Wednesday, January 31, 2018

The IQ credit

The following map shows mean average IQ by state using 2013 NAEP scores from eighth graders in math and reading:


And this map shows the average credit scores by state, according to 2017 data from VantageScores:

Despite the War on Noticing, indefatigably astute readers will detect a similarity between the maps. This is on account of the two correlating at a robust .79 (p = .00000000001) at the state level.

The more intelligent the population, the more smoothly things run.

Keep this in mind as leftists continue to clamor for the unfettered flow of settlers into the US from double-digit IQ countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

An indebted, overdrafted, underfunded population is one that will give up power to the Imperial City in return for being bailed out and provided for.

The data on credit scores comes via Steve Sailer, though I've misplaced the link to the post in which he shared it.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Agnostic: Browning of America good for GOP

Agnostic regularly offers unique insights that are not found elsewhere. With thought-provoking takes so often unconventional, he can be forgiven for not bowling 300.

But I'm compelled to take issue with his reading of the DACA showdown. Several months ago he asserted matter-of-factly that DACAmnesty was a foregone conclusion and that it would be bad for Democrats but good for Republicans. As I pointed out at the time, that looks foolish. Increasingly foolish. Odds are DACA expires in a month.

No Democrat will be able to vote for legislation that includes border wall funding and an end to chain migration. Nancy Pelosi was humiliated by illegal aliens for merely planning on discussing immigration with Trump. And now she's going to rally members of her party to give him what he wants?

Stephen Miller--heaven preserve him--knows this. He's working the optics now. It's why he sprung Tom Cotton, David Purdue, and himself on unsuspecting Democrats and open borders Republicans who thought they were going to be able to monopolize Trump's attention in a televised bipartisan meeting on immigration.

Miller is aware that--as can be verified by referencing the indispensable NumbersUSA grade cards--that virtually no Democrats ever vote on anything that has any immigration restrictionism of any kind included in it. Of the 242 congressional Democrats currently in office, 239 of them earn an "F" (two get a "D", and one gets a "C"), and 232 of them get a score of 0%!

Trump is able to strike a reasonable, tough-but-fair pose secure in the knowledge that the Democrats are completely incapable of giving up any ground on anything at all:

Trump wins if nothing happens, and the Democrats lose if anything happens. GG, faggots.

There is no saving face for the venerable Agnostic by falling back on the fact that they'll get de facto amnesty, either. It's not the same thing. All but the very worst of the 11 to 30 million illegal aliens currently in the country already have de facto amnesty. They've had it from the moment they set foot on US soil.

It's the de jure amnesty that we've pulled off successful rearguard actions again and again. This one must not end any differently. We are not passive spectators in this. Contact your congress critters and the White House if you've not done so already (or even if you have, do so again). Send messages to all four of them in less than four minutes total here.

More recently, Agnostic audaciously wrote:
The least insightful way to analyze politics is focusing on race and ethnicity.
There are several points that need addressing, so here it goes.

California is one of the states where Democrats win the presidential vote even among white voters only.
California's whites are pretty evenly split politically. Bush won them by 4 points, McCain lost them by 6 points, Romney won them by 8 points, and Trump lost them by 5 points.

The reason California is settling into a deeper and deeper blue hue is revealed not by the figures from the last four presidential elections that are circled in red and blue but by those that are circled in green:

In 2004, two-thirds of California voters were white. Today, fewer than half of them are.

A white California would still be a politically competitive California. A non-white California--just like a non-white anywhere--is not.

That's not to dismiss changes in the composition of the white population. White Californians were more right-leaning a couple of generations ago because the Mexican migration into the state, the ignoring of proposition 187, and the subsequent immigrant deluge propped up the top, swelled the ranks of the bottom, and pushed out the middle. The non-white bottom welfared their way out of regulations and zoning restrictions and plastic bag taxes while the top gladly accepted these nuisance expenses in return for uncontested dominion over some of the most prized real estate in the hemisphere.

