Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Kobach in Koch country

Don Junior is a simulacrum of candidate Donald Trump. He frames everything in the context of whether it is America First or Not. Asked why he stays involved in politics now that the campaign is over, he answered that it was for the "good of our children and our children's children". Ourselves and our posterity, implicitly.

He attributes the weeks he spent as a kid each summer in communist Czechoslovakia for his inculcation against leftism. History has a sense of humor.

Junior can't be canned. We're fortunate he has dad's ear. No matter what happens, Trump will never
be fully isolated by his counselors.

The funniest moment of the night was when Junior was describing how he'd bought the media narrative about Trump supporters all being angry old white men. So when he was in the airport and a, uh, an, um, uh, it was, when a woman, uh, with dreadlocks--(yes, that will do!)--when a woman with dreadlocks saw him and said "I need to talk to you", he was expecting the third degree but instead she allegedly thanked him.

Junior hasn't been a shitlord for that long. Give him time, he'll figure it out!

Kris Kobach was fantastic. He effortlessly used the phrase "illegal aliens" instead of "illegal immigrants". It's not accidental:


Underscoring the intentionality is the fact that he regularly uses the phrase "illegal immigration", too. Consistently keeping "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigration" distinct while speaking extemporaneously is no mean feat.

What other options are there? "Illegal alienization"? "Illegal invasion" (or merely "invasion") is probably a bridge too far for now. Kobach is too seasoned and shrewd an operator to fall into anything like a Paul Nehlen or Patrick Little trap. But Kobach never concedes ground or qualifies. He's unapologetic without being self-defeating.

Junior's cringeworthy Hispanics-are-natural-conservatives bromide was, to people who pay attention to these things, in stark contrast to Kobach's observation that "blue-collar workers are natural Republicans, they just don't all know it yet." Kobach also said that the blue wall Trump broke by flipping voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is "the future of the Republican party".

Kobach understands the Sailer Strategy. He probably reads Steve. If he doesn't now, he did in the past. My first encounter with Kobach was back in 2006 (or maybe 2007), when a local political club headed by Jack Cashill hosted a debate between Kobach and Richard Nadler on the invasion, Kobach in opposition and Nadler in favor. Nadler mentioned Steve multiple times. Kobach countered by redirecting to the arguments rather than the obvious guilt-by-intellectual-association angle Nadler was trying to work.

Here's a white pill to close out. A week ago, PredictIt had the primary in a virtual dead heat, Kobach 51%, Colyer 49%. After dominating the debate last week and selling out this fundraiser several days before the event date, Kobach has gained some ground and is now up 58%-42%. Trading is light as a feather, but a market signal is still a market signal.

For the sliver of readers who are registered Republicans in Kansas, it is emphatically not permission for complacency of any kind. No matter how wide the margin of victory, we'd trade it all for a little more.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Galless Gauls

A lot of people on the dissident right were hoping for a Croatian win in the World Cup. The sentiment is understandable. Despite being under the thumb of the Soviet Union for half a century and part of the doomed conglomerate, Yugoslavia, that gave us the term "balkanization", Croatia is a real country today.

France, on the other hand, increasingly is not. While it is no longer a nation, it does represent the vision for the future that our rulers have in store for us:


Indeed. They are winning the war. The invading Africans took over the "French" soccer team just as they've taken over Paris, Toulouse, and other major urban centers throughout the nation formerly known as France:



Since the video will likely be taken down soon, here are some still frames:


The mayhem and destruction that would result from the legacy French population forcibly deporting the invaders would make ructions like these look like child's play.

That does not mean it shouldn't happen, only that it will likely never happen. France has been conquered and colonized.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Support for the death penalty by selected demographics

After reading a recent post by Heartiste on a young woman throwing herself on a convicted serial killer old enough to be her father (or her grandfather!) and thinking for the 4,140th time how if the vote was restricted to property-owning married men with children so many social ills would be ameliorated almost overnight, I took a look at a series of Reuters-Ipsos polls on capital punishment. I come to dispense a couple of white pills.

The first graph shows percentages, by selected demographics, who support the potential use of capital punishment. The y-axis here is set at 50%, with "don't know" responses (constituting 9.2% of the total) excluded. Even a majority of blacks support the death penalty (N = 8,219):


Unmarried women are the least moored by sex and marital status. The marriage gap is wider among women than it is among men, a pattern that consistently emerges across a whole host of issues from gun rights to border walls. When it comes to politics, marriage tends to move wives closer to their husbands rather than moving husbands closer to their wives.

Parenthetically, I wonder if attraction to murderous badboys follows a similar distribution among women as the propensity to be a murderous badboy does among men. After all, women don't do much killing. They do apparently do their fair share--and then some!--of loving killers, though.

The greata beta in me may be skewing my perception, but these women rarely seem to be very feminine. If that assessment is accurate, it's a little tough to reconcile with the tendency for feminine women to be attracted to masculine men and for soyboys and manjaws to settle for one another.

Not only does bringing the hypothetical hammer down enjoy overwhelming public support, concerns about dindus disproportionately being on the receiving end doesn't bother people much, either. The second graph shows the percentages of respondents, by selected demographics, who are concerned about racial disparities in capital punishment sentences (N = 8,219):


In this graph the highest y-value shown is just 40%. Again, even blacks, at least in the abstract, don't object to D'BrickshAdonis getting a lethal injection for mowing down funeral-goers in a drive-by.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Kobach for Kansas 2018

The most important gubernatorial primary in the country takes place on Tuesday, August 7th, right in the middle American heartland. When Trump tapped Sam Brownback to convert the heathens, then-lieutenant governor Jeff Colyer inherited the spot.

