and it continues moving the country to the Left today (tradcon white knights hit hardest). Furthermore, the female compulsion to vote into existence larger and more intrusive government crosses party identification lines.
Let's recruit the GSS to pile on. The survey has a question that gets right at the heart of the growth of the state. Unfortunately it was only asked in a single year (1996) but the sample is large enough and the trend stark enough to serve our pedagogical purposes here.

It reads "If the government had a choice between reducing taxes or spending more on social programs like health care, social security, and unemployment benefits, which do you think it should do?" The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by sex and by political orientation, who favor reducing taxes (N = 1,018):

This corroborates the results of the other research Heartiste pointed to. Women are more supportive of government spending on social programs across the political spectrum.

In fidelity to the meta-theme that everything is downstream of immigration, a few other comparisons by selected demographic characteristics:

White middle- and upper-class men are the only group the founders had in mind when they were hammering out the republic's constitutional framework. It was not designed to accommodate the political input of "the rest" and is now--rather unsurprisingly, at least in hindsight--on the brink of collapse.

GSS variables used: TAXSPEND, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), SEX, RACE(1)(2-3), BORN, CLASS(3-4)

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Immigration is the golden snitch

I read the first entries in the Harry Potter series in the span of a couple of weeks in the mid-2000s. My younger brother was enthralled by the books but hadn't seen any of the movies released up to that point. I thought it a nice big brother gesture to watch them with him and wanted to know the score before doing so.

Something I remember with distinct annoyance were the risibly stupid rules of the in-universe game of Quidditch. Six players per side get smashed to hell as they scramble after a big ball--the "quaffle"--that earns a team that scores with it 10 points. Each team also has a seventh player called a "seeker". The seeker exclusively chases a smaller ball--the "golden snitch"--that, once captured, gives his team 150 points and ends the game.

There is no time limit. The match concludes when the small ball is captured, and because it's worth so much, the team that captures the golden snitch virtually always wins. Infogalactic informs us that one game in the series ends with the team capturing the golden snitch losing, but in this exceptional instance it was done intentionally.

So the matches consist of six players on each side getting pounded by flying iron balls for no purpose other than the entertainment of the spectators while the outcome is decided solely by which seeker manages to capture the golden snitch.

I bring this up in the context of Ann Coulter's great column on Roy Moore's loss in Alabama last week:
Everyone who screwed the pooch on this one better realize fast: All that matters is immigration. It’s all that matters to the country, and it’s all that matters for winning elections.

“Anti-establishment” is not a winning issue. Without immigration as the GOP’s lodestar, every election will be a rerun of the Tea Party from 2010 to 2012, when Republicans lost Senate seat after Senate seat, entirely in unforced errors.

We’ll have to watch helplessly as “establishment Republicans” fight “anti-establishment Republicans” over the right to milk a he-goat. Both sides will lose, and Democrats will sweep Congress and destroy our country.

Immigration was never a top issue for Moore, though, when pressed, he gave the right answers. That’s not a good way to prioritize.

Republicans who treat immigration as a backburner issue should be required to run on the issues they consider more important—in California. See how your arguments fare in a state that’s already been transformed by immigration. That’s your new country.

How stupid do you have to be to carry on about taxes, defense spending, ISIS, abortion or the Ten Commandments while intentionally losing on the one issue that will determine the outcome of all these other issues? Too stupid to be of any real help.
Metaphorical moratorium
Taxes? Quaffle. Defense spending? Quaffle. ISIS? Quaffle. Abortion? Quaffle. Ten commandments? Quaffle.

Immigration is the golden snitch. It doesn't matter what happens with the other issues. If we don't capture the National Question, any quaffle points we accumulate will turn out to be nothing more than distractions for fans on our side to cheer about momentarily before we lose the game.

As fans, we must insist on our front office start putting everything into recruiting the best seekers (the single player on the pitch who pursues the golden snitch) and stop wasting so much time and energy on quaffle showmen. Derb essentially concludes as much in this week's broadcast, so take it's importance from him.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Bittersweet home Alabama

Paul Kersey nailed it:

This is predictably being spun as a big loss for Trump.

Indeed, Trump could not have played the state any worse than he did--endorsing the loser in the primary, withholding an endorsement and staying mum on the GOPe's not mere abandonment but opposition to Moore until the 11th hour, endorsing Moore at said 11th hour, and then seeing Moore lose in a state that gave Trump one of his largest margins last November. Sad!

