Saturday, March 31, 2018

Belief in Hell by theistic orientation and by religious affiliation

Martin Luther would have thought "anti-christ" too kind a descriptor for the Argentinian vicar. But is it really fair to accuse Francis of being Mephistopheles' man? It's not that he is on the side of the devils, it's just that he's on the side of the Jews and the atheists (hey, quiet you!).

The following table shows the percentages of GSS respondents, by belief in God and also by religious affiliation, who either believe there is "probably not" or "definitely not" a Hell (N = 3,501):

The first three bars are broken out by belief in God

One-quarter of Catholics are already on board with what the pontiff allegedly asserted. Joke's on them, though, as there's already a spot reserved for him next to Nicholas III and Boniface VIII.

GSS variables used: HELL, GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6), RELIG

Give up your guns, goy

Reuters-Ipsos polling on gun control ran for a couple more weeks after we first visited here. Sample sizes for certain populations of interest subsequently became large enough to allow for a more fine-grained analyses of the results.

As a preface, consider Heartiste's rather bold assertion made last week:
"Gun control activism" is spearheaded by jews who wish to disarm White Gentiles.
Say what? No, deplorable anti-semite! It's the kiddies who are leading this thing, and they're merely demanding--pleading!--to be kept safe. Is that too much to ask?

The following graphic delivers a fully-automatic machine-gunning to the mendacious (((media))) narrative on gun-grabbing. It shows the percentages who strongly favor "banning semi-automatic weapons", by selected demographic characteristics (N = 7,858):

The archetypal gun-grabber is an old Jewess, not a bright-eyed high schooler. Do not be fooled when the yentas say otherwise.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Gun-grabbing geezers

Over the last several weeks I've talked to several people about guns. Without fail, every one has been surprised to learn that young people are the less supportive of gun-grabbing than old folks are. Reuters-Ipsos polling shows it and the GSS corroborates. The major media's mendacity strikes again--though in fairness, NPR (!) has given it some attention.

The following table shows the percentages of respondents who favor requiring permits to be obtained before gun purchases are allowed (N = 7,438):

It's a crowded graphic, but the takeaway is that while age differences are minor, the trend is clear--across race and political affiliation, those under the age of 30 are the least restrictive of gun ownership. It should come as no surprise that the average age of the useful idiots out marching is over forty (unmarried, childless, and owners of a pussy prides).

GSS variables used: GUNLAW, AGE, PARTYID(0-1)(5-6), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RACECEN1(1)(2)

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Make MAGA Great Again

Vox Day ensures we have "a public record of whose analysis was correct and whose was not". I can think of no better company to be in than Derb's and Z-Man's, though some clarification for the benefit of the historical record is in order.

Who else merits quoting? There is no need to quote Never Trumpers like Jonah Goldberg and Ben Shapiro.
The criticism offered here is qualitatively different than that of those vacillating cucks. For one, they never wanted to get on the train and when they--or at least the latter, I'm constitutionally incapable of following Goldberg--reluctantly did so, it was only with the naive hope of taking the controls and running the train off the tracks.

To the extent I'm able to add value, it is informational and in this case also aims also to be prognostic. It's not often polemical and rarely rhetorical, as those are not personal strong suits. See my money where my mouth is. Or just take a look at the assessment of Trump's 'abortion abomination' in Wisconsin. Arguing his response logical and reasonable and could even redound to his benefit was a lonely place to be. Shapiro was of course doing what he does.

More importantly, the cucks Vox ropes us in with shriek and clutch their skirts every time Trump steps outside the Overton Window. They of the Respectable Right patrol the boundaries ensuring no one wanders past the perimeter as defined by the globohomo elite.

My bearish take on his political future, in contrast, results from his putting a punctuation mark on a trend that has been ongoing for several months now--that of Trump spending more and more time inside the Overton Window, rubbing shoulders with the swamp creatures he was sent in to flay.

The cucks withdraw support because they say he's gone too far. We lose heart because he won't go far enough.

How does the assessment that Trump's presidency likely already hit its high water mark square with a recent post about how those fed up with Trump's friendly gestures towards the opposition shouldn't get worked up over his antics? In short because said antics had been, up until this point, empty gestures towards the opposition. This time, though, the empty gesturing was directed at the base.

As he was dying, the Roman emperor Severus allegedly told his sons (and successors) to take care of the army and scorn all other men. Trump can't afford to scorn the Deplorables, especially when he is going to be asking them to vote for congressional Republicans on his account in six months. If we're closing in on 50% of the way through Trump's first term and the list of major MAGA agenda items remain 0% complete, that's where they will stay through the duration of that single term.

Suspecting the above will take place doesn't mean I want it to. To the contrary. But with special elections we saw the initial ones go to Republican after Republican. By last November, though, the momentum had shifted. In Republicans' subsequent three big losses, starting with the Virginia gubernatorial election, a major reason for the poor performance was on account of Deplorables who gave Trump the White House in 2016 staying home. In the case of many Pennsylvania voters, things got worse still, with many reverting back to their old habit of voting Democrat.

My closing was intentional. Gratuitous self-quote:
It is difficult to overstate how devastating this missed opportunity is.
Switching analogies, the MAGAs were on the Uniparty's 30 yard-line, leading by six thanks to good game management. It was 3rd and 4 with 90 seconds left. Instead of running up the gut and either picking up the first down to run out the clock (veto sustained) or coming up short and having to settle for a field goal (veto overridden), the MAGAs decided to throw over the middle. The result was a pick six.