Colyer is an open borders cuck. He's in the farm lobby's back pocket. Under Sebelius, Brownback, and now Colyer, Kansas has become the Midwestern state that coddles invaders more than any other:


That's Colyer on the left, his mushroom button pressed tightly between his thighs. Here's a side-by-side of Colyer and Kobach. ID the alpha:

Physiognomy is real
If memory serves, Brownback earned a lifetime grade of D- from NumbersUSA, though his career grade is now unavailable. It was archived in 2002, though, at about the midway point of his congressional career. It was an abysmal 18% at the time. By comparison, John McCain earns a lifetime score of 27%. Yes, Brownback is even worse than McCain on the National Question, and so is Colyer.

Colyer, with the same nation-wrecking combination of aw-shucks religiously-influenced pathological altruism and plaid shirt pocket stuffed with agricultural lobby dollars as Brownback, has continued in the latter's footsteps. His campaign site doesn't mention immigration at all. The closest we get is this phrase:
We are going to fight to ensure our agriculture producers have the chance to grow their businesses
We know what that means--door's wide open, muchachos!

Kobach, in contrast:
Strong borders are essential to our nation and to our State. They are essential to fighting terrorism, essential to fighting crime, and essential to protecting American workers. And the only way to combat a problem as severe as a lawless immigration system is to have action at both the federal and the state level.

Unfortunately, Kansas has become the sanctuary state of the Midwest. We are the only state in the 5-state area that has done nothing to discourage illegal immigration.

This hurts Kansas taxpayers. This puts Kansans’ jobs at risk. And it puts Kansans’ lives at risk. We can solve this problem in Kansas. But it takes leadership and political will. I’ll get the job done.
Not so much as even a verbal sop to invaders or their enablers about "comprehensive reform", "compassion", or "making the process fair". Kobach, who owns 160 acres of farmland, even said at the debate that farmers are going to have to be okay with making less on their crops for the good of the MAGA agenda, both trade and immigration.

My first encounter with Kobach was in the mid-2000s when he debated the late Richard Nadler on... immigration. Nadler was one of those charlatans selling the Rovian lies about Hispanics being natural conservatives, the kind of cuckservatives who were everywhere in the Bush years.

Kobach was fighting this fight long before it was a cause celebre on the mainstream American right. Restrictionism is not something he's just glomming onto now because it's popular to do so. He was the primary author of Arizona's SB 1070 in 2010, something that led the $PLC to characterize Kobach as a "hate group lawyer".

This race has ramifications extending well beyond Kansas. The Trump administration is backing Kobach. Next week Don Jr. will be dispatched for a fundraiser in Wichita. This despite the fact that the state's Republican party apparatus favors Colyer.

If the Trump-backed insurgent running on a MAGA agenda overthrows Cuckservatism, Inc's marionette, it'll be an indication that the revolution is alive and well. If Colyer staves off the challenger, it'll be an indication to Team Trump that the pragmatic course of action is to play nice with the GOPe as it continues to sell the country out.

Incidentally, Kobach's opposition to the invasion probably isn't the biggest reason the party establishment despises him. Since being elected secretary of state for Kansas in 2010, he has reduced the office's budget by $2.4 million, from $7 million when he came in to the $4.6 million it spent last year.

That's not merely a baseline budgeting faux cut, it's a real decrease in absolute expenditures. A big part of how he's done it is by cutting the department's staff by 25% over the last eight years. When a bureaucrat retires, Kobach doesn't hire anyone to replace him.

This terrifies the porcine trough-feeders that make up the party establishment. A governor Kobach would not only expose how little the vast majority of government employees do, he'd phase out many of their sinecures through attrition.

The primary is going to be a close one. PredictIt currently handicaps it at 51%-49% in Kobach's very marginal favor. For the less than 1% of the blog's readers who are from Kansas (and registered Republican), get in gear on Tuesday, August 7th.

Everyone else, if you have a contact in Kansas, work it. I'll never ask for a dime but I am asking for that. Thank you very much for the consideration.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Open border blacks

Z-Man devotes another full-length show to a single topic. As he concedes, an hour isn't enough to cover everything, but this is an invaluable primer for alt lite guys who are becoming restless with the captain of the Washington Generals and lessons from the dragon in Solzhenitsyn. Charon ferrying people across the river:



The phrase "identity politics" really entered the public lexicon in the mid-eighties:


Ngrams only goes through completed year 2007, but the phrase got a second wind on account of the Trump phenomenon:


As Z points out, lamentations about the rise in identity politics are coming from cuckservatives who hate how politically successful Trump has been.

Little Bennie Shapiro's appearance with Bill Maher is a great example of this. I'm #SometimesTrump, there is violence and threats on both sides, collectivism is a problem on the left and on the right, blah blah blah blah blah. Members of the Respectable Right--well, individuals who happen to share the same principles, that is, as the only thing we're member to is our own sacred individualism!--are supposed to hang separately, not band together to win.

I'll take issue with one assertion Z makes:
Blacks have never been fond of immigration because it dilutes their share.
It's an assertion heard frequently. After all, it should logically be the case that blacks oppose open borders, especially low-skilled immigration, because it dilutes their political power and reduces their economic opportunities.

But surveys and polling never seem to bear it out. Blacks favor of open borders--or at least they say they do and vote for people who do. Percentages who approve of the way Trump has handled immigration, by selected demographic characteristics ("don't know"s excluded; N = 146,021--yeah, massive!):


Percentages who identify immigration as the top issue when deciding on how to vote (N = 9,898):


The relatively high Hispanic numbers are plausibly attributable to their support for open borders, and there is some of that going on. But in the case of non-whites, those who voted for Trump are considerably more likely to put immigration at the top of the heap than those who voted for Clinton are, suggesting that concern about immigration is for most voters concern about too much immigration rather than concern about too little.

Maybe another subject Z addresses--negative identity--accounts for blacks waving the invaders in. The invasion hurts white Americans. Supporting it is a thing worth doing. Like the scorpion stings, black America resents white America.

