Sunday, February 26, 2017

Affirmative action takes from the poor (Ice people) and gives to the rich (Sun people)

Affirmative action in education benefits wealthy black and Hispanics at the expense of poor whites and Asians.

I've had a few conversations about the subject recently where that didn't seem to be intuitive to the people I was talking with so it's worth stating explicitly here even though it's hardly a novel observation on my part.

For simplification, just think about whites and blacks. In both cases, the wealthier a person (or the family he grows up in) is, the better his academic performance tends to be. Whites outperform blacks at every level of socio-economic status (SES), but in the cases of both whites and blacks as SES increases so does academic performance.

So if some number of whites who would otherwise be accepted to a school have to be cut out to make room for a corresponding number of blacks, it tends to be low SES whites who get the cutting. The blacks who get in are those who (relatively) narrowly missed getting in before the racial handicapping. These tend to be high SES blacks.

In the subsequent graph, it's the area inside the red circle that gets cut out by affirmative action and the area inside the green circle that benefits from it:


Comprehending this dynamic would go a long way in helping affluent SWPLs who still don't understand Trump's appeal to working-class whites understand that appeal better.

We continue to have an opportunity with frustrated Bernie Bro-types who keep getting spit on by the Democrat party, most recently with the victory of Perez over Ellison as DNC chair. Sanders started out his campaign shying away from race and making it about social class disparities. He was forced into racial grievance mongering and victimization posturing by the Clinton campaign, but he didn't want to go there initially.

This isn't a novel observation on my part, either. Trump certainly gets it:



Saturday, February 25, 2017

Blacks, Jews, and liberals think whites are more intelligent than blacks

Since 2000 the GSS has asked respondents, broken down by race, if whites and if blacks "tend to be unintelligent or tend to be intelligent", with answers on a 7-point scale, the higher the score the more intelligent the group is perceived to be. Because both questions have been paired every year they've been asked, the same respondents are opining on the perceived intelligence of both whites and blacks.

Every racial grouping, including blacks, perceives whites to be more intelligent than they perceive blacks to be. This holds for both men and women, liberals and conservatives, the young and the old. The differences are a matter of degree, not direction.

The following graph shows how much of an intelligence advantage whites are perceived to have over blacks by the race (and other selected characteristics) of those assessing the intelligence of each. A standard deviation is just over one point on the scale, so you'll notice that the perceived racial gap isn't as large as the fundamental law of sociology reveals it to be, but a perceived gap does indeed exist (n = 11,419) [edit: Altered the color scheme slightly to be a little more intuitive with the age and educational groupings--none of the figures have been edited]:


So much of the Cathedral is founded on racial egalitarianist grounds that undermining those grounds will likely cause the whole edifice to come crashing down. It's why anyone who is perceived to be questioning the building's structural integrity is mercilessly set upon by the Cathedral's inquisitors. Yet it has been constructed on a foundation of loose gravel and sand.

In case you thought otherwise, even if those of European descent won't "go there" when it comes to understanding and eventually acting upon genetic differences across the entire spectrum of human traits, including intelligence, Asians will. If they're precluded from doing so in Western countries, they'll still do so in Asia.

MG recently put together a characteristically excellent post showing that, among other things, what progressives do--irrespective of their virtue-signalling public proclamations--reveals that they are racial realists rather than racial egalitarians. That racial realism manifests itself here, too.

Parenthetically, astute observers will notice that the perceived gap is larger among all whites than it is among either liberal or conservative whites. Self-described moderates tend to be less intelligent and less educated than both liberals and conservatives. That those without college degrees perceive the white-black gap to be twice as large as those with degrees--"clever sillies" if you prefer--do helps make sense of this in the current context.

The GSS has also previously inquired about the perceived intelligence of Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, but only for a single year (2000) in which the racial characteristics of respondents were concurrently tracked. I've posted about that before here, though sample sizes are small. The figures for perceived white and black intelligence in that post only extend through 2008, so this post now updates that one with four more years of additional survey data to draw upon.