Agnostic also puts too much emphasis on the shifting of various industries that putatively drive white voting patterns, namely finance, tech, and the media, for Democrats and agriculture, natural resources, and the military for Republicans. A glaring problem with this template for understanding electoral trends is that Vermont, which contains none of the Democrat industries and a couple of the Republican ones, has the most Democrat-voting whites in the country (save for the Imperial Capital itself).

If industry told the whole story, we'd expect Vermont and West Virginia to vote the same way. Hardly anything could be further from the truth. The American Nations--that is, ethnicity--matters more.

To reiterate, this is not to deny any impact of cultural changes among whites. It is, however, to point out that what takes place within various white sub-groups only matters when the country is mostly white. As goes California, so goes the country.

Contemporary California is still mostly the country's future rather than the country's present. It's certainly not the country's past. In beating Carter by 10 points in the popular vote and 440 votes in the Electoral College, Ronald Reagan garnered 56% of the white vote. In losing to Clinton by 2 points in the popular vote and winning by 'just' 77 votes in the Electoral College, Trump garnered 58% of the white vote.

Yes, in his first landslide victory, Reagan performed worse among whites than Trump did in his relatively narrow Electoral College win in 2016.

The shift is virtually entirely attributable to the growth in the Hispanic (and to a lesser extent, Asian) population(s) over that period of time. In 1980, Hispanics and Asians comprised 2% of the electorate. The November before last, they made up 15%. What a difference a generation--and a disastrous 1986 immigration bill--makes!

The place where shifting demographics matter most is within the Democrat party itself. Agnostic wants Bernie Sanders to get the Democrat nomination (and presidency) in 2020. That will only happen if Bernie is able to win the party's non-white voters.

Sanders narrowly beat Hillary Clinton among whites in the Democrat primaries in 2016. He lost the nomination because she beat him among Hispanics and crushed him among blacks.

She'd learned a valuable lesson from 2008, when she beat Obama among both whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but lost the nomination because Obama crushed her among blacks.

The takeaway is that the Democrat nomination now runs through non-whites, and specifically through blacks. Blacks vote nearly monolithically, not just in general elections but also in primaries. White Democrats will not vote overwhelmingly against the candidate blacks have chosen. If they did, it would signal a drastic change in the American landscape.

In light of this, it seems delusional to think Sanders will beat Oprah Winfrey if she pursues the nomination in 2020 (something I doubt she will do, but if she doesn't monopolize the blacks vote, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, maybe even Michelle Obama, or some other thus far unforeseen brown person probably will).

Sunday, January 28, 2018

For our astroturf

From SurveyUSA comes an interesting quantification of the proxy for in-group impulses that is professional sports. The survey (N = 700) was conducted in the San Diego metro area. In the 2017 NFL season, the one that ends next week, the Chargers moved to Los Angeles.

The survey inquired about fandom. Some 69% of respondents said they were fans of the Chargers last year, but just 32% have remained Chargers fans with the team's move to LA this year. The composition of mercenaries didn't change significantly more from 2016 to 2017 than it did for any other NFL team. More than half of the fans were fans because said hired mercenaries played ten games a year in their metro area instead of ten games in another metro area a couple of hours' drive north.

The siphoning of healthy sentiments by college and professional sports that might otherwise be directed towards civic nationalism (or citizenism) is a theme Steve Sailer has visited on multiple occasions. With 16% of respondents saying the Chargers leaving San Diego "reduced [their] personal happiness a lot" and another 27% saying it "reduced [their] personal happiness a little", it's hard to argue he isn't on to something.

One question concerns what should be done with what was formerly called Qualcomm Stadium when the Chargers played there. The percentages of responses, by race, favoring converting the site into a soccer stadium and converting it into a western campus location of San Diego State Univeristy:

Their priorities are not our priorities:

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Canadian proximity privilege

In this week's edition of The Z Blog Power Hour, Z riffs off Moynihan's Law of the Canadian Border, noting that the closer a state is to our northern neighbor, the more its residents tend to blather on about things like racism and white privilege.

From Google Trends, the top ten US states by percentage of search volume for "white privilege" are as follows:

1) Vermont
2) New Hampshire
3) Washington
4) Wisconsin
5) Rhode Island
6) Minnesota
7) Michigan
8) District of Columbia
9) Iowa
10) Massachusetts

Z's perspicacity is par for the course.