These are tactical errors largely attributable to Trump playing nice with the GOPe, however. The exit polling shows that the long game looks promising for MAGA Republicanism. Among those who voted yesterday, 48% approve of Trump. By comparison, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Republican party and just 16% (!) have a favorable opinion of Mitch McConnell.

Trump is more popular than the GOP brand. Consequently, said brand is being dragged, kicking and screaming, away from both the 'bible-thumping' religiosity of Roy Moore and the Chamber of Commerce cuckery of Ed Gillespie. The two recent high-profile Republican defeats were not of populist MAGA men but of, separately, values voters and big business, two factions of the Republican coalition whose glory days are in the past and for whom the future looks grim.

Additionally, Trump's last-minute endorsement probably helped Moore. It wasn't enough to close the gap (that Fox News, to its credit, appeared to have identified), but it likely did the judge more good than harm:

Those sitting on the fence until the end broke decisively for Moore, and those who said Trump factored into their voting decisions favored Moore over Jones by a 3-to-2 margin.

Takeaway for Team Trump? Get behind MAGA men (and women) in the 2018 mid-terms.

Parenthetically, blacks were clearly a lot more enthused than whites, especially rural whites. Sparsely populated Winston county, to the northwest of Birmingham, saw turnout cut nearly in half from 2016 to 2017 (with the latter year bringing out just 55% of what last November did). In contrast, Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham, saw turnout this time around that was 76% of 2016's. I've only eyeballed figures from county to county, but this appears to be a pretty consistent pattern across the state.

Finally, to end on a positive note, we keep hearing (and hoping!) that Gen Z, the generation with its back against the wall, may just be the one that delivers us all. In that vein, then, some encouragement:

Those under 25 (the oldest Zs are currently 22) went more heavily for Moore than those in their later twenties and those in their thirties did. Keep in mind that the younger the cohort, the less white the cohort, so this suggests that the front wave of white Zs went 10+ points stronger for Moore than white millennials did, and about as strongly for him as white Xers did. And this not for a god-emperor shitlord but for a stodgy old tradcon who wore a cowboy hat and rode a horse to vote!

Monday, December 11, 2017

Clean up

A few things I committed to getting done without having gone through the formality of doing (until now!):

- With regards to the apparently heavy Jewish overrepresentation among the recently exposed high-profile harassers and perverts, GSS results from five questions measuring attitudes and behaviors towards sexual permissiveness for males exclusively, since that's who we're after here:

With the obvious exception of having paid for sex, the sex differences among both Jews and Gentiles are minor. The graph above looks similar to the one presented here. The percentage of white Gentile men who've paid for sex is 12.3%, meaning Jewish men are over 40% more likely to have rented fleshpots than white Gentiles are. By comparison, 19.9% of black men say they've paid for sex.

This may have some explanatory power.

- While it struck me as tedious and unlikely to reveal anything of interest, respected regular commenter DissidentRight wondered about the racial distributions of independents who lean left and lean right. Because of the way the GSS tracks race and ethnicity it's difficult to be precise when it comes racial distributions of particular traits unless Hispanics are grouped together with whites, but it is easy to look at trait distributions among particular demographic groups.

While I'm not sure if this is what DR had in mind, I'm glad I looked at it because it's more slanted than I'd have expected. The following table shows the partisan lean--Democrat, Republican, or neither--among self-identified political independents, by race (N = 8,970):


The subsequent table expresses this in a different way by showing how much more likely independents are to lean Democrat than they are to lean Republican:

When it comes to partisan affiliation, white independents can fairly be described as, well, independent. Non-whites not so much. That Trump beat Hillary among independents really is no mean feat.

- The idea that Twitter is a social media platform intended to freely facilitate the exchange of ideas has been a risible one for well over a year now. Despite the virtual proscription lists filled with names of those on the dissident right--December 18th is rumored to be the virtual night of the long knives--the platform still tends to function as such at present.

The following graph shows the unexciting percentages of respondents who support the right for various controversial speakers to share their views in public by whether or not they use Twitter:

According to Pew, 19% of the US population was on Twitter in 2016, a virtually identical result to the 18.9% found in the GSS for the same year.

Twitter users are modestly more supportive of free speech than non-users are.

The one exception is for anti-religionists.

Twitter users are more likely to be atheists and agnostics and less likely to say they "know God exists" than non-users are, yet they're less supportive of anti-religionist speech!

If it seems strange that the secular, progressive blue checkmarks would be marginally less supportive of free speech than non-users are for anti-religionists of all people, it's because you're not reading anti-religious in the same way they are. They are interpreting it as a reference to Islam.