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

Friday, February 24, 2017

Godless gays

John Derbyshire's post entitled "Turkeys Vote For Thanksgiving--Gays Demonstrating For Muslim Immigration" spurred me to take a look at what the GSS has to say about the subject. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by religious affiliation, who believe that "sexual relations between two adults of the same sex" is "always wrong" (n = 33,086):


The GSS shows Derb's title to be an apt one.

The rank ordering is predictable enough, with the possible exception of Jews being more morally tolerant of buggery than even those who do not identify with any religious tradition are. Sodom and Gomorrah?

That those who religiously affiliate as Jewish are not what is conventionally understood to be meant by the adjective "religious" goes some way in explaining this acceptance of homosexuality. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by religious affiliation, who "know God exists" (this is the majority position--60.8% of all respondents assert they know God exists) (n = 18,383):


Only one-third of Jews firmly believe in the existence of God. On this measure anyway, the answer to the question of whether Jewishness is primarily a religious or primarily an ethnic identifier appears to be the latter [edit: Stronger evidence that is indeed the case].

To take this post full circle, the final graph shows the percentages of people, by sexual orientation, who know God exists (n = 7,533):


GSS variables used: SEXORNT, YEAR(1998-2014), RELIG(1,2,3,4,9), GOD(6), HOMOSEX(1)

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Secession is a young man's game

The political dissolution of the US is inconceivable to Boomers. That's not the case among younger Americans, who've had to live with the consequences of the Boomers' obsessive quest to find--or found--the mythical racial El Dorado.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll from 2014 found over 1-in-3 people under the age of 30 lending support to the idea of their state seceding from the union, compared to fewer than 1-in-6 people over the age of 60 feeling the same way.

A recent SurveryUSA poll out of California corroborates this. The percentages of Californians, by age cohort, who are opposed* to Calexit:

AgeRemain
18-3457%
50-6467%
35-4969%
65+80%

Hispanics, with 25% supporting, are the most likely to favor Calexit. Whites (13%) are the least likely to do, with blacks (16%) and Asians (18%) falling in between. Men (21%) are more likely than women (15%) to favor it.

* There are three responses to the question, "remain", "withdraw", or "not sure". This table lists only the "remain" percentages and thus may appear to overstate support for secession. The full results are here.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

#resist is futile

The phrase "fake news" is a beast that has, in a matter of months, been entirely turned on the people who released it on us. Our appropriation has been so thorough that CultMarxists are now insinuating that it originated on the alt right, inspired of course by Hitler:


Having lost control of "fake news", they summoned bahamut "alternative facts" next. It was delivered in critical condition and dead within the week:


That's probably better for the Cathedral, as the alternative facts--human biodiversity, IQ, sexual dimorphism, crime rates, ad infinitum--turret is even easier to turn around on those who deploy it than the stated desire for "an honest conversation about race" is.

What's next?

This week I saw a dumpy middle-aged white woman (no ring) wearing a black t-shirt with white lettering that simply read "#resist". That term is as bad as the clumsy and confusing slogan "love trumps hate".

For one, it concedes a seductiveness about the thing--America First, Make America Great Again, Trump--that must be resisted. You don't get a woman to eat better by telling her over and over again to resist the temptation to have that piece of cheesecake or get a guy off his porn addiction by having him watch it while encouraging him to resist the urge to masturbate.

Its individualistic focus undercuts its crucial role in motivating people to join a cause bigger than themselves Parenthetically, this is why libertarianism's focus on "individual liberty" has a support ceiling of a few percent of aspergy, high IQ male WEIRDOs and no one else. Emphasis on the "non-aggression principle" is better (as a recruiting tool--that's not a subjective judgment on my part).

It's also feeble, exactly the sort of thing that appeals to post-menopausal SWPL women and no else. Something aspirational like "#TheResistance" evokes stronger imagery and is more compelling.

