Sunday, January 14, 2018

The unbirth of a nation

The following table and graph shows the change in non-Hispanic white births from 2015 to 2016, by state:

1) District of Columbia+3.1
2) Maine(0.6)
3) Mississippi(1.2)
4) New Jersey(1.5)
5) Utah(1.8)
6) Michigan(1.9)
7) North Carolina(2.0)
8) Wisconsin(2.1)
9) Iowa(2.1)
10) Delaware(2.3)
11) Indiana(2.3)
12) Minnesota(2.3)
13) Nebraska(2.4)
14) New Hampshire(2.5)
15) South Dakota(2.5)
16) Alabama(2.5)
17) Kentucky(2.6)
18) Louisiana(2.9)
19) Massachusetts(2.9)
20) Tennessee(2.9)
21) South Carolina(2.9)
22) New York(2.9)
23) Missouri(2.9)
24) Idaho(3.0)
25) Colorado(3.0)
26) Vermont(3.0)
27) Arkansas(3.1)
28) Florida(3.2)
29) Ohio(3.2)
30) Oregon(3.3)
31) New Mexico(3.4)
32) North Dakota(3.5)
United States(3.5)
33) Maryland(3.5)
34) Washington(3.6)
35) Illinois(3.7)
36) Georgia(3.9)
37) Virginia(3.9)
38) Pennsylvania(4.0)
39) Connecticut(4.2)
40) Kansas(4.6)
41) Texas(4.7)
42) Arizona(4.7)
43) Montana(5.0)
44) Rhode Island(5.2)
45) West Virginia(5.4)
46) California(6.3)
47) Nevada(6.8)
48) Wyoming(7.0)
49) Oklahoma(8.3)
50) Alaska(11.5)
51) Hawaii(23.9)

Only the Imperial Capital saw more white babies in 2016 than in 2015. The South and Upper Midwest are doing relatively well holding their own. The Mountain and Pacific time zones are in rough shape, with Mormon Utah managing only to be a modest exception. The writing is on the wall for Arizona and then for Texas, states Trump won by 3 points and 9 points, respectively. The country's two non-contiguous states are in free fall.

As the Derb is fond of saying, numbers are of the essence. We can't rebuild our civilization with someone else's babies. If the trend swings positive in 2017--the data will be released in late Spring or early Summer--Trump will be the greatest president since at least Dwight Eisenhower.

Next we'll look at non-whites. Decline is everywhere.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Three cheers for saying shithole

Nothing causes more outrage than a statement that is both obviously true and fervently wished by everyone to be untrue.

Trump's alleged comments were heaven sent. At minimum they stave off DACAmnesty for another couple of months. More likely, they are its swan song. By the time DACA is set to expire in March, primaries will be looming large in the minds of congress critters across the country. Any (R) who votes for a bill that includes amnesty is in trouble. Any (D) who votes for a bill that allows Trump to claim an immigration enforcement victory is in trouble. Ergo, no bill.

What is now most likely is that DACA expires in a couple months to a spate of open borders histrionics that are largely ignored and quickly forgotten by most people. The invaders don't get to chain their villages in and they're subject to deportation just like other invaders are. I get to say, with great relief, "told you so" to Agnostic.

Additionally, Trump's comments expand the Overton Window yet again, something he's been doing consistently for 30 months now. On just about any metric save for fertility, sub-Saharan Africa and its Caribbean diaspora countries fill out the bottom of the list.

Where do the new church ladies go after they're done scolding "that is NOT okay"? Get past the moral indignation and we're left with an acknowledgment that the 45th President of the United States of America is correct in his grim assessment of Africa. We've come a long way since the Watsoning.

Now let's pass immigration legislation that takes this reality into account. Democrats don't have to get on board. The tax cuts were passed without the support of a single Democrat. Make Democrats win in 2018 on supporting amnesty and immigration from Somalia and Sudan. Make waffling GOPe cucks contemplate fending off primary challenges on supporting amnesty and immigration from Somalia and Sudan.

This is worth going to the mat for. Demographics are destiny. Everything is downstream of immigration. There is nothing laudable about sacrificing our posterity to Moloch, god of Diversity!, because it makes us feel good about ourselves in the moment to pretend it is not the case. That's not moral courage, it's cowardice.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Physical attractiveness by age and by sex

I've remarked before how pleasantly surprising it was to find that the 2016 iteration of the GSS asked interviewers to assess the physical attractiveness of survey respondents they interviewed. Here is to hoping it is being repeated in the Current Year as we speak (the 2018 data is now being gathered).

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents who were rated "attractive" or "very attractive" by age and by sex (N = 2,651):

Part of the wisdom of age is being able to understand the beauty of youth. In my antediluvian phase, I'd claim this graph discredited the god of biomechanics. Men and women both bloom after puberty and then slowly but steadily deteriorate over time, you see!

