Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Long march through the Republican institutions

The only major Trumpian issue not being championed, yet, by the Dems is restricting immigration -- but then, neither is that being delivered by the Republicans, who control the entire government. Unlike the locked doors of the inward-looking GOP, the gates of the Democrat party have been left open and unattended -- so just invade their territory and dig yourself in as the immigration restriction camp of the Dems.
Perspicacity or delusion?

The latter, I'll argue. Agnostic again:
The GOP is not "going to learn" from the lessons where "Trump taught them how to win". They are an ossified party at the terminal stage of hegemony. How long can they be given to learn how to win? Trump destroyed their vision back in 2016. If they're still ignoring his winning platform, they will not be pursuing it anytime soon.
How long will restrictionists have to wait for Democrats to make even the most non-committal, mild gesture in the direction of immigration restriction?

Rhetorical, of course. The only plausible answer is "indefinitely". There's no talk of it whatsoever among any Democrats, anywhere. The Bernie Sanders of 2015 is a distant memory.

Sanders has been an entirely unfettered open borders zealot for years now. Among Democrats, it's zero tolerance for any nuance on the National Question.

Chuck Schumer, concerned he might get Pelosi-ed for working on a budget deal that allows for a few bollards to be placed along thirty miles of the nearly 2,000-mile long southern border, increased the odds Trump will veto said bill by prematurely bragging about how good it is for Democrats [edit: doesn't look like Trump will be vetoing anything, just whining on Twitter instead] before anyone has seen the thing. That's how fanatical the contemporary Democrat party is.

Trump's successful campaign, with immigration as its centerpiece, showed immigration's electoral viability among Republicans. Jim Webb, in contrast, had something--anything--other than totally-open-borders entirely to himself in the Democrat primaries and he couldn't even clear 1% support in a field of five people.

Agnostic downplays the importance of immigration to Trump's success:
I'd be careful about putting too much emphasis on immigration -- it's not the #1 issue for any sub-group of Americans [AE: that is no longer the case], nor for Trump's winning coalition.
It wasn't just Trump's campaign announcement that put immigration front and center. Channeling the bemusement of political commentators everywhere, Nate Silver noted that, after being operational for months, the only policy platform Trump's campaign website offered was on immigration. Silver figured that since immigration hadn't ever won before, it wouldn't win this time, either--and he, like so many others (but not all!), got BTFO as a result.

It is difficult to overstate how bold a move centering a campaign around immigration was back in 2015. To the infinite frustration of those of us who have tried for decades to make the National Question the preeminent one, it has a pretty lousy electoral track record.

I supported Tom Tancredo in 2008. He was the first Republican since Pat Buchanan in 1992 to make immigration a major campaign issue. He went nowhere.

In 2012, Rick Santorum had a damascene conversion on immigration. He didn't fare much better than Tancredo. In retrospect it looks like he did okay, but that's because he was the Kasich of 2016--he simply stuck around longer than a lot of other candidates. Santorum never had a chance at the nomination.

In 2016 we finally saw the first successful immigration-oriented presidential campaign (in the history of the Republican party?) occur. And the second most successful immigration-oriented presidential campaign, too--that of Ted Cruz.

This is exactly the wrong time for immigration restrictionists to do an about-face and try to capture the party that NumbersUSA gives over 90% of current congressional members an "F" grade to.

The siege has been a long and grinding one, but we've finally captured a few supply lines and a few of our guys, like Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions, have even managed to scale the walls. In 2016, Trump avoided CPAC in fear of being run out of town on a rail. A couple years later, speakers favoring open borders were being booed and heckled by attendees, while Marion Le Pen spoke in the conference room next door. All the Republicans who 'should' be seeking re-election but have opted not to are almost all open borders cucks of the worst order. Let Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and others with less name recognition leave the party:
Cuban-American and the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress, [Illeana] Ros-Lehtinen announced back in April 2017 that she will retire at the end of her current term. Speaker Paul Ryan afterward called her "a force." She has clashed with President Trump on transgender issues, deportations, and his travel ban.
To the extent that the answer is political, it is not to scour the country for the phantom Democrat restrictionist, it is to make immigration the only issue that matters and primary any Republican who waffles on it.

Monday, March 19, 2018

The Han Hundred

The inestimable Sid:
What's striking is that China is becoming ever more powerful in Africa, and they may ultimately tie their infrastructure projects in Africa to responsible fertility. I don't know if there are any trends in that direction, but I hope they can pull that off.
How worried are the Chinese about African fertility? The Han don't suffer from the same self-destructive universalistic, egalitarian impulses that Northwestern Europeans (WEIRDOs) do.

China's a big country. They'll keep the dumb Africans outside the walls and everything will be fine. Illegal invasion from Africa into China is nearly impossible. The infiltrators stick out like a sore thumb. If they try a Camp of the Saints move into China, the Chinese navy will sink the rapefugee ships and that will be that. The invaders will seek out whiter pastures.

More likely, China will use its influence in the UN and other global bodies to talk up a good game on universalism and egalitarianism in the general sense. That's why they go to American universities, after all! They'll gesture in the direction of involving themselves in resettlement with no intention of ever actually doing so.

Just as in the case of the Paris Accords, they'll never commit to anything concrete in the present nor will they make good on anything they pledge to do in the future, but will correctly count on naive Westerners to do so. Consequently, the relative Chinese position will become even stronger as the West suffocates under low IQ, feral hordes while China keeps the door shut Japanese-tight.

The more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes--short of the CRISPR revolution or scalable nuclear fusion--to imagine the 21st being anything other than the Chinese century.

