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.


American Spartan said...

"Beaten in the election"

Only if he is a Democrat, because voting for a Democrat over a Republican for any reason on this issue is like shooting yourself in the head, its totally pointless.

Primaries our best plan, only 5% of the party elects those who run, do not support any bible thumpers, bring American Patriots to the forefront, Immigration is the only issue that matters.

Anonymous said...

Um, no. Replacement level TFR in first world countries is about 2.1. In China, it might be 2.2.

Remember it's not just the people that die in youth that don't included in reproduction. It's also the many, many more boys that get born than girls. In western nations, about 4-7% more boys are born, so each girl needs to grow up to birth new citizens to replace the extra boys as well as herself and her spouse.

Anonymous said...

"Primaries our best plan, only 5% of the party elects those who run, do not support any bible thumpers, bring American Patriots to the forefront, Immigration is the only issue that matters."

The bible thumpers entirely accurately predicted the rise of feminism and female lust for strange foreign men due to the empowerment of birth control (which should have been banned like the American Indians should have banned alcohol), even before its effects on overall fertility. They are owed much political capital simply for being right in their prediction when everyone else was wrong. This sense of loyalty for the past must be established first as an axiom before it can be applied horizontally, extrapolated in an ethnic sense so as to form a holistic history.

Jews get this. That's why they win.

Sid said...

Great post. Some thoughts...

1. Great point that not only do leaders like Merkel not have children, their bureaucratic and legislative functionaries don't have them either.

2. If the United State doesn't work out as a polity anymore, which AE often states is inevitable, then the best way to create a new polity will be to establish a white ethnostate in the American Interior.

The white TFR in Utah is exemplary, but Idaho and the Dakotas are quite respectable. So I would say my recommendation already has some salience!

3. I've stated earlier that the way to boost white TFRs will be to,

A. Improve the economy for median white Americans.
B. Spur the desire of white men to have children.
C. Do the same for white women.

I made those points sometime after Trump was elected in 2016. I would say that Trump has unevenly worked on Point A. To be honest, I think it would be best if a Democrat came in and implemented some of pre-cucked Bernie Sanders' ideas.

Aside from well-paying jobs that have enough time for, ahem, leisure, I don't think anything would help young whites make some babies than student loan reform. To her credit, Jill Stein claimed the student loan crisis is curbing young people's fertility. Here's to hoping Trump or a future Trumpist will seize on the issue.

Culturally, I think B. has been underway for awhile. Websites in the manosphere and other red pill forums encourage fatherhood far more than they used to. For example, Roissey/Heartiste used to write long screeds about how having kids was just a detriment to ones hedonic enterprise. He has since wised up there.

Unfortunately, there has been very little if any progress on point C. The hip progressive ideal for women is to be a barren corporate drone whose nights switch between whoring it up in the clubs and staying up late watching Netflix with a bottle of wine. Alas!

As usual, I will end with my disclaimer: We Americans still have time, but we have to act now and act hard.

Worldly Wiseman said...

Angela Merkel is childless but her longstanding defence secretary has seven kids. This is not about personal demons projected on a national level.

From a non American perspective you guys are (like the British) long overdue for another round of civil war. The only thing (IMHO) preventing it (in the US) are the jews. They serve as a focal point for both left and right. Without them it's north vs south again.

John Q Public said...

You're missing the obvious. The main problem with representative democracy is that it does not in fact exist. Read Moldbug.

Audacious Epigone said...

American Spartan,

An (R) who gets an F from NumbersUSA should not be voted for under any circumstances. A Dem who gets an F is a better choice because, contra Agnostic, the right is the only place immigration restrictionism will possible come from in the US.


Thanks, I've updated the post accordingly.


Yes, they did. They couldn't avert disaster, but they correctly saw it coming.

However, they did nothing to stop the great invasion, something that is even more damaging than feminism. Feminism will work itself out because feminists don't breed. Further, they've now largely lost control of their churches. American mainline Protestantism is converged.


Indeed, the cuck corridor (+ Utah) is the only white part of the country willing to reproduce itself. The putatively racially conscious South? Nope, not really. Better than the Northeast and West Coast, but not even replacement level.

Concur that C is both the one we've made the least progress on and the one that probably matters most of all.

Worldly Wiseman,

The Imperial Capital has nearly 700,000 people. It's not a wash--the people at the political helm are far less fecund than the country they rule over is.

John Q Public,

Perfectly representative, of course not. But locally (if homogenous) it works pretty well. My state senators do a pretty good job representing me and my interests.

Worldly Wiseman said...

I thought fertility is mostly a lower class problem. I don't know if politicians are a good sample to draw conclusions from them operating on a self interest autopilot all the time :

Jig Bohnson said...

About DC: Its non-Hispanic white population skews extremely young so of course it will have low TFR stats. Whites move out of the District when they have kids, for better schools etc, so DC's "cultural TFR" (the average number of kids its current residents will eventually have) would be something like the average of VA and MD, which is in the middle. Not so life sucking.