Saturday, July 07, 2018

The ideology of itinerants

Heartiste on rootlessness and ideological identification:
Shitlibs more strongly identify along ideological axes. This is why, for instance, they can’t tolerate the company of those with differing world views. (White libchicks are the absolute worst at tolerating those with opposing political views.)

And, although I don’t have confirmatory data at hand, I suspect shitlibs are more likely to wander and become itinerants, always looking for a shiny new city to infest.
Something is better than nothing. In this case, the something leaves plenty to be desired--but hey, it's something.

The GSS asks respondents where they lived at age 16 in addition to tracking where they live at the time of survey participation. In both cases it is only by Census region rather than by state, let alone county or city.

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents aged 40 and older (because asking an 18 year-old where he lived at 16 probably isn't very informative) who lived in a different region at the time of survey participation than they did when they were 16 years old (N = 28,571):


The differences aren't huge (but the sample size is, so the modest differences, especially at the 'extremes', aren't merely noise). There is a greater tendency for liberals to deracinate than there is for conservatives to, though. Those self-describing as "extremely liberal" are 36% more likely than those who self-describe as "extremely conservative" to live in a different region as adults than they did as teenagers.

Since cities are population sinkholes today, as they have been throughout human history, a finer-grained analysis would probably reveal a greater disparity between liberals and conservatives than the GSS reveals, with liberals from small towns and suburbia moving to urban centers while conservatives from small towns and suburbia put down shire roots.

GSS variables used: REG16(1-9), REGION, AGE(40-89), POLVIEWS(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

Friday, July 06, 2018

Front and center

A decade ago, immigration was a fringe issue, even among Republican voters. The following graph shows the percentages of registered voters in 2008 and today, by partisan affiliation, who identified (or identify) "immigration" as the most important issue facing the country:


The poll from 2008 (N = 1,100) includes eleven possible responses. Among Republicans, immigration was tied for eighth, ahead of just "energy" and "don't know".

The ongoing Reuters-Ipsos poll (N = 8,997) includes sixteen possible responses. Among Republicans, immigration is the single most important issue of all.

The National Question is becoming THE question. No Republican presidential aspirant is going to be able to secure the nomination by ignoring immigration anymore. Recall that both Trump and Cruz took harder restrictionist lines than any other GOP presidential candidate had save for Tom Tancredo's hapless campaign in 2008 and Pat Buchanan's noble defeats in the early- and mid-nineties. 

Tancredo never got above 1% in popular support. Buchanan won fours states. Trump and Cruz together picked up 70% of Republican primary votes and won all but two states between them.


Keep the pressure on. And let's provide the invaders and their anti-white allies all the rope they need to hang themselves with:


via

Monday, July 02, 2018

The invasion won't stop itself, it has to be halted

Agnostic's assertion that higher wages through left-economic populism--free college tuition, free health care, guaranteed jobs and wages for everyone (including criminals and aliens), etc--will ultimately lead to a reduction in immigration is one we can take a contemporary empirical look at.

At the state level, the correlation between the minimum wage and the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is a positive .48. That is, states with higher minimum wages tend to attract--or have, anyway, because of course correlation is not (necessarily) causation--more immigrants than states with lower minimum wages do.

The best state-to-state comparison here is between California and Texas. Both are southern border states with comparable unemployment rates. California's minimum wage, at $11, is country's second-highest after Washington, while Texas' is the $7.25 mandated by federal law. While California has a minimum wage over 50% higher than that of Texas, the percentage of its population that is foreign-born is about 65% higher than Texas', too!

That's not to say California's wage rate is necessarily a net driver of immigration to the state nor that Texas' is a net repellent. But it suggests that other factors are more important. Most saliently, the entire state of California is a sanctuary for illegal aliens. In contrast, there is not a single sanctuary city in all of Texas. It's too easy to be an illegal alien anywhere in the US, but there are differences between states. It's relatively more difficult to squat in Texas than it is in California.

Policy nudging isn't going to stop the invasion. The West's peak labor force participation rate is in the rear view mirror. Guaranteed basic income is probably a question of when rather than of if. That'll be one hell of a global magnet, one with a stronger pull even than Sweden's current cradle-to-grave setup.

It's probably also a question of when rather than if the US will face a concentrated massive influx from the Global South comparable to what Europe has experienced over the last few years. Currently the focus is on central America, but that's relatively small potatoes. It could easily expand to places in South America like Venezuela.

Or to Africa. Think a president Harris or ¡Ocasio! will heed the call for the US to take its fair share of 'refugees' from a continent set to add 3 billion people over the next century?

Imagine a presidential platform in 2020 or 2024 calling for the abolition of ICE. If that wins, what sort of mass migration does it set off on inauguration day?

It's going to have to be enforcement or nothing at all.

The Italian populist left-right coalition attacking that country's invasion has done so not by improving worker conditions but by telling would-be invaders they are not welcome and by pledging to boot those currently squatting in the country out of it.

The Visegrad group's resistance isn't based primarily on material concerns. It's based on cultural and identitarian ones. In Stephen Mill--I mean, Donald Trump's words--the fundamental question of the 21st century is whether or not the West has the will to survive.

Save for a total elimination of the welfare state--something the DSA/Sanders-wing of the American left could not possibly be more wholly opposed to--there isn't an economic way to halt the invasion.

That's the great lesson from our cousins across the pond. Europe's invaders are primarily bypassing the relative low wage countries of southern and central Europe and heading instead to the high wage (and in the case of Germany, significantly unionized) countries of northwestern Europe and Scandinavia. In the central European--and now with Italy, part of the southern--countries, enforcement is very high and welfare is relatively low.

In Austria, the ruling People's Party is similar to the Republican party in the US--center-right, anti-Marxist, economically liberal in the Reaganesque mold--and recently turned quite restrictionist. That's our blueprint with the greatest chance of success.