The best we can probably realistically hope for in the West is that following the political dissolution of the US, we end up with an implicit (no welfare) or explicit (no non-whites) rump ethnostate in the mountain and/or upper Midwestern former US that, equipped with nuclear weapons, is able to ward off external military threats.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Overwhelming majority say illegal immigration is a threat

Over the last several months the Democrats have quietly put into place a winning electoral--running moderate white men. Those moderate white men in Virginia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania sound nothing like their colleagues in California.

Celebrating the dispossession of white Americans by illegal alien invaders comes naturally to someone like Kevin de Leon, who cut his political teeth as a community organizer organizing against Proposition 187, the judicial snuffing out of which sealed California's fate as majority non-white and thus forever blue.

It's an acquired taste for guys like Northam, Jones, and Lamb, though. Inexplicably, Jones and Lamb were able to avoid saying just about anything at all about immigration, and Northam only had to fend off a couple hail mary immigration ads by bugman Gillespie, whose heart was never in it anyway.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted last Fall--one that unsurprisingly never made the site's topline--provides the GOP with some very low-hanging fruit to pick ahead of the 2018 mid-terms. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who think illegal immigration either poses "no threat" or a "minimal threat" to the United States (N = 2,383; other possible responses were a "moderate threat", a "serious threat", and an "imminent "threat; "not sure" responses are excluded):

Republicans, ask your opponents exactly this--"Do you think illegal immigration is a threat to our country?"

Demand an answer. Outside of California, it's a devastating no-win question for Democrats to face. The invaders will tear Nancy Pelosi to pieces for not displaying sufficient zealotry in her desire to throw the doors open to all the beautiful brown skins and brown eyes in Latin America. How will these same invaders react to a pale white male who says their invasion is a threat? DACA, which would be dead now if not for the country's treasonous judiciary, contained the answer.

Our champions have flipped out over Trump appearing set to give the game away on multiple fronts--the biggest ones being immigration and guns. In both cases, Trump will end up doing the right thing.

Playing the role our champions have to keep him honest--and also to allow the tactical gambit to work--is laudable, but perhaps we can be more sanguine about these instances. Trump knows elected Democrats cannot go along with him on anything at all without their non-white base going berserk. The more accommodating and reasonable the president appears--while praetorian prefect Stephen Miller guides actual policy decisions--the more appealing Trumpism becomes to white independents and Democrats.

Everything is downstream of immigration. Not only is it the only issue that really matters, though, it's also a populist one where the optics favor Republicans. That the Stupid Party doesn't make every election about it--like, say, Donald Trump did--is why they continue to earn their Stupid Party moniker. 

Friday, March 16, 2018

We should have picked our own damned cotton


It's not okay to be white
No two-story buildings? No wheel? No surprise. The self-evident glee on their faces is the same sadistic glee their cousins experience when they're carving up the faces of Afrikaner toddlers.

Jared Taylor has said that if the founders could do it over again, he'd suggest Jefferson replace the second comma in the second paragraph of the Declaration with the word "in".

Z-Man's advice is even better: "Pick your own cotton".

(A parenthetical contemporary corollary to today's plutocrats: "Clean your own toilets").

Consider the cities of Nagasaki and Detroit in 1940 and today. In the interim, Nagasaki had an atomic bomb dropped on it and Detroit became majority-black. Which city is better off now? Rhetorical.

When the black population reaches critical mass, maintaining--let alone constructing--civilization effectively becomes impossible. Be it Baltimore, Haiti, or Zimbabwe, the outcome is never in doubt.

Oh c'mon, AE. I'm no Pollyanna but our future is Brazil, not South Africa!

Don't be so sure. We're looking at 4,000,000,000 sub-Saharan Africans incapable of feeding themselves by century's end. Those currently fleeing the dark continent are headed to Europe rather than North America in no small part because Donald Trump is in the White House. But that need not remain the case.

Is it difficult to imagine a president Kamala Harris browbeating us into taking in millions of teenage African refugees on account of it being Who We Are? The median ages in these 5.0+ TFR countries are in the high teens and early twenties, so 20 million 'refugees' becomes 100 million of someone else's babies a generation later.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Support for free speech among young college graduates has plummeted over last several decades

These are not unreasonable objections based on what was presented in the previous post. If the general tendency was for people to become more supportive of free speech as they aged, in fact, it could even be misleading. That, however, is not the case, as is illustrated below. People tend to become more conservative as they age, and their tolerance for disagreeable speech is no exception.

To show that the previous results are not simply an artifact of asking boomers about their positions on free speech when they are middle-aged while asking subsequent generations the same question when they are in their teens and twenties and also to show that, contrary to Steven Pinker and Fatt Yglesias, it is not the young, college-educated pups who are currently raising the torch of free speech, the following graph shows percentages of respondents who favor allowing "racists" to speak in public, by the decade they participated in the survey and by their age at the time of participation (N = 5,411):

In the seventies, then, we're looking at college-educated boomers (born between 1941 and 1960, concentrated most heavily among those born in the late forties and early fifties) on the green trend line. This is among the highest level of support for free speech shown in the survey's nearly half-century of existence. Boomers, both in their youth and in their later years, expressed more support for free speech than their parents did and than their children would.

The next batch of college-educated under-thirties (late boomers and early Xers) express less support for free speech than the cohort preceding them. With each passing decade, support for free speech among college-educated under-thirties declines. It is on pace to be a minority position among young college graduates a generation down the road--at about the same time whites become a minority in the country their ancestors built, in fact. Purely coincidentally, of course.

As a member of the twitterverse put it:

To repeat, free speech faces a bleak future. Diversity may well be its downfall.

Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, AGE(18-29)(40-60), DEGREE(2-4), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Contrary to Steven Pinker, support for free speech is falling

The article Pinker links to is by a square-jawed writer who took data from an academic who probably got the idea from (covertly) reading Steve Sailer, as so many of the intelligentsia do. It covers the same GSS free speech module previous posts have been based on here. There is no mention of demographic differences in support for free speech beyond the strong relationship between support for it and general intelligence.

The data Yglesias presents is not inaccurate. Expressed support for the right of homosexuals and atheists to speak publicly has steadily increased over the last several decades. People in the West no longer care if gays bugger, proselytize, marry, etc. Christianity, long since put out to pasture in Europe, is cratering in the US. After the Cold War ended, support for allowing communists and militarists to speak began to markedly increase as well. Collapsed and discredited. What's the harm?

These four categories don't deal with biological differences between individuals and populations, though. Identity is the most important issue of the 21st century, and only the question about "racists" addresses it.

The definition of "racist" has expanded enormously over the last couple of generations to encompass just about everyone to the right of, to take a random example, Steven Pinker. It now putatively includes the half of the population--and the majority of white Americans--who voted for Donald Trump. Pinker and Yglesias both know damned well that cultural elites and non-whites are increasingly applying the "racist" label to everyone who put the president in office.

Indeed, a recent poll found that a majority of people in the US think president Trump is a racist. Combine that with the graph above, and we're looking at well north of 100 million people in the US believing that the president should not be allowed to speak!

We see why they hit us with bike locks in the city that birthed the free speech movement, I guess. Deplorables must be silenced.

Support for the free speech of "racists" is most assuredly not rising. To the contrary, it is falling. And yes, it's falling among liberals. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by decade of birth and political orientation, who say racists should be permitted to speak in public (N = 32,858):

The right to openly talk about controversial or contentious subjects is a boomer ideal, one on track to die with them. It was born of a confident, victorious people during an era of nearly no immigration. The disunited polyglot of squabbling tribes now camped out from sea to shining sea have no use for it. Contrary to Pinker's opinion, it's future is bleak.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, COHORT(1910-1919)(1920-1929)(1930-1939)(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Handicapping the 2018 mid-terms

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of adults, by selected demographics, who are "certain to vote" in the 2018 mid-term elections (N = 12,155):

Excepting Jews (the blue wave!), all the bars look pretty good for the GOP's prospects--except for the presidential candidate those polled voted for in 2016, and that's a big one.

Another poll shows Republicans only enjoying a 55%-45% edge among whites in a two-way race on a generic ballot.If that comes to pass we're looking at a congressional massacre. On the other hand, this is Reuters, an outfit that regularly inflates Democrat polling numbers.

Firing legal shots at the fugitive state everyone else loves to hate is an encouraging move, but Trump has to really feed the base in the next six months if he doesn't want to spend the next two years dealing with impeachment proceedings loosely tied to the Fake Russia perjury trap.

A lot will depend on what Democrats do. Will it be the moderate white guy play a la Northam in Virginia and Jones in Alabama, or will it be a ballot pulled from the Coalition of the Fringes? Diane Feinstein's fate will likely be a leading indicator. Early polling suggests (((Feinstein))) will blow her halfling challenger out. If she does, 2018 is going to be tough.

Saturday, March 10, 2018


Anatoly Karlin assumes the herculean task of quantifying the JQ (Z-Man recently did the same). The first thing Karlin tackles is whether or not Jews tend to be "more loyal to Israel than [this country/to the countries they live in]".

From nearly its inception through the mid-nineties, the GSS asked respondents how much they like or dislike various countries. The following graph shows percentages who gave the country in question the highest "like" rating possible.

In the case of the evaluation of Israel, the response pool is restricted to those who religiously identify as Jewish. For all other countries, the response pools are restricted to those who ethnically identify with each of the countries under consideration. That is, bar for Israel shows what percentage of Jewish respondents really like Israel, the bar for China shows what percentage of ethnically Chinese respondents really like China, etc (N = 1,888):

Most of this data was collected during the Cold War so the negative sentiments towards China and especially Russia are not particularly surprising (and, I guess, modestly reassuring--or at least providing of some excuse for boomer civic nationalism during its heyday).

Some obscure Jew once said a man cannot serve two masters, but the great GOPe hope disagrees.

GSS variables used: ETHNIC(3-4,5,9,16,23), RELIG(3), ISRAEL, CHINA, JAPAN, ENGLAND, RUSSIA, CANADA

Friday, March 09, 2018

Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals

In case Principled Conservatism's capitulation on same-sex marriage wasn't convincing enough, the following graph shows support for marijuana legalization, by political orientation, over time (three-year rolling average; N = 32,371):

Conservatives are as supportive of legalization today as liberals were during Bill Clinton's second term.

The Respectable Right couldn't even conserve women's restrooms.

Standing athwart history yelling "stop"? Hah! Timidly, in hushed tones, asking if we might ease up on the accelerator just a hair, more like. Has Jonah Goldberg penned the conservative case for 35 genders yet?

GSS variables used: YEAR, GRASS, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Gen Z: Molon Labe

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who oppose banning [the sale or possession of] "semi-automatic" weapons (N = 2,575):

Have a white pill, fam. The generation with its back against the wall is the one that just might save us all.

Parenthetically, the scare quotes around semi-automatic in the opening sentence are partly editorial. Nearly every gun in the country not an antique is semi-automatic, but most non-enthusiasts don't know that. They hear the word "automatic" and think what is being referred to is some special class of military-grade weapon capable of mowing down an entire mob of zombies. They don't realize the hunting rifle in their neighbor's basement is a semi-automatic.

If the terminology was changed to something like "hunting rifles", the demographic gaps would likely remain similar, but opposition to banning would be higher across the board.