There's no risk in us discussing this. These covens of cat ladies are clueless. They're too self-indulgent to realize any of it. It's another illustration of how all we need is an even playing field to route our opposition.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Unpacking Milo

A few comments:

- Why did he contract with a major publisher like Simon and Schuster? Milo's celebrity has skyrocketed over the last year. He had become a powerful brand name in his own right, to such an extent that long before his book was even written--let alone published--it was a bestseller on Amazon. Simon and Schuster had nothing to do with that.

The only reason to use a major publisher today is to take advantage of their promotional infrastructure and reach, but Simon and Schuster offered Milo nothing in this regard. Major publishing houses take huge commissions compared to independent publishers and they exert more editorial control than independent publishers to boot. Additionally, major publishers, who release tens of thousands of titles each year, have no problem walking away from one of their own authors, even those as lucrative as Milo.

If Milo had gone with someone like Castalia House, the manufactured outrage made about old comments that have been in the public domain for a year, wouldn't have been able to cascade out of control like this one has.

He was also cut from the CPAC lineup. Why even sign up for that moribund gathering? Take a page out of "daddy's" book and leave the cuckservatives hanging (yes, I know Trump is speaking this year, but as a negotiator he knows he holds all the cards this time around while he emphatically would not have if he'd showed up last year--Trump's a master at understanding these sorts of dynamics).

- When you're launching an assault onto hostile territory as the Alt Right and Alt Lite are, to go on the defensive is to concede the battle. He should've reframed immediately by pointing out that having sex with teenagers is normal in the MENA countries all these so-called refugees are pouring into the West from. They're not just making off-colored jokes about it, they're boinking 14 year-olds--boys and girls--every day. Their prophet married a girl when she was six and took her virginity when she was nine.

- The Cathedral votaries who are crucifying Milo are using pedophilia as a pretext for doing so. They have no problem with it. To the contrary, many of these sickos are participants. Playing with fire is a good way to get burned. The constant heckling of a flamboyant fag for his alleged pedophilia is going to prime the public in a way that may not redound to the benefit of powerful people like Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, or Jeffery Epstein's other co-travelers in the not-so-distant future.

- As previously noted, this is purely opportunistic, insincere outrage. These videos have been on youtube for a year. From CNN (my emphasis):
The professional provocateur has resigned as an editor at Breitbart News amid a firestorm over unearthed comments in which he seemed to endorse sex between "younger boys and older men."

...

While Yiannopoulos has made a living off deliberately offensive statements, his comments on two recently discovered video clips proved too much, even for his friends and colleagues at Breitbart.
None of these people get exercised about pedophilia unless it is to pretend that pedophiles are no more likely to have relations with those of the same sex than normal people are. It was only when Milo got too big for his britches by humiliating a couple of black stooges in front of a national audience that they strung him up:


- This is another example of why punching to the right in an attempt to placate the left isn't just despicable, it's futile. Milo has repeatedly celebrated Richard Spencer being battered on camera. A lot of good that did him. Disavowing the few who aren't afraid of thunder means you're on your own when the storm clouds roll in.

- Homosexuality is deviancy:



What Milo is getting at here--that the issue isn't age per se but pubescence--is easily comprehensible in biological terms when heterosexuals are involved. The lust of a man for a female who is showing signs of fertility isn't pedophilia. Her age is irrelevant. That doesn't mean the lust is socially or culturally optimal--it's clearly not in the 21st century Western world, where life cycles are slower now than they were millennia ago--but biologically it's perfectly normal.

He does a poor job expressing as much because homosexuality isn't biologically normal, it's deviant. The strong demarcation between pre- and post-pubescence that exists as a subconscious indicator of sexual interest for heterosexuals is hazier for homosexuals. Because the sex is non-reproductive, it's not driven by indications of fertility. Consequently, gays and straights have trouble expressing their sexual proclivities to one another.