It's unfortunate president Trump isn't as doggedly focused on the National Question as many of us hoped he would be. He has created a template for others with high political aspirations to follow, though.

And the Republican party is changing. There is no path to the presidency in the GOP that doesn't involve a hardline stance on immigration anymore. Trump and Cruz, the only two restrictionist utterly dominated the field. For the first time ever, immigration is now consistently a top issue among Republican voters, especially younger ones. The party's most shamelessly open-borders shills are leaving. We're approaching the first election cycle after Trump's election.
Republicans,

The process will take some time and the Chamber of Commerce wing will fight to maintain the upper hand, but the greedy grip will become more tenuous with each passing day.

Parenthetically, we rightly hear a lot of grumbling about the agricultural industry crying about crops rotting in the fields. The farming sector's desire to socialize costs while privatizing profits is one of many reasons the invasion is ongoing.

It's important to realize, though, that foreigners in the US--both legal and illegal--disproportionately reside in urban areas. America's large cities are teeming with them. The countryside and even suburbia, not so much. While the number of native whites in urban areas and rural ones are the same, there are ten times as many foreigners in urban areas as there are in rural ones!

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Would a socialist white guy have unseated a ten-term Latina in NY's 14th? Rhetorical

Thought experiment: 

Instead of Joe Crowley as the ten-term House representative up for re-election, it's a woman named Maria Sanchez. And instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the upstart challenging that ten-term congress critter, it's a young white man named Hayden Stoddard. Keep everything else constant about their political careers and campaign positions--Sanchez is the party machine woman, Stoddard the DSA-endorsed insurgent. Who wins?

Come on, BernieBros, engage with this hypothetical in good faith. Not only would Sanchez win--especially if she'd been talked up as the first Latina speaker of the House!--but her margin of victory probably would've been wider than Ocasio's was. A 20-point swing from the real result seems, if anything, like a conservative estimate to me.

This socialist PoC ascendancy isn't going to lead to something like the Immigration Act of 1924

Or if it does, it's not going to be in the way Agnostic imagines it will--with the socialist Sanders wing of the left leading it. The 1924 Act was pushed by heritage America, including their elites, as a way of stopping the invaders. It wasn't led by the invaders. Many Irish, Italians, and Jews mostly fought it (Samuel Gompers being a notable exception). 

It's not inconceivable that having their noses rubbed in the reality that American democracy is becoming a skins game and begrudgingly coming to the conclusion that there is no place on the contemporary left for white men, a sizable enough fraction of SWPLs and BernieBros could join the increasingly-restrictionist GOP to pass an updated Johnson-Reed Act a century after the first one.

That's way off on the optimistic end of my probability assessment, but it's not totally unfathomable. As I wrote there, we are both ecstatic about the results of the 14th district's primary, albeit for very different reasons. 

If Ocasio is anyone in an unfolding historical reboot, she's the 21st century's Emanuel Celler, operating just down the road from where he did. As a young Jewish congressman, he fought tooth and nail against the Act. But heritage America rolled over the invader opposition and enacted a severe curtailing of immigration from recent sources of 'new Americans'. 

Celler got his revenge on heritage America four decades later. If an the PoC coalition is unable to stop the 2024 Moratorium and Assimilation Act and it stands until Ocasio is finally able to overturn it in 2065, well, that buys us another forty years. We fight the battles that are in front of us, for ourselves and our posterity.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Parochialism in autumn

Agnostic, in the context of explaining why ¡Ocasio!'s victory means the invasion will end:
The past several decades have proven decisively that we will get absolutely nothing done on immigration by electing hardline candidates.

...

To reiterate for the millionth time, the Bernie people do not have to explicitly call for reducing immigration in order to achieve that effect. They just have to force higher wages and benefits on employers, and call for an end to the heartless exploitation of vulnerable immigrants -- e.g., if employers and slumlords want to hire / house immigrants, they should be giving them better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices.  

...

If you want to know why the Bernie people are still on a high about the Ocasio-Cortez victory -- now you understand.
Here's her campaign platform flyer:


And here's her two-minute TV spot:



So abolishing ICE, calling for streamlined and open immigration to the US from anywhere, making college free to immigrants, making housing free for immigrants, making health care free for immigrants, giving a government-guaranteed job to any immigrant who shows up, and keeping immigrants out of prison--all while vociferously calling for more immigration and more refugees--is supposed to reduce the flow of foreigners into the country?

Agnostic would have us turn the battering ram we've been using to smash the now-teetering gate of the GOP citadel around, lumber through miles of hostile territory under siege for the duration, and try ramming it into the triply-reinforced, ten-foot wide iron wall surrounding the Democrat citadel instead. It's not just delusional, it's suicidal.

Humorously, the post preceding Agnostic's celebration of ¡Ocasio!'s win asserted American elites care more about foreign children than native ones while populists--like, say, ¡Ocasio!--are not so hopelessly out of touch. ¡Ocasio!:


Well that's inconvenient.

I've been in on the National Question for well over a decade now. The idea that hardline immigration candidates have been elected in anything close to sizable numbers is risible.

In 2008, Tom Tancredo took a line on immigration similar to Ted Cruz's in 2016, and Tancredo got 1% in the Republican primary polls before dropping out early in the race. Excepting Trump, Cruz and Tancredo took the hardest lines of any Republican politicians of national prominence in decades and neither had a thing to say about legal immigration that didn't lavish praise on it.

No one from either party has even questioned legal immigration in a generation since Pat Buchanan did so a generation ago. That's finally starting to change.

Until a couple of years ago, issues polls consistently showed immigration bumping along near the bottom of the list of Republican voters' priorities. Now immigration is at or near the top of those lists, especially among younger Republicans.