Notice, too, that the largest variance* between Twitter users and non-users is the relatively strong support the former give to Muslims preaching hatred of the US compared to the tepid support non-users give the same.

* In terms of the gap as a percentage of total support, not in terms of the absolute size of the gap, for which free speech for militarists is the widest.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMSLM, SPKMIL, SPKATH, TWITTER, GOD(1-2)(6), PARTYID(2-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX(1), XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Stomp on sanctuary cities

The percentages of bay area respondents familiar with the case who say the verdict in the Steinle case was "wrong", by race (N = 457):

In total, more than two-in-three residents (69.1%) don't like the decision.

Keep in mind this poll was taken among residents of San Francisco, where the economic and educational disparities among racial groups are larger but the political disparities narrower than in nearly all the rest of the country.

The left can gloat as much as it wants about the Steinle verdict, but trashing it is a populist issue. Trump has a knack for identifying things that are simultaneously 'controversial' and popular--very often more popular than he is:

Even in a deep blue urban SWPL stronghold like San Francisco, sanctuary accomplice city status gets mixed reviews. Nearly half of denizens don't favor subverting national sovereignty in this way ("unsure" responses are excluded; N = 650):

Soy boys and buggers though they be, San Francisco's white men still tend to be the city's least treasonous group.

If only half the population in accomplice cities support their cities being an accomplices, there's a huge vulnerability to be exploited. Hell, even Bugman (R, VA) grasped as much.

Bringing accomplice cities to heel is something the Trump administration needs to be pursuing intensely. Puttering around with half-percentage reductions in federal funding is the first step in a miles-long chase.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Muhammad Mohamed Mohammed Mohammad

A few more graphics bequeathed to the historians of the future who will write The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire:

Those results are for the US. Baby Naming Wizard includes a list of Western countries where Muhammad--peace be upon him--is among the top 100 most popular names for baby boys:

There are several variants of the given name's spelling and they're counted separately in the tallies. In England and Wales, as of 2013--so the ascent has surely continued since then--"Muhammad" came in at #15, "Mohammed" at #23, and "Mohammad"at #57.

The only state in the US so far where the name has cracked the top 100 is Minnesota, but it will not be the last.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Unintelligent snowflakes are the ones suppressing free speech

Dan echoes a question brought up by others with regards to the GSS showing a strong correlation between high IQ and support for free speech:
It is most interesting that support for Free Speech is tightly correlated with IQ.

But then, I wonder if that is just a relic of high IQ people knowing that free speech is the 'right answer'.

Every time a high profile conservative tries to speak at a university now, they face an attempted shutdown, which is successful a high percentage of the time. Universities are not condemning the students but siding with them. Police are the ones upholding free speech rights.
My suspicion is that the students who are making the biggest ruckus are not the sharpest ones on campus. The administrators are intimidated. The professors leading the charge are doofuses like this and the ones who provide fodder for Z-Man's weekly XirlScience segments, not top engineering or chemistry professorial talent.

The following graph shows the percentages of college graduates born in the US, by IQ as measured from Wordsum scores, who support the right for racists, communists, homosexuals, militarists, and atheists to all speak publicly. For contemporary relevance responses are from 2000 onward (N = 1,263):

Educational attainment does appear to associated with tolerance of free speech independent of intelligence, but a strong relationship remains even among the well-educated.

The braying rabble on display here are nowhere near the top of their class:

Is it implausible to suspect that a majority of them are at Yale on account of some sort of academic affirmative action favoritism?

The seeming ever-increasing calls for censorship on college campuses is surely not unrelated to this:

Graduated inIQ

Idiocracy beckons.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), SPKATH, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMIL, SPKCOM, DEGREE(3-4), BORN(1), YEAR(2000-2016)

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Eager Ashkenazi, coy Goy

They're thinking about it:
A lot of sexual harassment stuff in the news of late. I couldn't help but notice a very disturbing pattern emerging, which is that many of the predators--not all, but many of them--are Jews.
So Vox Day is justified in doing the same:
What a surprise that someone named (((Israel Horowitz))) should turn out to be a sex criminal. I am, of course, absolutely shocked that yet another illustrious member of the (((immigrant community))) that created America practically from nothing and has lots and lots of Nobel Prizes and is selflessly devoted to healing the world should turn out to be yet another pervy freakshow.
The GSS has (at least) five questions that potentially provide some insight into why Jews appear to be heavily overrepresented among the sexually overambitious. The questions don't get into the sort of criminal harassment and abuse that some of the "predators" are alleged to have engaged in--people are understandably reluctant to legally indict themselves in surveys!--but they are suggestive.