- Finally, I'm surprised he didn't try to play it off by attributing it to his Greek heritage. It wouldn't even be a purely rhetorical ploy--the types of relationships he is flirting with here characterize the most normalized variety of male-to-male relationships in ancient Greece. I suppose appearing to throw the heroic Greeks under the bus to save yourself wouldn't do much for his fan base.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Wealth correlates with intelligence

Searching for data on the relationship between wealth and intelligence almost inextricably leads to a study by a guy out of Ohio State saying that there isn't one. He used the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), the same one Murray and Herrnstein used for The Bell Curve.

It's not my intention to cast aspersions on what he found. The GSS, however, offers an alternative finding. The following table shows the average IQ as estimated from mean wordsum results converted to IQ scores assuming a white average of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 by wealth category. To allow wealth formation to have occurred and to avoid racial confounding, results are restricted to non-Hispanic whites aged 35-70 years old (n = 824):

WealthIQ
Less than $100k98.2
$100k-$500k101.4
$500k-$1M105.7
$1M+105.8

The differences aren't huge but they clearly exist. The correlation between wordsum scores and income in the GSS is 50% stronger than it is between wordsum scores and wealth (r-values of .27 and .18, respectively), a result I admittedly found surprising. I'd assumed that if anything wealth would correlate more strongly with income, the lottery winner who is broke a decade later or the former NBA player who is similarly so a decade after his career ends as salient examples of why.

On the other hand, a lot of wealth comes from inheritance. Income is primarily a function of an individual's capabilities while wealth is more a function of the capabilities of his family.

The consequences of regression to the mean are blunted in the case of wealth but not so much in the case of income. A sharp guy with modest parents may earn a lot but having not started with much--while also shouldering a financial burden on behalf of his family--never accumulates that many assets. And the modest son with rich parents may not be able to command much of a salary, but affluence will still roll downhill to him.

GSS variables used: BORN(1), RACECEN1(1), WEALTH(1-5,6-8,9,10-15), AGE(35-70), CONINC

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Transsexuality is a mental disorder

Larry Wilmore, who despite fully embracing his blackety-black victimhood passes the brown paper bag test, asserts that gays are no more mentally disordered than straights are, a claim Milo Yiannopolous disputes:



The percentages of people, by sexual orientation, who suffered from "stress", depression" or "problems with emotions" in the last month:

OrientationMentalProbs
Heterosexual44.5%
Bisexual55.9%
Homosexual61.7%

Milo is right, Wilmore is wrong.

The GSS only began asking about sexual orientation in 2008, so all responses (n = 3,238) are from that year onward, well into the era of gays being celebrated as quasi-sacred objects rather than condemned as buggers.

The survey doesn't inquire about trannies, who are also discussed in the full video clip above, but it's likely that, from best to worst mental health, the ordering goes heterosexuals, followed by bisexuals, then homosexuals, and finally to trannies, the large majority of whom presumably have poor mental health.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0,1-30), SEXORNT

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Alt-Right rising, con't

Support for Trump's immigration approach--continuing insistence on an impending wall, travel restrictions from eight mostly Muslim countries, targeted raids and deportations--among white male millennials (n = 719):


If we group the three approves and the three disapproves and compare the two amalgamated categories, ignoring "don't know", we get 61.9% in approval, 38.1% in disapproval.

That's a solid majority of young white men who are willing to be called Nazis, racists, white supremacists, and all the rest. They are willing to defy millennial white women, who disapprove of Trump's immigration policies 46.0%-54.0% (n = 1,014), a sizable, vociferous minority of whom "strongly disapprove" (37.9%). They're willing to take positions that, if expressed in the corporate world, could cost them their careers.

We may yet save Western civilization.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Midwestern Nice meets the exotic Other

and finds out firsthand that the National Question is about more than just economic expediency (recorded from my smartphone, forgiveness please):



Tuesday, February 14, 2017

No victims, only volunteers

With street violence now a feature of the landscape anywhere Trump supporters gather for a public event, it's well past time we adopt the mindset that there are no victims, only volunteers. We know the nature of our opposition. To put ourselves in positions to be concussed, maced, or have our ribs broken is to be reckless fools.