There are a few sparsely populated north central states for which results are not available because the total number of searches aren't high enough to register in the Trends formula, and there are some other states like Maine, Alaska, North Dakota, and Idaho that buck the trend.

This is surely because large percentages of these states' populations are comprised of blue-collar, working-class whites who lack the self-awareness to grasp just how privileged they are. Plowing and digging through the windswept heath while being battered by the elements is a lot cushier than an administrative position at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. After all, only 26% of Idahoans have a college degree, while 41% of Massachusettsans do!

Exemplifying this countertrend is West Virginia. Mountaineers come in dead last among those with sufficient search data to be included in the ranking.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Make Amnesty Die Again (and again and again and again if we must)

Note to Republicans and the media: Do not ever use "undocumented migrant". It's a loaded left wing phrase. The proper phrase, according to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, is "illegal alien":

Alter, like most cultMarxists, is correct in understanding the importance of language. Congressional cockroaches scurry under dressers and down drain holes when the word "amnesty" lights up the room. It is one of our (currently) few rhetorical kill shots. We need to load the quiver up with terms like "chain migration", "illegal alien", and "anchor babies", too.

Speaking of congress, right now is a great opportunity to put it into practice. It's tedious, but squeaky wheels get the grease. The way our congress critters see it, if we're taking the time to write and call, we're bringing it up in your social circles as well. With primary challenges mere months away, that weighs heavily on their minds. Make amnesty die again.

Find your house member here and your senators here. If crunched for time, please feel free to cut+paste the following to Republican representatives:
Please vote against any legislation that includes DACAamnesty. Rescinding TPS for El Salvadorans who have been here for nearly two decades is the right expression of national sovereignty. It shows that people who’ve been here for five years can make the transition back to their countries of origin as well.

Amnesty will allow illegal aliens to use chain migration to bring in their entire extended families. It will be the end of our country as we know it. We cannot repeat the same mistake we made in 1986.

This tough but necessary action is the reason our family supported you in past elections and we are confident it is why we will able to strongly support you in future elections.

Thank you for your consideration. America First!
And this to Democrat representatives:
Please vote against any legislation that includes funding for the racist border wall. America is about building bridges and building families, not burning bridges down and tearing families apart.
Trump lost the popular vote and lucked into the presidency. He is mentally unstable and sexist. It is up to us to resist his white supremacist tyranny until we are able to return someone qualified to the White House in 2020.

Thank you for being on the right side of history!
Then do the same in contacting the Trump administration directly:
Please do not offer support for any legislation that includes DACAamnesty. Rescinding TPS for El Salvadorans who have been here for nearly two decades is the right expression of national sovereignty. It shows that people who’ve been here for five years can make the transition back to their countries of origin as well.

Amnesty will allow illegal aliens to use chain migration to bring in their entire extended families. It will be the end of our country as we know it. If we don’t have borders, we don’t have a country. We cannot repeat the same mistake we made in 1986.

This tough but necessary action is the reason our family supported you in 2016, it’s the reason we support you now, and we are confident it will be the reason we will support you in 2020.

Thank you for your consideration. America First! Make America Great Again!
Having fought in the trenches against previous amnesty assaults, my take on DACA has been an optimistic one. Trump is working the optics to create maximal frustration and tension among the Coalition of the Fringes. He is, saliently and repeatedly, going on record with offers of legalization. Stephen Miller by his side, he knows these ostensibly generous offers cannot be accepted.

The wealthy (((white))) Democrat leadership is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't sign onto any legislation that includes wall funding because the mestizo hordes who shut Nancy Pelosi down will tear them to pieces if they do so. Yet in not doing so they will be complicit in DACA's March expiration, when the protection the DACA illegal aliens currently enjoy expires.