That's probably the ballgame, but the MAGAs will get the ball back with a minute to march back down the field for the go-ahead score. Doing so (building the big, beautiful wall using funds from the $700 billion allotted to the military) isn't inconceivable:

Monday, March 26, 2018

Support for free speech among young white college graduates has declined over the last several decades

From Anatoly's open thread round up:
Support for free speech among young college graduates has plummeted over last several decades. Would be interesting to see trends for just whites. Maybe somebody could dig into the GSS?
When Anatoly says "jump!", I ask "how high?". The following graph shows percentages of white respondents who favor allowing "racists" to speak in public, by the decade they participated in the survey and by their age at the time of participation (N = 3,378):

Among whites, too, young college-educated boomers are the free speech champions. They were markedly stronger supporters of free speech than their 'racist' parents were.

The generational gap opened widest between pro-free speech boomer parents (although they appear to have cooled some on their attitudes from their salad days) and their millennial children, as evidenced here in the 2000s. The small increase in support for free speech among white college graduates from 2010 onward is modestly encouraging. If millennials end up representing the Occident's low-point, there is hope for the future yet!

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, AGE(18-29)(40-60), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016), DEGREE(2-4), ETHNIC(2-4,6-15,18,19,21,23-27,32,33,36)

Saturday, March 24, 2018

Slowly at first, then all at once

While the Derb's most astounding statistic of our age--that the US has admitted more Muslims for settlement in the 15 years after 9/11 than it did in the 15 years prior--is an observation well taken, the most rapid increase in settlements have come not from MENA countries but from sub-Saharan Africa.

From 1990 to 2017, the number of people living in the US who were born in sub-Saharan Africa has increased 533%*. The number of foreign-born people living in the US who were born outside of sub-Saharan Africa has increased 110% over that same period of time:

If that rate of settlement growth continues--and the world's most important graph strongly suggests that if we do nothing it will not merely continue but will accelerate--we'll be looking at 10 million foreign-born sub-Saharan Africans living in the US another generation down the road. With TFRs of around 5 children per woman, that's somewhere in the ballpark of 60 million more sub-Saharan Africans living in the US by mid-century than live here now.

For three centuries the US and its antecedent has struggled to find a way for whites and blacks to live together if not in harmony than at least civilly. In three decades we're set to more than double the size of the country's black population, a population we've been unable to functionally integrate in 300 years. Under a president Kamala Harris, a trebling of the size might be closer to the truth.

The storm clouds of a Malthusian catastrophe are brewing on the dark continent. It'll be swell if the rains can somehow be blessed there. It is imperative that they not be blessed here.

As a great thinker is fond of saying, this will not end well.

* For some countries, Pew reports the population estimates as "less than X". In these cases, half the "less than" figure is used. For example, Lesotho shows "less than 1,000" migrants in both 1990 and 2017, so 500 is the figure used in both years.

Friday, March 23, 2018

The day the Trump presidency died

So bye, bye MAGA dream in the sky:

This is probably the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency. The midterms are shaping up to be a bloodbath. The markets now put the odds of Democrats re-taking the House at 68%. The odds of Democrats gaining control of the Senate is 40%, an astoundingly high figure given Democrats are defending 25 of their seats--more than half--while Republicans are defending just eight of their own.

The last two years of Trump's term will be one of perpetual Russia, Russia!, RUSSIA!! and impeachment proceedings initiated by a Democrat congress riding its "blue wave", while pusillanimous Republicans meekly position themselves in various ways in opposition to the isolated president.

A veto would have been a ‘defining moment’ in his presidency. It would’ve electrified the base and fired up the grassroots tradcon and libertarian contingents, sending a strong message about the seriousness of draining the swamp and of building the wall.

Most maddening is how easy a veto it would have been. Before the contents are even available for public viewing, Chuck Schumer is dancing in the endzone over the 2,200-plus page, $1.3 trillion bill no one will read before it hits Trump's desk, a $1.3 trillion bill that includes just $0.0016 trillion for wall funding--and even that pittance can't actually be used for anything serious.

Where's the negotiation and the pushback from our great negotiator? Before he had even signed it, other Democrats were boasting about getting 80% of what they wanted. The optics alone were terrible. So terrible that it doesn't seem particularly conspiratorial to wonder if the perjury trap fishing expedition Mueller investigation has found something seriously compromising. If that's the case, though, the snakes will publicly expose it anyway, so why not come out swinging like usual?

Trump was elected because he followed his instincts rather than the advice of wormtongues. His instincts told him this bill was garbage:

In tough situations like these, leaders lead. They don't whine about how they dislike what they've agreed to go along with.

It is difficult to overstate how devastating this missed opportunity is.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Long march through the Republican institutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 19, 2018

The Han Hundred

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Overwhelming majority say illegal immigration is a threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, March 16, 2018

We should have picked our own damned cotton


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

As a member of the twitterverse put it:

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

Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.

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

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Contrary to Steven Pinker, support for free speech is falling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Handicapping the 2018 mid-terms

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, March 10, 2018


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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, March 09, 2018

Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Gen Z: Molon Labe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 05, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, March 03, 2018

Ice people f*cking love science!

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

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

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

Friday, March 02, 2018

Popularis Trump

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

Keeping guns away from the mentally ill gets overwhelming support:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Moral Mormons

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

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

Jews, unsurprisingly, express the least concern.

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

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