Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Immigration, Mr. President

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Monday, February 26, 2018

Smash the sanctuaries

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

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

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

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


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

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

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Hogging the spotlight

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

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

Some observations, none particularly novel:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


Mr. Larsen gets the last word:



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

Thursday, February 22, 2018

It's okay to be white

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

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

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


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

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

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Essence matters

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


But some of it was reasonable enough:


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 19, 2018

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Friday, February 16, 2018

Jewgenics

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

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

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

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


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


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

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Eugenic Mormons

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 12, 2018

Smear the Episcopalian

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



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

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


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

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

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Not tired

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

Steve Sailer explains:
The longer the Democrats talk about immigration, disclosing ever more accurately what’s really on their minds, the better Trump will do with the electorate. Maybe Trump could arrange for some elderly Democratic leader to give, say, an eight-hour speech about Dreamers? Who knows what rationalizations the old Democrat might dredge up?
From that post, a shot of a truly risible NYT editorial:


Dictionary.com does not include "illegal" in the definition of "criminal" nor "criminal" in the definition of "illegal" because doing so would mean using a term to describe itself--the two are synonyms!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thursday, February 08, 2018

Climb on two by two to be sure these days continue

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Atheism is maladaptive

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

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

Thoughts on GodKids
Atheist/agnostic1.75
Uncertain believer2.02
Firm believer2.38

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 05, 2018

Coke is woke

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

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

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

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


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



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



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

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

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



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

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



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

Runner-up came from WeatherTech:



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

Indeed. MAGA!

Saturday, February 03, 2018

Life after God

A couple weeks ago, Z Man put up a post that opened thusly:
Is it possible for humans to have a transcendent moral code if they no longer believe in an afterlife?
It's a question worth pondering, because whites in the US have been losing such a belief for decades, Among Western Europeans, it's already gone.

The GSS queries respondents on their belief in heaven. The survey also asks them whether or not they think "morality is a personal matter".

Not surprisingly, those who believe in heaven are more likely than those who do not to also believe in a transcendent moral code. Transcendence in something subjectively crafted by an individual is tricky (yes, I understand Nietzsche addresses this, but that is not how most people see it).

Among whites who believe in heaven, 35% strongly believe that morality is a personal matter. Among whites who do not believe in heaven, 52% do so (N = 910).

Z Man suggests something else will fill the space that used to be occupied by God. Paleocons like Paul Gottfried see it as multiculturalism (or what more contemporaneously might be referred to as SJW convergence), libertarians see it as the State, traditionalists as the cult of the individual, many on the Alt Right (myself included) as the disappearance of the space itself. When a people are replaced, so are their gods. Z Man in fact hints at the same:
The Christianity that flowered in the middle ages may be on the ropes, but something new will surely spring from its ruins. Perhaps the flood of Islam into the West is part of that process.
Allah laughs at your meek trinity.

The percentages of respondents, by religious affiliation, who strongly agree that morality is a personal matter (N = 7,792):


One thing Islam does not lack is a confidence in the way it perceives the moral order of the universe.

GSS variables used: PERMORAL(1)(2-4), HEAVEN(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN(1), HISPANIC(1), RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(9)

Friday, February 02, 2018

FISA memo

I've a couple of other posts queued up and don't have anything novel to add at the moment, but diverting attention away from a scandal bigger than Watergate isn't something that can be done with a clear conscience. Collusion between the FBI and a presidential campaign to violate the constitutional protections of the oppositional presidential campaign? That's really bad.

Sessions should end his recusal immediately, interrogate every person mentioned in the memo, level perjury charges against any who are found to be lying--no one named is denying anything so presumably it's all true--recommend Mueller be fired for having known and done nothing about all of it, and then charge Mueller with conspiracy and obstruction.

Meanwhile, the top story (with graphic) in my twatter search feed:


Minimizing, downplaying, deflecting, and running interference isn't going to be enough here. We now have senators like Ron Johnson calling for communications between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to be reviewed. A scandal-free administration is what they used to say of Obama's presidency. Ha! Succulent schadenfreude.

A recurring theme that has emerged over the last couple of years is that of the left introducing something to destroy the right with and then the right repurposing it to destroy left. Fake News, accepting the outcome of an election, the putative sexual harassment 'epidemic', election interference, etc. It's almost as if Republicans are finally learning how to win (in short, by emulating the president).

Speaking of Clinton and Obama, they're both curiously quiet on the memo front. Neither has tweeted a thing since it was released to the public:



There is a lot of draining to do. This is only the beginning.

Thursday, February 01, 2018

Orwellian illegalities

Steve Sailer recently called out the fake news Washington Post on attempting to retcon the history of the vocabulary used to describe those illegally present in the country.

Ever since our elites legislatively opened the third-world floodgates in the sixties, we've had "chain migration", not "family reunification". We've had "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens", not "undocumented migrants" and "undocumented workers".

The midwits speaking power to truth in propaganda outlets owned by Jeff Bezos and Carlos Slim indefatigably try to obfuscate this reality, but they cannot alter it.

Steve showed this to be the case in the literature using Ngram viewer.

The story is the same among the populares. Internet search volume since 2004 in the US, from Trends:


"Illegal" (combined search volume index score of 41) garners over an order of magnitude more interest than "undocumented" (combined search volume index score of 3) does.

Is there any aspect of the immigration debate where fake news isn't actively engaged in retconning? Tell a lie repetitiously enough, and...