Over the same period of time, Democrat voters have become increasingly supportive of open borders and opposed to immigration restriction of any kind. Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign was nearly snuffed out in the crib when he called open borders "a Koch brothers' proposal". If he said anything like that today, his position as a spiritual leader among rank-and-file leftists would be over before midnight. Sanders became a force on the left not by saying sensible things about immigration but by shutting up about them.

The reason Crowley has been able to repeatedly run unchallenged in a district that is half Hispanic for primary after primary after primary is because until now white ethnics and (((tribe members))) who doled out the gibs were acceptable to non-white voters. Increasingly that's no longer the case. There are politically ambitious non-whites all over the country eyeing single-party urban districts currently held by pale males and seeing huge opportunities.

The Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, has received an enormous amount of attention in the wake of ¡Ocasio!'s upset. She is one of the thirteen candidates across the country the organization has endorsed. Here's how they breakdown demographically (based on my best guesses--one of those categorized as a Hispanic woman here may actually be a dago):

Four black women
Three Hispanic women
One white woman
One (((white))) woman
One Muslim man
One black man
One male Pacific Islander
One white man

Parenthetically, the sole white man is probably a bugger--no wedding ring, no apparent girlfriend, and a proclivity for pink shirts. They're all unfettered supporters of open borders, of course.

Here's the DSA's introductory video:



Libertarians, this is what open borders gets us. Most communists in the US are non-white and non-whites are more likely to identify as socialist than whites are.

The question is not what causes poverty. Poverty is the natural default. The question is what causes prosperity. Ice People, private property, and freedom of association gets close. The DSA is antithetical to all of these things.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

¡Ocasio!'s special occasion

I'd been getting a sinking feeling that Democrats had come to realize doing what they had done to garner big wins in Florida, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even California was the easiest route to sealing heritage America's fate and ensuring the Great Replacement. Run putatively moderate whites to avoid spooking soccer moms  and then have them, upon stepping foot in the capitol building or the governor's mansion, work relentlessly to keep the borders wide open for all the world's non-Afrikaners to flood in. It could have worked.

Fortunately, the invaders are impatient. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez primaried an old ethnic swamp creature by marrying PoC ascendancy with rank socialism. Here's her well-produced two-minute campaign ad where she calls for "medicare for all, tuition-free public college, a federal jobs guarantee, and criminal justice reform". You'll notice more hijabs than hu-whites and see more words written in Spanish than in English:



"Not all Democrats are the same."

 "We can do it now! It doesn't take 100 years to do this."

There are the old Italian and Irish ethnics and there are the old (((tribal))) Democrats, and then there are the New Democrats--the Democrats who roll their Rs and sport their ninja outfits. Ocasio's cover photo does not include a single member of the old guard:


They need to step aside now. Not in a generation, not in a century--¡NOW!

Yesterday's primary is a harbinger of things to come, but it's already apparent at the national level. Potential white Democrat presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are geezers--aged 76, 69, and 75, respectively. Odds-on favorite Kamala Harris, in contrast, is 53 and Cory Booker, who rounds out the top five, is 49.

Agnostic thinks the socialist left is going to transform the DNC into a party of immigration He's delusional. What this victory makes salient--and she'll win the district easily in November--to normies and even to many SWPLs, is that socialism in America is about using heavy hand of the federal government to take from whites and give to non-whites.
restriction.

Single-payer? Get out of here. That's nothing more than the plundering of the shrinking number of young whites to foot the medical bills of non-whites and the affluent silents and boomers who signed off on this whole mess to begin with!

In multiracial societies, democracy is a skins game. But in multiracial societies, socialism is also a skins game. As the country fills up with Sun People, this is the political future. It's going to get harder and harder for quisling whites and the 2% to pretend there will be a place for them when the numbers of Latin Americans, Africans, and Arabs reach critical mass.

Three cheers for the invaders in New York's 14th district. Sow, water, and fertilize the seeds of the white left's budding cognitive dissonance. The fate of the West depends on it.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

On the dissident right

Z-Man devotes an hour to a treatment of the dissident right:



In the intro, he mentions it's a phrase he's heard with increasing frequency as of late. Although it predates the phrase "alt right" that supplanted everything else in 2015, "dissident right" may come out on top yet. We're not there yet, however:


These nebulous terms are valuable to some degree on account of being nebulous. I'm not a stickler for what language is used. As a longtime reader of the Derb, who coined the phrase "dissident right", I've always thought of alt right as being a subset of the broader dissident right. To be on the alt right is to be on the dissident right, but to be on the dissident right is not necessarily to be on the alt right.


The preceding spergy paragraph (mine, not Derb's) does not represent the hour Z devotes in the least. It's an accessible, practically applicable delineation of what the dissident right is, what it is not, and how it exists in juxtaposition to progressivism, libertarianism, and conservatism. It hits all the important points while striking a perfect balance between weightiness and concision.

There are a couple of things to quibble with--Z overstates the Neanderthal contribution to human DNA by an order of magnitude because he think everyone who is anyone sports the same caliber of brow ridge he does, for instance--but there are fewer nits to pick than any presentation I'd be able to put together would contain. It's one I'll be linking and pointing to with frequency in the future.

Parenthetically, he references the Darwin fish people used to sport on the back of their vehicles a decade ago in a description of what are sometimes called "liberal creationists". As that anti-scientific position becomes increasingly untenable without massive cognitive dissonance--not to mention utter ignorance of genomics in particular and biology more generally--I'm going to start calling them "darwin fish creationists" instead.

Friday, June 22, 2018

California skin games

From a SurveyUSA poll conducted back in April, illustration 364,140 of how in a multiracial society, democracy inevitably devolves into a skins game, even on the left. The following shows the percentages of whites, Hispanics, and Asians who said they were supporting gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and John Chiang:


The racial percentages all fall short of 100% because the poll asked about eight candidates in addition to an "other" candidate option--these three were the top (D)s. The black sample was too small for SurveyUSA to break those out by candidate.