The Cathedral's latest tactic is to tell law enforcement to stand down, allowing the violent rabble to enjoy open season on us, as happened in Chicago, San Jose, and Berkeley. Anarcho-tyranny is such that bona fide items of self-defense like guns and knives carry with them significant legal risks. That doesn't mean we have to be lambs lead to slaughter, though.

I recently purchased a Brutus Bulldog "keychain" that threads the needle perfectly. It gets around brass knuckle restrictions (knuckles are illegal in most of the places that firearms are prohibited). They're inconspicuous so as not to draw the attention of black bloc swarms like someone in a MAGA hat carrying a metal pipe would be. They're affordable for everyone ($10-$15), easy to use even for those without any hand-to-hand training, and are brutally damaging without being lethal.

Ricky Vaughn toyed with the idea of forming free speech protection units at high-profile events like Milo's, Spencer's, or McInnes'. Agnostic laid out how easy it would be to make these effective. It's time to make it happen.

Monday, February 13, 2017

I f*cking love Chuck Darwin!


And then there was silence.

Charlatanism and virtue-signalling make perfect bedfellows.

All we need to blow our opposition out is an equal playing field.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

White millennial men like Trump

Pew's recurring quiz on current events, dubbed "News IQ", is an easy way to shiv haughty SWPLs who throw phrases like "ignorant Trump supporters" and "alternative facts" around. As is always the case, Republicans modestly outscored Democrats in the most recent iteration from a couple of years ago.

Millennials outscored all other age cohorts on one of the 12 questions. If you guessed it to be the question in which participants were asked to identify this man:


... you would be correct. He is the holiest member of the American pantheon, after all. Doubly so among those under the age of 35.

But the rumors of widespread apostasy spreading through the ranks have become impossible to ignore. Core America's young men are warming to a new god-emperor (n = 701):



Saturday, February 11, 2017

Now let the ninth circuit enforce it

When the US discriminated against non-Jewish immigrants in the early nineties, the courts let it be because immigration is strictly the purview of the executive.

When the Clinton administration targeted Cubans for deportation (i.e. Elian Gonzalez), the courts let it be because immigration is strictly the purview of the executive.

When Arizona tried to enforce immigration laws that the Obama administration wouldn't, the courts ruled that Arizona had to stand down because immigration is strictly the purview of the executive.

Now that Trump is trying to institute a temporary immigration ban on selected countries, the courts are suddenly making up reasons why immigration is not the purview of the executive.

Writes Z-Man:
We have reached a point where it is heads they win, tails we lose. The game has been rigged to make reforming the system within the rules an impossibility. When a majority of the people favor a policy that the managerial class opposes, the policy gets hamstrung by the rules of the game. All of a sudden, the process is sacred. When the managerial class wants something for their masters, they change the rules so it either flies through or simply happens without anyone noticing. The process is not all that important.

All the blather about America being a nation of laws is just cover for the fact that ours is a lawless nation ruled by lawless men. An obvious example is the Ninth Circuit judges, who have fabricated a legal justification for throwing sand in the gears of a wildly popular executive order issued by President Trump. These are not men enforcing the law or respecting the laws. These are men who hold the law in contempt.
Who? Whom? The answers to these two questions are all you need to know to make sense of just about everything that happens in 21st century America.

The idea that the judiciary impartially rules strictly based on the legality of anything is woefully naive. These people are every bit as political as those we've elected in the other two branches of government, they're just not as accountable.

The Trump administration shouldn't defer to the ninth. Give them the Andrew Jackson treatment while flooding the field with similar executive orders. ICE is raiding in the belly of the beast, the ninth circuit be damned, and Trump is considering firing off redundant orders.