For one, though, interviewers are being asked about attractiveness, not "hotness" or "f***ability". There is probably some subconscious age-adjustments being made in the minds of those grading, for example. I'd rate Lori Loughlin, at 53, as "very attractive" but in a consequence-free-night-before-the-apocalypse scenario, I'd rather bang someone on the varsity cheerleading squad. Any of them.

More importantly, that male attractiveness parallels male T-levels does not mean male sexual value follows the same trajectory as female sexual value does.

Physical attractiveness is only one of many inputs that determines male sexual value. It maxes out in the late teens and early twenties and then declines from there. But other inputs like status, wealth, confidence, and independence are as--if not more--important than physical attractiveness in determining male sexual value, and they all tend to increase with age well into adulthood before, like everything else, beginning to decline.

Female sexual value, in contrast, is predominately based on physical attractiveness. Women come roaring out of the gate but their time on top is brief. If they don't snag a quality man in the first decade--and really in the first half of the first decade--their window of opportunity slams shut.

The biggest drop offs in physical attractiveness occur from 18-24 to 25-34 for women (obvious) and from 35-44 to 45-54 for men. This corresponds to the "mid-life crisis" period for men. It's the point when the barely perceptible mellowing out of early middle age starts to give way to a decline in energy, muscle mass, skin tautness, etc that a look in the mirror each morning makes salient.

GSS variables used: SEX, RLOOKS(4-5), AGE

Tuesday, January 09, 2018

Swamp the switchboards

A DACAmnesty legalizes 800,000. Via chain migration, the number quintuples in a few years and the only sensible vote in 2020 becomes Adam Kokesh running on a platform of dissolving the United States into 51 independent, sovereign states because the last chance at something resembling a nation will be as dead as Trump's reelection campaign.

Contact your House member.

Contact your Senators.

Contact your President. And then tomorrow, when the phone line is open (9am-4pm EST), contact his administration again at (202) 456-1111.

Don't overthink it. The important thing is to put a tally mark on the anti-amnesty side of the debate. Here's what I sent to my three congress critters and the administration. Feel free to copy (CTRL-C) and paste (CTRL-V):
No DACAmnesty.

Six years ago the previous administration ignored the will of the people and forced through an unconstitutional executive order that granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. We voted for president Trump and congressional Republicans to make America great again, not to continue the legacy of Obama's failed presidency.

America--and America's children--First!
My representatives are all Republican. If yours are Democrats, particularly if you're in a safely blue district, consider something along the lines of "Don't give the racist Trump administration all the nativist things it wants in return for nothing. The DACA dreamers aren't going anywhere. Trump knows it and we all know it. Don't concede the high moral ground just so Republicans can claim a legislative victory."

However it's phrased, the important thing is to express opposition. Ourselves and our posterity depend on millions of us making the time to do this, tedious though it is.

Sunday, January 07, 2018

No country for white men

From the official, blue-checkmarked account of the Democrat party (red markings are my own):

Jewish women comprise about 1% of the US population and 1.1% of Congress. They are members of the only female group identified here that is already proportionally--if not slightly over--represented among our national elected officials. Freudian slip, anyone?

Yentas get to double-dip, but the party couldn't be bothered to include "married women" or "Christian women". It's COEXIS. They aren't even retaining the pretense of a "T".

Fittingly, the shrike featured is wearing a ring on her right hand (#YOLO!) but the wedding finger is bare and empty, as bare and empty as her womb and her apartment (litter box excepted).

We should encourage this as much as possible. The moderate white guy strategy emplolyed in Virginia and Alabama is our Achilles' Heel.

Parenthetically, check out the displayed tweets in support. There are scarcely any female Xers, let alone millennials chiming in. In fairness, they said nothing about attractive women, so they're support base is at least consistent on that front.

Saturday, January 06, 2018

Foreign-born US presidential voting among whites and non-whites

An innocuous canine asks:

The strategy of electing a new people who will do a better job voting than the deplorable natives is an effective one.

But what about the dwindling number of non-Hispanic whites immigrating to the US? Do they even modestly negate the Democrat advantage in immigrant voters?

Not really, they just dilute it a little. Detailed racial and ethnic data are only available in the GSS from 2000 onward, so the following graph shows how foreign-born whites voted two-way presidential elections since then. Data for the 2016 election won't be out until the Spring of next year:

Non-whites are the ringers they're really after, and you should want them here, too, you reprllent racist filth:

The republic needs a generations-long moratorium on immigration and a repatriation of non-citizens to begin yesterday if it is going to survive. So it's not going to survive.