Although California is majority-minority, non-Hispanic whites still comprise a majority of the electorate because Hispanics and Asians are slackers. Newsom won the primary and so consequently will be California's next governor.

A couple other noteworthy observations. Firstly, political dissolution is on the horizon. No matter how it's sliced, Gen Z and millennials are more favorably predisposed to political dissolution than boomers and silents. When the latter disappears, the political landscape will look a lot different. Support for the CAL3 initiative that would break the state up into three new smaller states, by age:


Secondly, even in a state like California where blacks make up a small and shrinking proportion of the non-white coalition, they are open borders fanatics. The survey asked respondents whether the national guard should be used to secure the southern border and what it should focus on if used. The percentages who said the national guard should not be utilized, with "not sure" responses excluded, by race:


The other two possible responses were the based "patrol for those crossing [the border illegally]" and the cucked "focus on gangs and drugs".

A plurality of all respondents chose the cucked answer, so don't optimistically come away thinking the inverse of the bars above are the percentages who want the National Guard to stop illegal alien crossings. Most of the residuals just say they want the drugs and gang activity halted. The invasion itself is okay--we'd just like it to be a little more peaceful and sober is all!

This is a finding that crops up everywhere. For example, from Pew Research:

Blacks are more inclined to accept rapefugees than Hispanics. Hispanics are also twice as supportive of Trump's immigration stances as blacks.

If I retained an ounce of hope in civic nationalism, this reality would challenge that hope. Since I don't, it serves as another battering ram to smash into the quixotic civic nationalists who think a multiracial democracy can do anything other than devolve into a skins game.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Camp of the Squatemalans

Most of the 2012 invaders were "unaccompanied minors". Most female invaders, including children, coming through Mexico are sexually assaulted along the way. Many of the adults with the children aren't the real parents of the children. Incarceration requires family separation. Concern for Tommy Robinson's children? For the carcasses of raped and mutilated Afrikaner toddlers?

No novel observations there. Using the opposition's principles against it is standard operating procedure, literally right out of the Alinsky playbook. In a generation or two, if we're still around, we'll be whispering to each other how we should've shot the invaders on sight just as our European brethren will be whispering to each other how the migrant vessels should've been sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean.

President Trump--or as I suspect in this case, Stephen Miller (heaven preserve him)--is a formidable tactician himself. When news of the executive order reuniting families broke, I assumed another hard cucking. Instead, Trump boxed the anti-whites in. The EO doesn't instruct the resurrection of catch-and-release. It allows the children to accompany their scofflaw putative parents in detention centers, nice detention centers run by HHS.

The anti-whites are pissed because the EO provides Trump with great optics without relenting on the actual "zero tolerance" (I know, I know, but it's not nothing). It's obvious the anti-whites don't give a damn about the child-invaders. They want the borders wide open, but even they can't quite say that yet, so they went the family-separation route assuming the results would be the same. Nope. They were outplayed on the invasion front by the Trump administration again.

On the topic of invasion, the American Bar Association is a festering den of thieves and robbers. From the ABA's head harpy and "social activist":


"appears to violate longstanding precedent protecting rights to family integrity"--ie, this has no constitutional basis, but black robes have through the magic of case law allowed us to call it illegal because we're allowed to do that with anything and everything we want to do it with.

Still on the topic, here's a man made of the stuff the West needs to survive:


Dispense with the "undocumented migrants" phraseology. Kobach doesn't even use the cucky "illegal immigrants". He uses the based and legally descriptive term "illegal aliens" instead.

Fellow Kansans--and readers who know Kansans--are urged to support this great man in the GOP gubernatorial primary on August 7th. Here's his twatter cover photo:


A pretty wife who stayed pretty after bringing five lovely children into the world. And is that a retriever on the left? Looks like we know Kobach is good on the pit bull question, too.

Compare Kobach's photo to Paul Ryan's:


All the rafter ties in the world aren't enough to visit justice on these miscreants determined to destroy ourselves and our posterity.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

To preserve and protect White European heritage

Mom and baby have spent a lot of time sleeping in this hospital cell over the last couple of days so dad has correspondingly had a lot time to scroll through Reuters-Ipsos polling looking for interesting queries. The interactive site doesn't organize polls chronologically but instead puts them into categories and sub-categories of which there are around 100. As a consequence, many slip past me unnoticed when they're first released.

The following is based on one such poll from last year. Searching the archives to make sure I hadn't previously covered it reveals that an anonymous commenter did point to it a couple months ago but I failed to take notice then. Better late than never.

Unless you'd like the blog to lay off the 2% already, that is. The subsequent graph shows the percentages of R-I respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who agreed with the assertion that "America must protect and preserve its White European heritage" (N = 4,024; the response "neither agree nor disagree", comprising 29% of all responses, is excluded):


There were only 104 Jews included in the survey, so there's a lifeline if you're looking for one. Given that Hispanics, Asians, and even blacks appear to express less hostility towards European heritage than Jews do, you probably are!

The distance between white Democrats and white independents on the one hand and the closeness of white independents and white Republicans on the other is a white pill of sorts. Anti-white sentiment among whites isn't a natural predisposition, it's an ideological one. When it comes to explicit hostility towards Heritage America, there is the non-left and then there is the left.

A civilization that fails to protect and preserve the legacy of its ancestors will fail to protect and preserve the future for its descendants.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Asian and Amerindian electoral inertia

Steve Sailer has a long-running gag about the Latino Electoral Tidal Wave failing to ever hit shore. Hispanic (and Asian) turnout rates among eligible voters have been and continue to be reliably lower than white and black rates are.

That's because the invaders New Americans aren't that interested in politics. Those on the losing side of the previous invasion aren't much interested, either. One reason blacks still loom disproportionately large in the minds of elites at the expense of other non-whites is because blacks are a lot more culturally salient than other non-whites are. Electoral behavior is part of that.