We are not passive spectators in this process. It is up to us to ensure neither Democrats nor Republicans are able to accept the legislative compromise that is putatively being worked on.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Based Blue Line

The prolific Feryl:
Cops are the biggest race realists of all ... Cops don't need news, or stats, or political rhetoric. The grim reality of black misbehavior is shoved in their face all the time.
Using the GSS and ISCO 2008 allows us to compare the responses of police officers (n = 119) and the general public to the question of why blacks have "worse jobs, income, and housing" than whites do. The survey offers four potential explanations and respondents are not limited to choosing just one. They are as follows:

1) Discrimination -- the choice of Black Geniuses and (((whites))) like Tim Wise

2) Less in-born ability to learn -- a crass option that allows for a suboptimal expression of HBD-informed race realism

3) Lack of education  -- politically correct conventionalism favored by moderate SWPLs, Jews of goodwill, and some of the cuckier cuckservatives

4) Lack of willpower or motivation -- some less cucky cuckservatives and libertarians are here, though HBD-informed race realists may be as well, as "willpower" and "motivation" certainly have genetic components

The subsequent graph displays the percentages of cops and civilians partial to each of the four options:

Feryl's assertion might be a hyperbolic, but he's getting at the truth.

GSS variables used: RACDIF1, RACDIF2, RACDIF3, RACDIF4, ISCO08(5412)

Monday, January 22, 2018

California's illiberal arts colleges

Some interesting observations from a SurveyUSA poll on Californians (N = 909):

- Trump's approval rating in California is 30% approve, 60% disapprove. That compares unfavorably to his putative national approval rating of 37% approve, 58% disapprove. Trump's approval is only 9 points worse in a state he lost by 29 points than it is in the entire country? He lost the national popular vote by 2. Something doesn't add up.

I think this is indicative of the country being so disunited, those living in it so antagonistic towards so much of the rest of the population, that we've now reached a point where it's conceivable that no elected national politician ever cracks the 50% approval mark. With a couple of brief exceptions in 2012 and after Trump won the 2016 election, even the lord savior Obama couldn't manage it after his first few months in office in 2008. Until hard political dissolution occurs, every president is facing the prospect of being underwater from the outset and remaining there for the duration of the presidency.

Reelections will still be able to occur within that framework, though. The upside is that Trump's low reported approval rating will not preclude a second term.

- Of the seven hypothetical 2020 presidential election matchups presented, Trump fares better in every one of them than he ended up faring against Hillary in the state in 2016. His toughest opponent is Tom Hanks (!), followed closely by Oprah. The matchups against politicians Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Eric Garcetti are all tighter. A couple of Current Years ago, we couldn't elect Trump because he wasn't qualified, he didn't have the political experience! How expediency times change.

Some will see this as a slide towards idiocracy, others as a refreshing rejection of the quotidian political establishment. I lean towards the latter. Your mileage will vary.

- Speaking of Oprah, she gets the strongest stated black support at 81%, while the Becky Gillibrand garners the least black support of any Trump challenger, at 61%.

- The following graph shows the percentages who say "certain speech is okay to silence" subtracted from the percentages who say free speech is an "absolute right", by selected demographic characteristics:

As goes California so goes the country? It is often said that leftists are the new authoritarians, but survey data pretty consistently shows liberals as the strongest proponents of free speech, at least in an abstract sense. This is the first quantitative treatment of free speech I've seen where conservatives come off as stronger proponents of free speech than liberals (and moderates) do.

Even more jarring is the inverse relationship between educational attainment and support for free speech. That definitely indicates a break from the past. The idea that academia is a place for the open exchange of ideas is an anachronism. It has become a place of intellectual indoctrination, not of intellectual exploration.

The relatively strong Hispanic showing is curious, as free speech has historically been a white thing. Middle American whites are an endangered species in California, so it's hard to extrapolate to the rest of the country from this.

Black and female opposition to free speech is par for the course, however.

- By a 3-to-1 margin, white respondents who have an opinion on the wall--it's worth noting that half of respondents think a wall would make no difference one way or another--say it would make them feel safer. Blacks and Asians are also slightly more likely than not to say they'd feel safer with a wall. Hispanics, in contrast, say they'd feel less safe, presumably because said wall would presage a step up in deportations as well. If only!