Speaking of the ninth, it includes 29 judgeships. What are the chances that at least a couple of these black robes have illegals working for them in some capacity, say as domestics or lawn care providers? Trump should have ICE stake these judges out and conduct a raid on the personal property of one of these creeps.

Parenthetically, there are eight countries on the temporary travel ban, not seven. South Sudan split from Sudan in 2011. One reason fake news isn't reporting the ban as applying to eight countries instead of seven is because then they'd have to admit that not all of the countries are Muslim--South Sudan is mostly Christian and animist, not Islamic. The other reason is that they want state fusion, not fission.

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Breitbart is third and gaining

Robert Reich (via Steve Sailer):
... before joining Trump’s inner circle Bannon headed Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet ...
On the other side of the Atlantic, from the UK government and the crony capitalists it is enriching in the name of fighting hate (via Vox Day):
The UK government is to pay an advertising giant, which campaigned against Brexit, £60 million to fight so-called “far right” extremism online, including “going against people who read Breitbart”.
The hivemind is using the same description everywhere. Googling "Breitbart far right" returns 941,000 results.

Everyone is Hitler, everything is -ist or -phobic, hate crimes are everywhere--this hysteria hardly even elicits a scoff anymore. Middle America takes these accusations about as seriously as they do one of their toddler's temper tantrums. The high priests, votaries, and warrior monks of the Cathedral don't have any more arrows left in the quiver and we're only a couple of weeks into Trump's presidency. It's going to be a grueling eight years for them.

This "far right" descriptor is relatively tame by comparison. It is, however, one they've been forced to fall back on after the phrase "fake news" was appropriated and then turned around on them.

Still, it's worth ridiculing because these people are always worth ridiculing.

So, what do Fox News, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, BuzzFeed, Salon, Slate, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Conservative Tribune, the Huffington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, and National Review among others, have in common?

They all have fewer online readers than Breitbart does. Breitbart.com is now the third most visited news site in the US, behind only the New York Times and CNN, and CNN is in free fall.

The third most popular news site in an environment with tens of thousands of them, you say? Hmm, sounds like a more accurate adjective than "far right" might be "mainstream" or maybe "populist", then?

I don't have data on median age by reader, but I suspect Breitbart's are decades younger than the NYT's and CNN's are. The state of media has never been more fluid than it is now, but at the moment Breitbart has to be the odds-on favorite for most popular news website in the country by the end of Trump's presidency.

I just made it the homepage on all my browsers.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Audi's asinine advertisement



The gender pay gap is probably the single most risible widespread, popular myth in contemporary American culture, one that implodes on the first sign of scrutiny.

A non-exhaustive list of reasons that, on average, men tend to earn more than women do:

- Men do more dangerous work. Dying or being seriously injured on the job--which happens to men far more frequently than it does to women--requires a pay premium.

- Men work in higher paying industries that require more specialized skills (computer engineering vs childcare, etc).

- Men, on average, have been with their current employers longer. Most organizations have tenure-based pay raises because experience is an asset while hiring, orientation, and training are costly .

- Men are more likely to work non-conventional schedules like weekends or overnights. These undesirable hours also require a pay premium.

- Men work longer hours and more overtime. Incredibly, the 77-cents-to-the-dollar assertion makes no adjustment for total hours worked. That is, the alleged 77% of a man's pay that a woman gets isn't an hourly figure, it's an annual one. Just making the obvious adjustment for hours worked, to get a comparison by hourly rates, cuts the 23-cent gap in half.

- Relatedly, men report a stronger desire to work more to earn more. Being more occupationally ambitious, men make more money.

- Men get more satisfaction from work. This is the corollary of women getting more satisfaction from nurturing children and taking care of the home.

If women doing the same work with the same efficacy as men were actually paid less, an easy way to crush the competition would be for a firm to fire all its men and hire women to replace them, thus realizing a 23% reduction in labor costs without changing anything else!