The following graph shows political interest by race. The GSS asked respondents about their personal level of interest in politics with five potential responses ranging from "not at all interested" on the low end to "very interested" on the high end. Inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension, the higher the score, the greater the interest (N = 2,730):


This isn't attributable to a large share of the browns and yellows being ineligible to vote on account of being non-citizens. Both foreign-born Hispanics and foreign-born Asians actually express modestly greater interest in politics than their native-born counterparts do!

Attributing greater interest to higher intelligence doesn't fit. Yes, Jews are on top, but whites come in ahead of Asians while blacks come in ahead of Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians despite having lower average IQ than any of them.

A loquacity-taciturn gradient fits better, with blacks and Jews expressing more interest while Amerindians and Asians express less.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), POLINT

Friday, June 15, 2018

Islam's clean bill of mental health

The following graph shows the percentages of GSS respondents, by religious affiliation, who have report having experienced poor mental health ("stress, depression, and problems with emotions") in the last thirty days (N = 7,088):


Funny that Buddhists--practitioners of a philosophy which is kind of like Stoicism but without an engagement in worldly affairs--appear to have the worst mental health of all. What are they stressing out about? Hey, nobody said achieving nirvana was easy!

We may think the exploding Muhammads are crazy. They're not. They have a more determined sense of purpose than we do.

Was the impetus to investigate this question my suspicion that Jewish neuroticism would starkly manifest itself? You can't prove anything! Anyway, that's not what this reveals.

Women tend to have poorer mental health than men. That holds all religious affiliations here. The sex disparity among Jews is stark, though. The following graph shows the difference between men and women by affiliation (percentage of men experiencing poor mental health subtracted from the percentage of women experiencing poor mental health):


While 66% of Jewish women experience poor mental health, just 36% of Jewish men do. The Jewish sample size is only 170, so maybe the gender divide is attributable to that. Maybe.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30), RELIG(1,2,3,4,6,9), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), SEX

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Nearly three times as many Californians would move to Canada as would move to flyover America

SurveyUSA is one of my favorite polling organizations because of the unique questions it poses. A few weeks ago a representative survey of 1,100 Californians statewide was commissioned. Respondents were presented with a hypothetical--if they could retain their current job and salary, would they be willing to move to selected other places if it meant their cost of living would be cut in half? The results:

- 12% would move to Nebraska
- 12% would move to Indiana
- 18% would move to Mississippi
- 31% would move to Canada
- 36% would move to Nevada
- 43% would move to Oregon

Parenthetically, the respondents were asked about each place separately, not which one of the six they'd prefer. One-in-five respondents pretty consistently said they were unsure. A plurality said they'd move to Oregon.

The blue bedfellow state is the most popular destination, followed by the blueish-purple Nevada, then Canada, and then finally the red states.

Canada ahead of Mississippi, Nebraska, and Indiana? Even with the residency requirements to contend with? It doesn't get much more middle American than Nebraska or Indiana. The weather obviously isn't driving these responses--it's the politics and the culture. Why are California and Indiana under the jurisdiction of the same national government, again?

Time for the political dissolution of these disunited states. Californians have more affinity for Canadians than they do for Hoosiers--and the feelings are probably mutual.

But won't there be war between the states/regions if they separate?

Highly unlikely. Far more probable is that tomorrow the relationship between the country of California and the country of the American Midlands will be comparable to that of the US and Canada today. And tomorrow California may have a modestly better relationship with Canada than the US does today while Indiana may have a modestly worse one. Big deal.

Parenthetically, the new invaders Americans who have colonized California aren't going anywhere. The survey asked respondents to pick from seven statements the one best describing themselves, ranging from "I am in the process of relocating to another state" on the emigration end of the spectrum to "I will never, ever leave California" on the staying put side of things.

Percentages of respondents, by race, why said they were "never, ever" leaving:


California Dreaming is a thing new Americans do and Old Stock Americans don't. The golden state is gone.

Monday, June 11, 2018

A tale of two phrases

Steve Sailer is surprised to find the phrase "Jewish privilege" mentioned in the New York Times, itself a salient manifestation of Jewish privilege (my editorial comment, emphatically not Steve's).

In a presumed attempt to humiliate gentiles, the rarity is brought up by a Jewish writer who brazenly acts as though it's a phrase gentiles toss around nonchalantly all the time even though xi (the writer's first name is "Taffy") knows full well that if a gentile of any stature ever accidentally uttered the phrase that he would be figuratively crucified as a result.

Over the last ten years, the newspaper has included the phrase "Jewish privilege" twice. Once in the recent article Steve linked to and once back in 2010, in an article entitled "An Israeli Finds New Meanings in a Nazi Film". Here's where the phrase appears in that 2010 piece:
Whether cringing at the sight of naked men and women being forced at gunpoint into a ritual bath, or contemptuously dismissing the Nazis’ efforts to highlight Jewish privilege (“My mother wore her beautiful coat, and sometimes a hat. So what?”), the survivors seem to speak for those who cannot.
Nope, no gentiles talking about Jewish privilege there, either. Except for you-know-who, of course. You're not a nazi, are you? So subtle!

While the disproportionately Jewish New York Times rarely writes about Jewish privilege--and only does so in the context of framing the idea as one-part risible and two-parts evil--it writes about "white privilege" with regularity. Some 206 times over the last decade, to be precise.

Taking a cue from the article excerpted above, here's a subtle graphic comparing the frequencies of appearance by phrase in the paper over the preceding decade:

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Centrists find politics boring, wish it would go away

Steve Sailer:
Centrists aren’t typically well-informed people who understand fully the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments of the left and the right. Centrists aren’t normally Mickey Kaus writing a ten-part debate with himself over whether to vote for Gore or Bush in 2000 (he eventually decided upon Gore).