The school walkout movement is being driven by old vinegar-drinking scolds. The students are pawns. The little weasel who has been Hogging the spotlight is not a representative zyklon.

The correlation between gun grabbing and being long in the tooth holds among members of both political parties:

If there is hope, it rests in young men wearing red hats. White Republicans under the age of 30 are the demographic in strongest opposition to gun grabbing.

Monday, March 05, 2018

Trump's vote share and white total fertility rate by state

Using data from the CDC for 2016, Cicerone calculated total fertility rates (TFR) by state and by race for US:

Look at the black figures for Maine and Minnesota. Somalis and other Wakandans are doing what Americans won't do--replicate themselves.

Utah and North Dakota are above replacement for whites. South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, Hawaii, Alaska, Kansas, and Iowa have their noses just below the water line.

And then there is the swamp, the life-sucking Imperial Capital of the Empire of Nothing, at a pathetic 1.04.

We hear a lot about how many of the West's leaders are childless, Mama Merkel most notoriously. It's not just the figureheads, though--it's their retinues and their legions, too. We're ruled over by people who have no skin in the game. They don't care about posterity because they don't have any posterity.

Parenthetically, the conventional assumption is that a TFR of 2.10 is replacement-level, but among developed countries it's under that and dropping closer to 2.05 with each passing year* while in the Wakandas of the world it's well north of that.

Here's a graphical representation of the (non-Hispanic) white TFR:

If it reminds you a lot like the 2016 electoral map, that's because the white TFR and Trump's share of the vote in a two-way race correlate at a vigorous .76 (p = .0000000001). That's Trump's share of the total vote by state, not just the white vote, and still the relationship is remarkably strong, though not quite as strong as it was when Steve Sailer noticed it in the 2000 presidential election well over a decade ago. Whites were nearly 70% of the population then. We're just 61% of the population today. Time is running out.

Institute a moratorium on immigration, repatriate non-citizens residing in the US, and the political future belongs to Republicans. The Democrats know this. It's why they're always working so hard to elect a new people.

It's unfortunate such an obvious path to Republican political dominance is so fiercely obstructed by Republican voters! Oh wait...

Seriously, the GOP isn't called the Stupid Party for nothing. Republican voters want immigration restrictionism. The Republican party benefits politically from immigration restrictionism. But the party's leadership refuses to do anything serious about immigration.

They refuse to do anything because the puppeteer cliques won't let their swamp dwelling puppets restrict immigration, of course.

We must cut the strings. The only conceivable way for this to happen is for a critical mass of Heritage Americans to become single-issue voters. If your congress critter isn't good on the National Question, he has to be primaried or beaten in the general election.

* Thanks to an anonymous commenter for correcting me here, though it still seems 2.10 is overstated. An analysis of non-Hispanic whites in the US from 1970-2002 found 105 boys born for every 100 girls, and for non-white groups the numbers were closer than that. This means for whites, then, that each group of 100 women must have 205 children for replenishment. Infant mortality for whites afflicts half of one percent of all live births, bumping it towards 2.06 (though not quite there since baby boys are more likely to die in infancy than baby girls are). Additionally, the 96% of white women who make it to age 50 must pick up the slack for the 4% who do not.

Saturday, March 03, 2018

Ice people f*cking love science!

The percentages of people in the US, by selected demographics, who do agree that modern science does more good than harm (N = 2,675):

Some people think the way to Wakanda is through physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and applied technology. Others think it comes from a magic rock falling from the sky that spreads that magic through the surrounding dirt. The former are in demographic decline. The latter continue to undergo a massive demographic expansion.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2016), HARMGOOD(1-3)(4-5), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), BORN, SEX, RELIG(3)

Friday, March 02, 2018

Popularis Trump

Most Americans favor allowing teachers to arm themselves, and some states already allow it. It's not a radical or reactionary idea, it's a modestly populist one. From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages who favor permitting teachers and other school personnel to conceal and carry (N = 1,450):

Keeping guns away from the mentally ill gets overwhelming support:

Homosexuality used to be a mental illness while chain smoking was not classified as one. Now chain smoking is a mental illness while homosexuality is not. Most Cloud People probably think anyone who voted for Donald Trump is mentally ill.

What qualifies as a mental illness at any given time is largely driven by cultural fads, not science. This is not my endorsement of such a policy, but it is a popular one.

As is the case on so many things, Trump's positions are more popular than he is.

The president's talk of firearm restrictions has crossed a line for many of his erstwhile supporters.

That's understandable, though I suspect this is the usual non-committal Trumpian blather. He floats it out there to create an impression of reasoned moderation and to test the waters before pulling it back in and doing what his base wants him to do.

If a bill actually looks like it might make its way to his desk, though, it's time to burn down the capitol building. The government can't protect its own stuff, so it sure as hell won't protect yours:

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Moral Mormons

Indulge me as I reclinate back to the blog's mission statement--validating stereotypes--by way of an enormous Reuters-Ipsos poll (N = 149,591) asking respondents what they perceive to be the most important problem facing the US, from a list of thirteen possible answers. The following graph shows the percentages, by religious affiliation, who identify morality as the big one:

Though he is actually cast as a mainline Protestant of some sort, Ned Flanders is my Mormon mental archetype. How long will they hold onto the fifties? Probably not much longer.

Jews, unsurprisingly, express the least concern.

Catholic, atheist--what's the difference anymore?

At least exploding Muhammads will be allies in the Culture War. They will be, right? Hello?

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Immigration, Mr. President

It's been noted here previously that big-R Republicanism is undergoing a political realignment. It didn't come with Trump wrapping up the party's nomination in the summer of 2016, winning the election in November of that year, or even being sworn into office. It has happened since then. Not with stunning rapidity, but steadily.