- Diversity is strength... it's also idleness. The percentages of respondents who have never been employed, by race:

The WASP work ethic is so 1950s.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Gen Z backing a coup against Trump?

tcjfs slips a black pill into the Gen Z martini. From Survey Monkey:

Reuters-Ipsos similarly shows less satisfaction with Trump among younger Republicans than among older cohorts (N = 9,124):

R-I is suboptimal in that it doesn't allow 18-24 year-olds--that is, actual Gen Zs--to be separated out from millennials. Those currently aged 25-34 represent, as best I can tell, peak SJWism. The cresting was apparent in the Alabama Senate race, for example (keep in mind that the 18-24 cohort is the least white one--Moore won big among white Zs, but just barely if at all among white millennials):

It's conceivable that this is an indication, at least in part, of less patience among younger Republicans than among older ones. My sense is it is much more a case of younger Trump voters accusing the god-emperor of being co-opted by the tribe into pushing a bellicose Israel-First foreign policy, compromised by the deep state, cucking on this or that, etc than it is older Trump voters doing so. President Trump is closer to GOPe business-as-usual than candidate Trump was. 

A couple of potentially contrasting data points to keep in mind, in any case.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

American misandry!

From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who think America would be better off with fewer men more women in politics. "Don't know" responses are excluded (N = 5,250):

In a zero-sum game like politics, when one group gains power it is necessarily at the expense of another group. Normal people tend not to think beyond obvious first-order effects, though. The logical conclusion of a response favoring more women in politics is that said response simultaneously--and necessarily--favors fewer men in politics.

It's both a reminder of how much influence wording can have on polling results and also how Western countries have managed to promise ever increasing future benefits while running national debts and unfunded liabilities to the tune of infinity trillion dollars.

Overall, 7% of respondents said that "America would be worse off with more women in politics". Among Trump-voting white men over the age of 35, 14% said as much. In what is becoming a recurring pattern, young white MAGAMEN are dissenting from the anti-male #MeToo feminization that has settled over our sick civilization at rates unmatched by any other segment of the population. Some 28% of Trump-voting white men under the age of 35 asserted that more women in politics is bad for America:

The sample size wasn't quite large enough to show results for Trump-voting white men under 30, but for all Trump-voting men under 30, it was a couple ticks higher still, at 30% saying America would be worse off with more women in politics. Here's to yet another encouraging sign from Gen Z's fine young white men!

Friday, January 19, 2018

Modest brown slowdown

++Disclaimer++The 2015 data assigns a racial/ethnic classification to 99.7% of all recorded births, while the 2016 data only assigns one to 97.0% of all recorded births. I am unsure why the discrepancy is so large between the two years, but it creates the appearance of a larger decline in births by race/ethnicity across the board than actually exists in terms of total births. There was a 0.9% decline in the absolute number of births between 2015 and 2016.


The following table and graph show the change in Hispanic births from 2015 to 2016, by state (for whites see here and for blacks see here). Mixed-race births are not included in these counts:

1) West Virginia+14.5
2) South Dakota+13.4
3) New Hampshire+9.1
4) Alabama+6.7
5) Ohio+6.4
6) Kentucky+4.5
7) Connecticut+4.2
8) South Carolina+3.9
9) Mississippi+3.3
10) Washington+2.9
11) Florida+2.8
12) Massachusetts+2.7
13) Tennessee+2.7
14) Rhode Island+2.6
15) Missouri+2.3
16) Colorado+2.1
17) Pennsylvania+2.1
18) Oklahoma+2.0
19) Iowa+1.5
20) District of Columbia+1.5
21) North Carolina+1.5
22) Arkansas+1.4
23) Nevada+1.3
24) Utah+1.1
25) Maryland+1.1
26) Wyoming+1.0
27) North Dakota+0.9
28) Virginia+0.8
29) Georgia+0.7
30) Nebraska+0.7
31) Michigan+0.5
32) Minnesota+0.4
33) Alaska+0.1
34) Kansas+0.0
35) Hawaii(0.3)
36) Oregon(0.6)
United States(0.7)
37) Idaho(0.8)
38) Arizona(0.9)
39) Wisconsin(1.5)
40) Texas(1.8)
41) New York(2.0)
42) California(2.3)
43) Indiana(2.5)
44) Louisiana(2.7)
45) New Jersey(2.8)
46) Vermont(2.9)
47) Illinois(3.7)
48) Montana(4.4)
49) Maine(5.2)
50) New Mexico(6.1)
51) Delaware(6.6)


Most states saw a year-over-year increase, but nationally the number of Hispanic births in 2016 declined modestly from 2015 on account of both California and Texas, together containing nearly half the country's total Hispanic population, experiencing larger birth declines than the rest of the US.