Perhaps Audi will take advantage of that? I wonder what percentage of this high-end, expertly-engineered automobile company is female. Surprisingly, the ad doesn't tell us. If we drill down into the company's website we can find it, though--14.2% as of the end of 2014.

From interracial relationships portrayed at any opportunity to every major corporation having its bugger logo ready to go the minute the supreme court blessed same-sex marriages, from celebrating the dispossession of America's founding stock to denigrating natives and cheering on foreigners, the corporate world is a fully converged arm of the Cathedral.

Women are a more precious resource than men because sperm are cheaper than eggs. Healthy societies know this. Despite the efforts of companies like Audi, most people instinctively know it as well. It's why we send men to fight in wars and why we put women and children in lifeboats first. A tribe coming out of a turf war with two men and 48 women remaining survives. A tribe coming out of the same conflict with 48 men and two women left alive does not.

Audi is in a position to lead here by embracing reality and refusing to apologize for it. Instead, they put out self-serving virtue-signalling like this stupid commercial as a means of providing cover for themselves so that entities like the EEOC will leave them alone in favor of harassing smaller, less well-connected companies whose pockets aren't deep enough to pay the Diversity Tax.

Parenthetically, the line about grandpa being worth more than grandma is a bald-faced lie. Women control most of the private wealth in the country because men, in part from having lived more physically stressful and dangerous lives, die younger, leaving their widows with everything.

Saturday, February 04, 2017

We want our country back

Core America wants its country back.

From Reuters-Ipsos, support for Trump's executive order banning refugees and restricting immigration from some Muslim countries among married whites with children:


Fake News can crow about it being unconstitutional (it's not), the (((usual suspects))) can disingenuously claim it's "not who we are" (it is), petty thugs can try to use street violence to intimidate us (for now), and the Cloud People can heap scorn on us (even more than usual)--we don't care.

Principles are out.

Interests are in.

For ourselves and our posterity.

SWPLs protest, blacks riot

Heartiste:
I’ve mentioned it before — and parisian privilege mentions it here — that geographic distribution plays a role in the Right-Left mass protest disparity. It’s simply a fact that densely populated coastal cities loaded up with shitlibs provide a large, quickly mobilized base from which to efficiently scale up a mass protest.
Undoubtedly. Relatedly, that Trump's first-term inaugural turnout was smaller than Obama's isn't surprising given Obama's enormous home field advantage. The Imperial City is more hostile to Trump than any other place in the country is.

Because validating stereotypes is the blog's raison d'etre, let's see if Heartiste's assertion does.

Every year of the survey, the GSS asks respondents what type of community they lived in when they were 16 years old. It'd be optimal to have residency at the time of participation, but the good need not be the enemy of the perfect. In 2002, the GSS asked respondents if they'd joined "a protest march or rally" in the last five years. The percentages of people who said they had, by community type at age 16 (n = 1,377):

Big city and surrounding suburbs -- 7.5%
Small town or city -- 6.4%
Farm/rural -- 1.8%

He's correct. The real relationship is almost certainly stronger than this implies because some people will have moved to a different type of community between the age of 16 and when they took part in the GSS, but even here a clear pattern emerges.

As Heartiste notes, population density doesn't tell the whole story. Protesting isn't a leftist thing per se, it's a SWPL activity (rioting, which blacks do, is less organized, more spontaneous, more violent, and does not involve virtue-signalling).  The percentages who've protested, by race and partisan affiliation among whites (n = 959):

White Democrats -- 10.6%
Blacks = 3.9%
White Republicans -- 3.3%
Asians -- 2.9%
Hispanics -- 0.0%

SWPLs raising awareness
Because the question was only asked in a single year, sample sizes for Asians and Hispanics are small*.

That said, these suggestive results mesh with what was on display at the women's marches. SWPLs are almost 3x as likely to join in public protests than blacks are even though the latter are more concentrated in high population density urban areas.