Pax Dickinson allegedly remarked that the anti-Trump 2016 iteration of CPAC, contrary to the beliefs of the 'principled conservatives' in attendance, was their movement's funeral. Consider some of the inclusions in this year's conference--Nigel Farage, radio hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who bucked tradconnery by strongly supporting Trump a couple of years ago, and best of all, Marion Le Pen. Marion Le Pen, of the National Front, a party more hostile to the war in Iraq than Jacques Chirac's center-right party was. We've come a long way from freedom fries!

The National Question is damned near the only question that matters. For immigration patriots, it's a point of infinite frustration to see it regularly come in several spots down from the top in polls and surveys asking Republicans about issues they are most concerned about. Health care, the economy, education, terrorism--all issues that are, in reality, downstream of immigration yet that are consistently perceived to be upstream of immigration in terms of importance.

Until now. Here's evidence that warms my heart more than anything in the opening couple of paragraphs. Since the end of January, Reuters-Ipsos has been conducting an ongoing poll (N = 11,537 as of this posting) on which issue facing the country, among a list of thirteen, is deemed most important. Among all Republicans, immigration comes in second (17.2%), just a half-step behind terrorism (17.6%). Good stuff.

But it gets better. Among Republican white men under 35, immigration comes out way on top:

Among boomercons, immigration is a problem largely in that it facilitates terrorism. Among zyklons, terrorism is just the tip of the immigration iceberg.

The slumbering giant isn't just stirring anymore, he's opening his eyes.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Smash the sanctuaries

Around the time of the Kate Steinle verdict, Paul Kersey suggested on AmRen radio that Trump or Sessions order the feds to arrest a sanctuary an accomplice big city mayor for flagrantly violating federal immigration law. Cuffing governor Jerry Brown would be even better. It's the kind of thing Trump has the cojones to do.

It will be wildly popular. Following the Steinle verdict, I took a look at a poll of San Franciscans--who went 85%-9% for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump--and found just half the city's residents wanted it to remain an accomplice.

One of the most leftist cities in America, in the state that has both the largest Hispanic and the largest illegal alien populations in the country, and the residents are evenly split on the sanctuary city question. Guess how the rest of the nation feels?

Way back in 2012, when Obama was in the midst of unconstitutionally issuing an executive order to grant 'temporary' amnesty to nearly one million illegal aliens, Reuters-Ipsos asked if law enforcement should arrest people in the US who simply lack of legal residency documentation, no other preceding crime necessary. This is, of course, what accomplice cities--and now the entire state of California--work to keep from happening. The following graph shows percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who agree that the 'undocumented' should be arrested for so being (N = 2,761):

Majorities across all racial, sex, religious, and political lines oppose cities and states shielding illegal aliens from interior immigration enforcement. And this was before the issue gained its Trumpian salience. Public sentiment is likely even more overwhelmingly in favor of the feds and against the accomplices now than it was then.

Frog march, with cameras rolling, a miscreant like Brown or de Blasio down the stairs into a white van and prepare for Trumpslide 2020.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Hogging the spotlight

John Derbyshire expresses sentiments I share:
Another school shooting, another flurry of pointless arm-flapping from the commentariat. 
It's the same old stuff: every commentator mounting his favorite hobby-horse and galloping off to the races. Stricter federal gun control! Ban long guns for civilians! Mental health! Broken families! Violent video games! And of course: Trump!

This is tedious, and it gets more tedious each time around.
The Derb has arrived here after decades of thoughtful reflection. My trip has been much shorter. These sorts of one-off instances overwhelm my knack for teasing out simple but often overlooked patterns.

Some observations, none particularly novel:

- The AR-15, the gun used in Florida, has been around since 1963. It predates the onset of mass school shootings by more than a generation. Gun ownership rates have been steadily declining for several decades. The idea that guns are the root cause rather than a symptomatic expression of a deeper cultural rot is difficult to maintain in light of these things.

- The perpetrators of these incidents are often ice people. That's because these incidents are premeditated. NAM violence, while more frequent overall, is often of the heat-of-the-moment variety.

- Speaking of race, a hobby-horse here, blacks are much less likely to own guns than whites are. From the GSS, gun ownership rates by race. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 11,955):

Yet while blacks are less likely than whites to possess guns, they are far more likely to kill people with them. Blacks are not only more likely to murder, blacks who do commit murder are more likely to do so using a gun than non-blacks (who are relatively more likely to do so by way of arson or poison).

Taking a page from the left and ignoring Asians, we get a situation of fewer guns, more murder at the level of race.

- The "toxic masculinity" angle is the most risible one of all. We are balls-deep in the era of gender benders, declining T-levels, and soy boys. The shooters are reliably wallflowers, not Chads.

In no way is 2018 America more masculine than 1958 America was (except for maybe body-building, which is a larping masculinity anyway). To the contrary, it is less virile and more feminine. Whatever the causation, the correlation between masculinity and school shootings appears to be an inverse one.

- The boys aren't wild anymore, but they are seriously medicated. Psychotropic usage rates have increased for decades, particularly among young males. Their use is one thing that seems to be reliably shared among all of these shooters.

- Another reliable similarity is that these incidents always take place in gun-free zones.

Between 3%-10% of firearm murders are committed by people legally in possession of the firearm they used to carry out the murders. We could try and legislatively chip away at that 10%, but I have a better idea--let's simply make murder illegal and then we'll prevent 100% of the killings!

Why not allow teachers to conceal and carry if they want to? Teachers aren't as loony as they're made out to be.