A couple of noticeable trends are visible--fewer births in the highly Hispanic Southwest and more births in the South. While white and black births in Alaska and Hawaii are in free fall, Hispanic births are steady in the country's non-contiguous states.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

The dark decline

++Disclaimer++The 2015 data assigns a racial/ethnic classification to 99.7% of all recorded births, while the 2016 data only assigns one to 97.0% of all recorded births. I am unsure why the discrepancy is so large between the two years, but it creates the appearance of a larger decline in births by race/ethnicity across the board than actually exists in terms of total births. There was a 0.9% decline in the absolute number of births between 2015 and 2016.


The following table and graph show the change in non-Hispanic black births from 2015 to 2016, by state (for whites, see here). Mixed-race births are not included in these counts:

1) South Dakota+10.7
2) North Dakota+6.8
3) Massachusetts+0.6
4) Connecticut+0.3
5) District of Columbia+0.1
6) Florida(1.3)
7) Iowa(1.6)
8) Georgia(2.3)
9) Texas(2.6)
10) Minnesota(3.1)
11) Alabama(3.2)
12) Mississippi(3.3)
13) Maryland(3.5)
14) Louisiana(3.8)
15) Tennessee(4.9)
16) North Carolina(5.0)
17) Delaware(5.2)
United States(5.3)
18) Nevada(5.3)
19) Indiana(5.5)
20) Virginia(5.6)
21) Illinois(5.7)
22) Ohio(5.9)
23) Michigan(6.0)
24) New York(6.4)
25) Arkansas(6.8)
26) Kentucky(7.1)
27) South Carolina(7.1)
28) Wisconsin(7.5)
29) Missouri(7.6)
30) New Jersey(9.4)
31) Idaho(9.6)
32) Pennsylvania(9.8)
33) Nebraska(10.1)
34) Arizona(10.9)
35) Maine(11.2)
36) California(11.3)
37) Oklahoma(12.0)
38) New Hampshire(12.2)
39) Kansas(12.6)
40) Colorado(12.9)
41) West Virginia(15.9)
42) Washington(16.3)
43) Rhode Island(17.8)
44) Utah(19.1)
45) Hawaii(19.9)
46) Alaska(24.4)
47) New Mexico(25.6)
48) Wyoming(27.6)
49) Oregon(29.2)
50) Montana(36.0)
51) Vermont(46.6)


Eighteen states show double-digit percentage decreases in births in 2016 compared to 2015. None of those states are heavily black, nor are they on their way to becoming so. Nationwide, the black fertility rate per capita is still about 20% higher than the white fertility rate is, but the gap has been narrowing for decades. At the current rate, white and black fertility will have reached parity in a couple of decades, and the total fertility rate before that. Can't wait to see the major media celebrate the elimination of that gap!

The east-west divide in changes in fecundity is even starker with black births than it is with white births. As Feryl will undoubtedly notice, the hot, swampy tropical South suits blacks.

The energy boom in the Dakotas have attracted a lot of younger people from all of the country. Americans will do jobs Americans won't do if the wages are right, and while they've receded some from their peaks a few years ago, it's a laborer's market in both those states. Black births are up considerably there.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

The unbirth of a nation

++Disclaimer++The 2015 data assigns a racial/ethnic classification to 99.7% of all recorded births, while the 2016 data only assigns one to 97.0% of all recorded births. I am unsure why the discrepancy is so large between the two years, but it creates the appearance of a larger decline in births by race/ethnicity across the board than actually exists in terms of total births. There was a 0.9% decline in the absolute number of births between 2015 and 2016.


The following table and graph show the change in non-Hispanic white births from 2015 to 2016, by state. Mixed-race births are not included in these counts:

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)