This presents us with another opportunity to carve the Coalition of the Fringes apart at the joints. When talking to someone who participated in a recent march, note how they were as white as the private schools they send their kids to (if they have any!). Or if the situation permits, note that most of the hard dysfunction on the left comes from non-whites. Join us on the identitarian side of things. You'll have the opportunity to make the alt-right more socially liberal in the process--everybody wins!

GSS variables used: PROTEST, RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), PARTYID(0-1,5-6), RES16(1-2,3-4,5-6)

* Sample sizes for white Democrats, blacks, white Republicans, Asians, and Hispanics are 294, 204, 381, 36, and 44, respectively.

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Change in margin of victory in 2016 from 2012, by state

The following map and table show the change in the margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election relative to 2012, by state, with positive (negative) figures indicating an improvement (deterioration) in the margin for Republicans. That is, the colors do not indicate who won the state in 2016, but show how much better (worse) Trump did in 2016 relative to how Romney did in 2012:


StateMargin▲
North Dakota17
West Virginia16
Iowa16
Rhode Island12
Maine12
South Dakota12
Ohio12
Indiana10
Hawaii10
Michigan9
Missouri9
Wisconsin8
Kentucky8
Mississippi8
Delaware8
Montana8
Vermont8
Wyoming7
Minnesota7
Tennessee6
Pennsylvania6
New Hampshire6
Alabama5
New York5
Nebraska4
New Jersey4
Connecticut4
Arkansas4
Nevada4
South Carolina3
Oklahoma2
Florida2
Colorado2
North Carolina2
Louisiana2
New Mexico2
Oregon1
Alaska1
Maryland1
Idaho1
Illinois0
Virginia(1)
Kansas(1)
Washington(1)
Georgia(1)
Massachusetts(3)
District of Columbia(5)
California(6)
Arizona(6)
Texas(7)
Utah(30)

Notice the similarities between the map above and this one, which shows Trump's electoral performance relative to pre-election polling. The states where Trump and Hillary beat polling
expectations tend to be the same places they beat their parties' 2012 candidates. The polls tended to assume that 2016 would look like 2012, but it didn't.

In other words, the primary failing of polling organizations--beyond their systematic oversampling of Democrats--was their refusal to grasp the political realignment that characterized the 2016 presidential election.

The oft-commented upon east-west divide--or more precisely, northeast-southwest divide--is salient. Trump's biggest relative gains came in the upper Midwest.

In the South the changes from 2012 were quite modest in the general election. The upper Midwest and even the Northeast shifted more dramatically.

However, the South is the area of the country where race and partisanship are most strongly correlated. The interesting dynamic here took place in the primaries, where not only did Trump dominate, but where his domination came as the biggest shock to the political and punditry classes.

The South, with an assist from Yankeedom, gave Trump the nomination; the Upper Midwest gave him the presidency.

On one hand, the Texas outcome is a worrisome one in an election that was otherwise almost universally good for Republicans. Trump's margin of victory was narrower in Texas than it was in Iowa, a blueish-purple state.

On the other hand, while I've previously warned that when Texas flips blue the GOP will be utterly finished, that admonition may be evidence for why my nom de guerre is fitting. Assuming no faithless electors, if Trump had lost Texas in November, Hillary would've only won by the narrowest Electoral College margin of victory possible, 270-268.

For those outside the US, a few notes on some of the seeming outliers:

- Utah -- Romney's heavily Mormon home state; additionally, the basket that failed spoiler Evan McMullin (also Mormon) put all of his eggs.

- Massachusetts -- Romney was governor from 2003 to 2006.

- Hawaii -- Obama spent most of his childhood here. While he's allegedly from Kansas, Hawaii and Illinois are his 'home states'.

- Iowa -- While Jeff Sessions was my VP favorite by a mile, one of the silver linings I saw in the Pence pick was that it would virtually guarantee Trump the state of Iowa. Pence was governor of Indiana but he is the archetypal Iowan Republican.