- It's been noted that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is in a Jewish enclave of Parkland. I've not seen stats on that, but racially the school is strikingly representative of the US on the whole:

61% White
18% Hispanic
11% Black
7% Asian
2% Other

My vague sense is that these shootings tend to happen at schools that 'look like America'. The ice brigades aren't lighting up 90%+ NAM schools where they've been the relentless victims of racist bullying, nor are they happening in schools that are as white as rural Vermont. It's Diversity + Proximity = War, with shooting sprees being a most extreme expression of that war.

If I were able to find a good source for US shootings exclusively at junior highs and high schools, it'd be something worth looking at systematically. Even then, though, it's unclear what the median or modal demographic profiles of American public schools are, nor do I have a precise sense of the distribution across schools. Might be something for an aspiring PhD to take a crack at.

- From a cousin who works for a Democrat senator in DC and has since blocked and unfriended me for the response below:

They get to feed well-rehearsed lines to major media outlets who give them as many takes as they need to give a perfectly lugubrious delivery, they get hundreds of thousands of social media followers and the vaunted blue check mark overnight, they become instantly recognizable national celebrities while no one outside of the friends and families of the victims are able to recognize the actual victims of the shooting--so brave!

They putatively went out to do good--while the bodies were not just warm, but still alive!--and they will end up doing very well indeed.


Having vomited up my thoughts on a multi-faceted topic, I'll close with a more standard empirical offering.

Almost as quickly as David Hogg appeared on CNN following the Parkville shooting, SurveyUSA was commissioned to conduct a poll about school shootings among residents of the Portland, Oregon area.

"Portlandia" is the SWPL capital of the planet. It went 73%-17% for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. Yet even its residents do not identify restricting gun access as the best way to reduce school shootings.

From a list of five possible choices--making gun access more difficult, better mental health care, better security, a reduction in bullying, and "other"--better security came out on top. A little under one-quarter (24%) of all respondents chose gun restrictions.

Random Dude writes:
Gun rights is an issue that finally awakens the sleeping boomercons. Gun control is absolutely a losing issue and the NRA set will crush any half-assed astroturf event that people, CNN especially, seem to be conjuring up.
If gun grabbing isn't a winning issue in Portland, it's dead on arrival at the national level.

There are some demographic differences in preferred approaches that should (but won't) concern libertarians putatively opposed to the encroaching police state. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by race, who identified each of the five possible solutions as the most important:

As noted previously, I'm with the beaners on this one. Instead of an extra SRO, though, allow teachers and administrators to carry. Gun-free zones are where mass shootings occur because they are the softest targets. If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns, as the saying goes.

Parenthetically, a couple of excerpts illustrating r/K selection theory in action among homo sapiens. First, the Hispanic r. They're the ones having lots of kids:

And then the white K. We're the ones actively parenting the few kids we do have:

Mr. Larsen gets the last word:

GSS variables used: OWNGUN(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)

Thursday, February 22, 2018

It's okay to be white

The women's hockey team thinks so, or at least one heroine among them does.

My wife had the replay from last night's game on. As we were watching the medals being given out, I made note of how aesthetically pleasing this line of healthy, nubile white women singing the national anthem and waving the stars and stripes was. As the flags of the US, Canada, and Norway were raised, I joked with my wife that #OlympicsSoWhite.

Then NBC cut to video of the team photo being taken:

Maybe there's a mundane hockey-centric meaning of the "it's okay" sign that I'm unaware of, but it looks like our girl wants the whole world to see that, indeed, it's okay to be white.

Nine of these women are Zs. Is this one? If she's a late millennial, well, she's just a little ahead of the curve!

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Essence matters

Ann Coulter picked up the previous post on twatter. In her wake followed a flotilla of what Vox Day derisively refers to as "midwits". Some of the 'criticism' was cringe-inducingly terrible:

But some of it was reasonable enough:

Yes, following the link would've revealed that it applied to less than one-quarter of all responses, but the issue is worth addressing.

If we wanted the results of the poll to put the FBI/DOJ/Deep State in as unfavorable a light as possible, the graph would've looked something like this:

Just half of Clinton voters think the FBI is acting impartially, while majorities from every other group do not think they are doing so! Looks positively catastrophic for the FBI, as opposed to just bad, as is actually the case.

In the same way reporting that polling on the eve of the 2016 presidential election showed Hillary Clinton's support at 26% would have been technically true, since she garnered just under 66 million votes out of an adult population of 250 million, presenting it like this is intentionally misleading. There's a reason serious polling outfits restrict responses to likely voters, or preface questions to registered voters with "if you were voting today, ..."

Presenting the three different responses across 11 different demographic groups would leave us with 33 bars in the graph. It would be more obfuscating and overwhelming than clarifying.

What I'm always after in these exercises is the expression of general sentiment in a clear, concise way that is easy to comprehend. The source data is, except in the rare case where something is paywalled, directly linked to and freely accessible, and notes on presentation--in this case, that "unsure" responses were excluded--made clear.

In this case, the figures are from Reuters-Ipsos raw survey data, not from a write up on the results. Parenthetically, the poll was only administered for a week, no public release was made (so far as I'm aware), and it never showed up on the interactive polling explorer site's main page. It's almost as if this little doozy is one the bosses weren't too keen on getting out!

Monday, February 19, 2018

Fake Russia collusion calumny delivers body blow to FBI's credibility

The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who agree that some members of the FBI and DOJ are trying to delegitimatize president Trump through politically-motivated investigations (that's putting it mildly to say the least). The data comes from a Reuters Ipsos poll that was conducted the first week of February. "Unsure" answers, comprising less than one-quarter of all responses, are excluded (N = 2,417):

The Deep State may seem untouchable, but there is one thing no power center in the West can afford to lose: Legitimacy.