Instead, centrists are more often people who find politics boring and annoying and wish it would just go away.
The GSS permits a testing of that assertion. The following graph shows political interest by self-described ideology. The survey asked respondents about their personal level of interest in politics with five potential responses ranging from "not at all interested" on the low end to "very interested" on the high end. Inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension, the higher the score, the greater the interest (N = 5,091):


Steve's assessment is spot on.

Relatedly, moderates tend to be less intelligent than liberals or conservatives. Dumbest of all are self-described conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, probably because many of them are just randomly selecting designations due to ignorance and a fear of being recognized for that ignorance.

GSS variables used: POLVIEWS, POLINT

Friday, June 08, 2018

Brief miscellany of items

- From a friend on business in DC:


Wearing MAGA hats in the most hostile place in the country to do so isn't for the faint of heart. These young shitlords are made of stern stuff. They're exactly what we need.

- Relatedly, a good dissident cartoon for someone like Ben Garrison to create would depict a couple of these well put-together young MAGA men seeing the Imperial Capital's sights while a swamp-dwelling SWPLs watches them walk by while loudly remarking on how backwards they are. Meanwhile the periphery of the cartoon is filled out with ghetto blacks chimping out, exploding Muhammads in their ninja outfits, pozzed degenerates in assless chaps, taciturn Amerindian peasants raking leaves, a Hmong nanny pushing a white baby in a stroller, and all the other Hotel Babylonia extras the SWPL nervously pretends to love.

Maybe in the follow up cartoon the SWPL can have his John Rocker/Falling Down moment.

- This was sent to me by a former employee. Kevin Yoder, our congress critter in Kansas' third district, is a cuck on the National Question. We have huge Sprint and Cerner presences here, and Yoder has been bought-and-sold by them. Trump the candidate may be dead, but Trumpism has only just begun.


- Cloud People invariably talk about "populism" and "democracy" as though they are antonyms, as though the former threatens the latter. Think about that for a second. Do they have a shred of intellectual integrity between them? Rhetorical.

- Doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculating, at present around 127 million men in the US are fertile. That compares to about 47 million women in the US who are currently fertile. Women aren't the natural gatekeepers of sex only because it's a potential investment of nine months (or eighteen years!) of their lives compared to 15 minutes of a man. They're also gatekeepers because there are in the general population a lot more fertile men than there are fertile women at any given time.

- Without unadulterated freedom of association, identity politics is inevitable. As soon as the government forces one party to interact with another party against its will (and on behalf of the other party's will), it has chosen sides. And when the government chooses sides based on identity, only fools--or WEIRDOs, if you prefer--unilaterally disarm by failing to act tribally.

It is in this context that I am regrettably forced to celebrate a heritage American WASP's filleting of a kykedyke and a low-IQ Latina in the highest court in the land. Being reduced to base identity instead of being able to appreciate said filleting on the quality of the craft alone pains me. Alas, what else remains?

Wednesday, June 06, 2018

Fuentes, King of Amren

The 2018 AmRen videos have all been up for several days now. As I recounted at the time, Nick Fuentes was the conference's most impressive speaker even without handicapping for age:
Nicholas Fuentes delivered a masterful speech, and not just because he cited the Hispanic Heritage Survey's bottle of white pills. If our Occidental Renaissance is to occur, Gen Z is going to have to lead it. If we are fortunate, Fuentes will play a major part in that.

Fuentes was born in 1998. He's all of 20 years old. He left a strong impression of precocity today, especially the way he handled thinly-veiled mini homilies that were couched as questions during the question and answer session following his speech.

The boomers who tore into him spectacularly misread the situation on the ground. Jordan Peterson has one of the best-selling books in the world because he understands the challenges young men face. Fuentes does, too, and he has the added bonus of being part of that very cohort. People who are able to resonate with these young men are worth their weight in gold.
Fuentes' presentation dominated in terms of online viewership, so the assessment wasn't a unique one (and to the extent the blog piqued interest, great):


He hosts a livestream show during the week beginning at 8pm EST. That falls in the middle of the nightly bedtime ritual with the next generation so I only catch it occasionally but this is one red-pilled Gen Zs in your social circles should be made aware of.

Parenthetically, you'll notice Jared Taylor's conspicuous absence in the above graph. Youtube restricted his video so that it never shows up in the platform's suggested videos and its view count goes unreported. History will give him the same treatment but we will not forget we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Monday, June 04, 2018

Racial preferences are unpopular; Or why the Sailer Strategy is an electoral winner

Running against affirmative action--with campaign ads showing white men and women coming home to somberly deliver bad news to the family about being passed over for the job or promotion--is a political winner. Or at least it would be if the Stupid Party had the sense to capitalize on it.

In fairness to the GOP, they are pushing hard on immigration, at least in the primaries. Stopping the invasion now regularly tops issue priority lists, especially among young Republicans. It's a happy reminder to those of us who've been in this thing for decades that the National Question has finally obtained the salience it deserves.

Anyway, from the GSS comes the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who support preferential hiring and promotional opportunities for blacks in the workplace. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from America's post-racial era. The data is dichotomous--respondents either support or oppose, no "don't know" or "unsure" responses were recorded:


Even most Jewish Democrats say they are opposed. So do blacks. Whether they are actually opposed, a residual sense of fairness means advocating for racial preferences is something only downwardly mobile non-white college students who don't belong anywhere near a university and the blue checkmark brigade on Twitter do much of.

In Republican primaries there is scarcely a position more popular than opposition to affirmative action. Opposition to affirmative action leads to opposition to Diversity!. Opposition to Diversity! leads to opposition to disparate impact. Opposition to disparate impact leads to a sense of white identity. Without unadulterated isonomy and freedom of association, identity politics becomes a necessity. Opposition to affirmative action is prerequisite for getting there.

GSS variables used: AFFRMACT(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1,2,4-13)(3), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6), YEAR(2008-2016)