GSS variables used: PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2-16), HISPANIC(1), BORN(2)

Friday, January 05, 2018

Rejecting the cultMarx framework

Reuters-Ipsos recently released the results of a poll asking participants how allegations of sexual harassment would impact their senatorial voting behaviors. The following graph shows responses by selected demographic characteristics. Residual responses are "don't know" (N = 3,959):

Note the question does not indicate necessary credibility in the accusations, let alone proof of their veracity. A mere accusation is enough to have more than two-thirds of the population backing their support off as a result. Democracy will lead to the end of history, alright, just not in the way we may have had in mind!

The left set this current moral panic into motion. The chickens are now coming home to roost. To mix more metaphors, Jim Goad aptly calls the shrikes pushing #MeToo "the new church ladies". To be a modern leftist is to spend all of your time and energy saying "that is NOT okay".

Well Republicans, principles or interests, then? Take the principled stand, fail to employ a tactic your opponents are more vulnerable to than you are, nobly refuse to roll around in the mud, and return to the losing ways the Stupid Party is comfortable with? Or exploit the opportunity to send half your political opponents heading for the hills, win a congressional supermajority, repatriate all non-citizens living in the country, and instate a decades-long moratorium on immigration?

Trump-voting white men under the age of forty--also known as the alt right*--realize playing the cultMarx game is a losing proposition. We're not going along with the Narrative anymore. Does that cause the snowflakes to melt? ZFG.

Are these MAGAmen trolling the pollsters, expressing a sincere intention to fight back against the hysteria by rewarding those the Cathedral deems to be in need of punishment, or both? Either way, it's encouraging to see. We will not be replaced.

* It's worth noting that the sub-sample is only 149, necessitating the fairly wide age ranges shown

Wednesday, January 03, 2018

Losing it all (with dignity!)

In the comments to the post on how Trump is raising awareness about the diversity visa lottery and chain migration, Pithom reacts disdainfully:
Trump's insults of diversity visa recipients ("worst of the worst") are very, very stupid (far, far worse than the Curiel remarks, but who's paying attention?), and may well lead to the public becoming more pro-immigration.
For the sake of argument, let's grant him the "may well lead to". So what? Immigration restrictionism has been a populist issue for decades, hell probably forever. Its lack of popular support has never been an obstacle to bringing it to fruition.

The owned marionettes comprising the political class and their unholy coalition of puppet masters--the chamber of commerce, the labor unions, George Soros, the Koch brothers--are the reason restrictionism hasn't happened.

With Cruz as president there is, optimistically, a 10% chance we're talking about chain migration right now. With any of the other candidates, it's a guaranteed 0%.

Meanwhile, Trump has put it into play. Seriously so, to the extent that it is now a real legislative possibility. He is the first president since Eisenhower poised to significantly reduce immigration into the US.

I don't care if his approach is 'divisive' or if it causes the issue to poll modestly less favorably. Restrictionism has been consistently popular for decades and that has resulted in exactly nothing being accomplished. Instead, it's given us nation-wrecking disasters like the Derb's favorite statistic:
Our country has admitted more Muslims for settlement in the fifteen years since 2001 than we did in the fifteen years prior. You can't get more insane than that.
In fairness, Pithom does note that he is glad Trump is bringing immigration up. He's a serious thinker worthy of respect, but he's doing what so many of the faux noble cuckservatives did during the election by making the gritty, vulgar man of action the enemy of the perfect form that never, ever goes through the formality of actually manifesting itself.

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

The State is what charity looks like in post-Christian America

Yes, charitable giving is religiously mediated, significantly so. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by frequency of church (or other religious worship service) attendance, who have made multiple monetary charitable contributions in the previous year. To avoid racial confounding, responses are restricted to non-Hispanic whites (N = 3,688):

Parenthetically, categories are mutually exclusive, so "less than monthly" are not double-counted as "no more than annually" as well, etc.

The response to the objection that this is merely capturing the fact that religiously active give to their religious institutions is twofold. Firstly, the question asks how often respondents have "given money to a charity". Putting an envelope in the offering plate qualifies as a charitable deduction for tax purposes, but I'm not sure most people would consider their own churches "a charity" in the vernacular sense.

Secondly, to the extent that this explains anything, so what? They're giving to something. If non-churchgoers were giving to something in place of those church donations, it'd show up here. They're not.

Civic nationalism requires social trust and some degree of religious cohesion to maintain viability. These things may not be sufficient, but they are necessary. It comes as little surprise, then, to find that those who say "most people can be trusted" are more magnanimous than those who say "you can't be too careful" (N = 2,154):

As social trust and religiosity continue to decline in the US, civic engagement will similarly continue to decline. The State will increasingly be called upon to fill the widening void, a State that will become the harnessed weapon of whichever skins or coalition of skins are able to muster the headcount sufficient to wrangle electoral control of it.

As Z-Man is fond of saying, this will not end well. Peaceful political dissolution is the best chance we have of a soft landing.

GSS variables used: ATTEND(0)(1-2)(3)(4-6)(7-8), TRUST(1-2), GIVCHRTY(1-4), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)