Nearly half of blacks and more than 1-in-3 Clinton voters suspect foul play. Majorities of other contingents of the Coalition of the Fringes smell something rotten.

The jig is up. The FBI's legitimacy is bleeding out. Mueller may throw another smoke bomb before slithering away, but the FBI has been harpooned.

Devin Nunes is a hero. May other supine congress critters and officials take inspiration from his ability to find a spine.

Trump's ability to leave every entity that tangles with him worse for the wear is really something to behold. The Bush family, the Clintons, the dinosaur media, the Pope, the GOPe, the Obama administration, the NFL, National Review, the FBI--he's landed body blows on the credibility of all of them. He pulls it off every single time.

Friday, February 16, 2018


I recently asked if Mormons are alone among sizable population subgroups in the US in experiencing eugenic fertility patterns.

I failed to even evaluate Jews (there go my alt right credentials!). My thought process was the orthodox have lots of kids while secular Jews don't and the former are dullards while the latter have the highest mean IQ in the world. Ergo, Jewish fertility must be dysgenic.

There are limitations inherent in the GSS data on the 2% that make those assumptions difficult to put to the test here. Of the total Jewish survey sample, only 5% identify as orthodox. A plurality identifies as reform with the rest being conservative or "none of these". With only a handful of orthodox responses to work with, they can't be reliably separated out from the rest of the Jewish sample.

There is also the issue of Jewishness as a religion, an ethnicity, or some combination of the two. The survey only asks about Jewishness in the context of religion, not of ethnicity. Consequently, some portion of ethnic Jews surely identified as having no religion rather than as Jewish. Yet a lot of irreligious Jews must also be religiously identifying as Jewish as well, because the survey's contingent of religiously-identified Jews is, much to Isaac's relief, not particularly godly:

That said, among the mostly reform and conservative Jewish sample (n = 449), those with more on the ball make more out of their balls. Their fertility pattern is directionally similar to Mormons, but the Jewish fertility curve is shifted considerably to the left of the LDS one. For good measure, those who indicated they had no religion (n = 3,167) are also included, but only a fraction of this group is ethnically Jewish. To avoid language fluency issues, responses are restricted to those born in the US:

GSS variables used: JEW, RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(9), BORN(1), WORDSUM(0-5)(6-7)(8-10), GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6)

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Eugenic Mormons

The following graph compares mean number of children, by intelligence as measured by Wordsum*, among whites (n = 13,492), among blacks (n = 3,858), and also among Mormons (n = 342). To avoid language fluency issues, only those born in the US are considered:

This is astounding. Are Mormons the only group in the US of significant size that breeds today like the English of centuries ago did?

Not only has modern contraception decoupled fornication from procreation, it has also severed the relationship between intelligence and reproduction likely unprecedented in human history.

We rediscover God, we CRISPR into level 99 ubermensches, or we eventually welcome Idiocracy.

Parenthetically, this isn't the only instance that the severe dysgenic trend among American blacks has come up. It's markedly more pronounced than the trends for non-black groups are. Since IQ itself remains a mostly taboo topic, it's no surprise that black dysgenics are never invoked as a potential explanation for worsening levels of black dysfunction over the last couple of generations.

GSS variables used: BORN(1), ETHNIC(7-15,18,19,21,23-27), RACE(2), OTHER(61,64), CHILDS, WORDSUM(0-5)(6-7)(8-10)

* The total population distribution under this classification breaks down as 36%/40%/24% low/middling/high intelligence. This is as close to a 33%/33%/33% split as is attainable given the Wordsum's 10-point scale.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Smear the Episcopalian

Z-Man reads from the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer (DC diocese version):

This is in the context of his pointing out how gay--or more precisely, lesbian--the Anglican offshoot's leadership has become.

The GSS cannot speak about said leadership, but it does allow for a look at the laity. And the Episcopalian laity is pretty gay. The following graph shows the percentages of members of various Christian denominations in the US who are homosexual or bisexual. All data are from 2008--the first year the survey began explicitly asking about sexual orientation--onward (N = 4,901):

Mary, parental unit of Jesus/Jesusa/Them, Z-Man has done it again!

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, DENOM(10-19)(20-29)(30-39)(40-49)(50), OTHER(59-64), RELIG(2)

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Not tired

Speculating on Trumpian tactics is tough. Assuming he has handed over strategic considerations to trusted senior policy adviser Stephen Miller--heaven preserve him--makes things a little easier. Having done so has allowed me to remain--in stark contrast to many titans of the dissident right--consistently optimistic about the administration's handling of DACA specifically, and immigration more generally, over the last several of months.

Steve Sailer explains:
The longer the Democrats talk about immigration, disclosing ever more accurately what’s really on their minds, the better Trump will do with the electorate. Maybe Trump could arrange for some elderly Democratic leader to give, say, an eight-hour speech about Dreamers? Who knows what rationalizations the old Democrat might dredge up?
From that post, a shot of a truly risible NYT editorial: does not include "illegal" in the definition of "criminal" nor "criminal" in the definition of "illegal" because doing so would mean using a term to describe itself--the two are synonyms!

If we dispense with the NYT's elegant variation, then, we are able to end the sentence in one of two ways. Either:
... smearing those who come criminally to the US as criminals.
... smearing those who come illegally to the US as illegals.
This is supposed to be an illustration of how awful the president is!

Give Nancy Pelosi as much rope as possible--eight hours is ample time.

Yes, emphasizing the illegal aspect of immigration just scratches at the surface of what's important, but that's all most people do most of the time when it comes to national affairs. Politics is the art of the possible.

DACA expires in less than a month. At that point 800,000 'dreamers' lose the veneer of legal residency. They become illegal aliens and can be dealt with as such.