The following graph shows attitudes in sexual permissiveness (and in the case of purchased sex, behavior) among Jews and Gentiles. Sample sizes for Gentiles are in the tens of thousands and for Jews in the several hundreds except for the question on premarital sex, which was only asked in four iterations of the survey. For it, the Jewish sample is just 89:

As Steve Sailer notes, it's important to keep supply and demand in mind. In industries where there are a lot of women around--especially young, nubile ones--they are easier to sexually exploit because there's always plenty more where that came from.

Movie and television actresses are famous mostly because at one point they were given the vanishingly rare opportunity to become famous. Pass on that rare opportunity, and there are thousands of others eager to take advantage of what the one passed up.

High-end female computer programmers, on the other hand, are hard to find, so when an organization is able to snap one up, it doesn't want to let her go because it will be hell to find someone to replace her.

GSS variables used: XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

Saturday, December 02, 2017

Jerks fornicate (but don't necessarily procreate)

++Addition++Heartiste has a lot to add.


In response to GSS data showing that criminals get more tail than those who follow the law do, Jig Bohnson wonders if it is merely a consequence of people at the bottom of society in general both rutting more and ending up in the slammer more:
There is no controlling for income or socioeconomic status here. Are we just seeing the effect of lower socioeconomic classes being more promiscuous? The prison population, white or otherwise, is drawn overwhelmingly from the lower strata of society.
The question was only asked in 2012, so the sample size is in the hundreds instead of the thousands or tens of thousands. Consequently there's a limit to how much drilling down can be done.

Generally speaking, there is virtually no difference in lifetime sexual partners by social class. From 2000 onward lower, working, middle, and upper class men all report a median number of lifetime sexual partners of five.

It's not clear, then, that lower classes are more promiscuous, especially given that they are less likely than middle and upper classes to be married and so correspondingly less likely to be putatively committed to fidelity to a single partner.

Looking at partner counts among men of the same social class provides further evidence that the answer to Jig's reasonable question is probably "no". The following graph shows the median number of lifetime female sexual partners among men who have and have not spent time behind bars, by social class. The sample sizes for lower and upper class respondents are small, but the trend is present across the social spectrum:

This does not, of course, speak to the quality of the women, only to the quantity.

Before the progressive enlightenment brought us women's liberation and the castration of the patriarchy, society had ways of keeping criminals and low-lifes away from nubile women at risk of spreading their legs for said criminals and low-lifes. With those ways having been crippled, criminals and low-lifes are free to prowl.

Interestingly, the deleterious effects of the sexual revolution may be neutralized by the salubrious effects--at least in this particular context--of modern contraception. While criminals and low-lifes do more fornicating, they do not appear to do more procreating. Among men aged 30 or older, those who have done time average 1.94 children while those who have not average 2.08 children.

GSS variables used: LOCKEDUP, SEX(1), NUMWOMEN(0-989), CLASS, AGE(30-89), CHILDS

To AE instead of JB?

Taking donations is not something I've done or will ever do. It's a zero-sum game and there are people trying to scrape a living together doing dissident right media who are infinitely more deserving.

However, if you're buying something from a vessel on that big river in South America and you'd prefer kicking a few dimes from that purchase my way instead of into Jeff Bezos' pocket, there is now a discrete link at the top of the permalink section of the blog that allows you to do that. Enter through that portal and then navigate and purchase as usual.

Thanks for the consideration.

Friday, December 01, 2017

Chicks dig jerks

++Addition++Heartiste has a lot to add.


Previously unbeknownst to me, in 2012 the GSS asked respondents if they "have ever spent any time in prison or jail".

Among men, the mean and median numbers of lifetime female sexual partners by whether or not they've done time (N = 642):

Okay, but there's obviously a potential racial confound in play here since blacks both do more lawbreaking and more rutting than non-blacks do.

The same, this time restricted to non-Hispanic white men (N = 435):

Maxim #70: Civilized, coddled chicks dig jerks. NAWALT, of course, but most are.

When I first began visiting the chateau, it was with the intention of discrediting what the great magnate wrote because I didn't want it to be true.

Over time, the scales fell from my eyes. Instead of cucking at windmills as had been my wont, I began incorporating the hard truths laid bare there. My life--and my marriage--are better for it.

The god of biomechanics laughs at your four pedestals. Game isn't inherently 'good' or 'evil'. It's a tool--or set of tools, really--that can be used to further a wide array of objectives. We win by playing better than our opponents, not by taking our ball and going home.

GSS variables used: NUMWOMEN(0-989), SEX(1), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), LOCKEDUP