In addition to winning on DACA, Trump has also gone a long way to framing the Democrats as the party of non-Americans and--despite their best efforts at self-sabotage--the Republicans as the party of Americans.

On top of that, these last couple months have been quite good for the GOP's mid-term prospects At the beginning of November, Reuters Ipsos polling began mid-term generic congressional ballot tracking. Among registered voters, the Democrat advantage over the four months the poll has been conducted (N = 29,823):

R-I's last poll, two days before the presidential election, put Clinton at +5, 3 points better than her actual performance. Given that "likely voter" polls favor Republicans more than "registered voter" polls do, and that Republicans tend to do better in mid-terms than in general elections, we're being presented with a template of how to win both politically and electorally, while Trump continues to show the way on how to win culturally.

A lot could change the next eight months--particularly if the economy takes a nose dive--but this progress on the National Question is worth celebrating.

Thursday, February 08, 2018

Climb on two by two to be sure these days continue

Dan comments:
In modern life, hedonism and low fertility is a default and it requires some special meaning to rise past that. For most, that meaning is religion.

(Before birth control of course, hedonists were leaving bastards everywhere.)
One of the consequences of modern contraception is the historically unprecedented decoupling of fornication and procreation. More of the former no longer means more of the latter. To the contrary, there is an inverse correlation between notch count and fertility (once the number of partners reaches one, of course!), a trend that is likely accelerating, not attenuating.

The following table shows the mean number of children men and women have had by the total lifetime number of sexual partners of the opposite sex they've had since turning eighteen. All respondents are at least 40 years of age. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are included. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 6,999):

The repercussions of this decoupling are being played out now, the ultimate ramifications yet uncertain.

This probably plays some role in the relative prudishness of Zs and millennials, generational cohorts who are less sexually active and less recklessly promiscuous than Xers and baby boomers were at the same times in their lives.

From the middle of the 20th century onward, Western societies have experienced something novel for to humanity up to this point--men and women with fewer sexual partners having more children than men and women who have more of them. The Golden Horde or the House of Saud the contemporary Occident most certainly is not (yet). This isn't the whole story, but it must be part.

GSS variables used: NUMMEN(1-989), NUMWOMEN(1-989), SEX, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), CHILDS, AGE(40-89)

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Atheism is maladaptive

This isn't breaking news, but it could use a little search engine optimization. Find something concise and easily digestible proved difficult, so here it is.

The following table shows, by theistic orientation, the mean number of children non-Hispanic whites, aged at least 40 when the question was asked, have ever had. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 6,693):

Thoughts on GodKids
Uncertain believer2.02
Firm believer2.38

Relatedly, mean age when the first one was born among those who have ever had a child, because TFR isn't the only thing that matters (N = 5,450; same demographic parameters):

Thoughts on GodAge at first birth
Atheist/agnostic26.7 years
Uncertain believer25.5 years
Firm believer23.4 years

If the religious shall inherit the earth, we're in trouble.

GSS variables used: AGEKDBRN, GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), AGE(40-89), CHILDS

Monday, February 05, 2018

Coke is woke

Steve Sailer on tunnels of oppression:
What really jumped out at me reading up on the Tunnel of Oppression phenomenon was that it seems to appeal most to the most fly-overish colleges imaginable: Boise State, Wichita State, Texas Tech, Indiana, Southern Illinois, Northern Illinois, Western Illinois, and so forth.

You might think that the Tunnel of Oppression would appeal to coastal elitists, but I can’t find any evidence that Harvard, Yale, or Princeton have ever touched the Tunnel of Oppression with a ten-foot pole.

You might think that ultra-liberal Brown U. would host the Tunnel of Oppression, but a Google search reveals only that it was set up in the Brown Ballroom at Illinois State. Similarly, the Tunnel of Oppression has been at Penn State, but not at Ivy League Penn.

In the San Francisco Bay area, the Tunnel of Oppression has been hosted at San Jose State, Santa Clara, and Cal State East Bay, but not, as far as I can tell, at Berkeley or Stanford.
I wasn't alone in noticing a similar pattern in market brands on display at commercial breaks during the Super Bowl:

With one exception mentioned below, the anti-white messaging from these giants was devoid of subtlety. T-Mobile was the worst offender. This wasn't merely the worst commercial I saw last night, it was the worst commercial I've ever seen in my life:

Unlike T-Mobile, Coke mercifully adds some visual distractions to allow the viewer, with enough effort, to distinguish this experience from the mandatory meeting he sat through with the scold from HR last Tuesday:

Catch that black liberation flash at the end? Nice touch. And, it must be admitted, rather subtle.

Comment sections are becoming endangered species on the dinosaur reservations. They're disabled for the T-Mobile video, but they're not on the one from Coke. As of this posting, we're at 262 likes to 617 dislikes, with commenters validating for umpteenth time the veracity of John Derbyshire's observational riff off Orwell's 1984: If there is hope, it lies in the comment threads.

Toyota did the best job illustrating Jack Donovan's concept of an empire of nothing:

Reverend Loveboy eagerly dipping out of the empty nave to collect the rest of the Coexist bumper sticker so all the false teachers can participate in what really fills their lives with meaning. That is not, of course, their kin nor the temple of their gods--it's the mindless consumerism of sportsball!

We may find encouragement beyond the guerrillas in the comment fields, though. There were a couple notable examples of whitelash against the dispossession. By far the aesthetic best came from Dodge:

With the exception of one valkyrie vixen, they're all high-T, Nordic men. Not a hint of mystery meat from start to Finnish.

Runner-up came from WeatherTech:

Solid white men laying concrete and forging steel, flanked by a closing caption that reads "we built our new factory right here in America. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?"

Indeed. MAGA!