It would be that way with any individual SWPL big city - the non-Hispanic whites who live there currently are almost by definition child-less at present.

alex69elijah9yaki said...

except for african refugees, blacks in the USA have a low fertilty rate

Anonymous said...

does this account for white women having non white children?

the fact that Hawaii is replacement level is very suspicious. has as much race mixing as California.

if not I doubt anywhere is above replacement levels

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig Bohnson,

The TFR calculation takes the age distribution of the population into account. The value returned is the expected mean number of children women in a population will have had by the time they turn 50 years old.

Worldly Wiseman,

What do you mean by fertility being a low-class problem?




It's based on the race of the mother (that's the only way to reliably gather statistics like these). Of course it also means white men who impregnate Asian or Hispanic women (and, theoretically, black women) are not being given any credit here. Is there good data on whether white men or white women are more likely to be involved in interracial relationships? WM/AF is 3x as common as AM/WF, while WM/BF is only one-third as common as BM/WF. Not sure about Hispanics, though. I'd guess that WM/HF is probably *more* common than HM/WF, but I'm not sure.

Sid said...


I haven't seen hard numbers, but yes, WM/HF does look to be more common than HM/WF.

Anecdotally, white American women who love "Latin" men usually refer to Conquistador-Americans. It's rare to see white women with men of significant Indian ancestry. Back when I read a lot of PUA blogs, the guys who preferred "Latin" women also almost always seemed to be referring to Conquistador ladies from South America. Of course, these guys were either alphas or aspiring ones.

But when it comes to whites and mestizos, it almost seems like a prole version of whites and Asians. Caucasoid men, especially of the beta extraction, seem to like Mongoloid women more than the reverse.

Feryl said...

" Without them it's north vs south again."

What are ya'll smoking? The West Coast is the biggest threat to America. And I don't have much faith in the Mountain states, either. In case you haven't noticed, California is mounting a revolt against the FedGov right now. California is home to tons of immigrants, and the remaining natives and whites tend to be really big shit-libs.

And since the Civil War era, tons of immigrants have come into America and changed it a great deal. Many white Norhteasterners are no longer puritans, but Jews, Italians, and Irish-Catholics. The Midwest has increasingly cleaved itself away from the Northeast, as the Brit-Teutonic whites of the Midwest are sick and tired of Ari Goldmans and Gino Fucetti's whining about WASP country clubs. The most stupid piece of legislation in US history (the '65 immigration act) was the work of a Northeastern Jew and a Northeastern Irish-Catholic. At the time they claimed it wouldn't upset American demographics or culture, but you suspect that at least on some sub-conscious level they were scheming to get back at people with names like Thurston Howell III. These days many media reports on immigration and ethnic issues are done by either Ellis Islanders or blacks, or worse still, people who's roots in America started in the 60's or 70's. The Midwest is much more dovish than the South or Northeast, a legacy of the Midwest being less Celtic. The Midwest has produced fewer dipshit globalists and warmongers than either the South or the Northeast. Most of the charlatans running the Pentagon have Celtic names. The Jews get Wall Street (the Northeast), the Celts get the military (the South).

All that being said, the Western US is more flaky than any region of the East. It's time to cut the crap and get on with a lot of important business. We don't have any more time for neurotic and shallow goofballs from Out West.

Audacious Epigone said...


The 2016 presidential election indeed showed that their is a greater east-west fault line than there is a north-south one anymore. Trump winning big in New Hampshire and then immediately following that up with a big win in South Carolina illustrated that. So did the fact that relative to Romney, Trump did better in the eastern half of the country, while in some western states--like California!--Hillary's margin of victory was wider than Obama's.

Worldly Wiseman said...


Fertility and out of wedlock births - that's Charles Murray argument in Coming Apart that makes sense to me. I could be wrong though.


Just my impression as an outsider. West coast was settled by the Puritans after all. Also your movement is going to fail once you start having arbitrary dates when deciding who is and who isn't an American. Can't have an empire with blood an soil nationalism

Atw said...

"The hip progressive ideal for women is..."
Whatever it is, no surprise the absolute majority doesn't prefer the manosphere ideal for women - basically the wife of Papa Pilgrim.
Teenage bride to a man 20 years older, submissive and isolated from "degenerate" society. Beaten if she questioned her husband and told to call him "Lord." Eventually replaced by Yonger Hotter Tighter pussy (their daughter) when her body after 15 childbirths could no longer please the alpha male. What a dream life, I wonder why normal girls don't line up for it. Almost all parts of it (except daughter rape, but including beatings) have been advocated by various red pill blogs and received support from their readers.

Sid said...


I've had some disputes here with guys who always comically missed the point I was trying to make. Even so, your making a strawman out of my argument is much worse than that. That's some Stephen Jay Gould tactics right there.

No, I don't support the kind of marriage you described.

A lot of ideas in the red pill movement are unhelpful, but that's what happens when you have a dissident movement percolating with fresh new ideas. A number of bad ideas is the price of innovation, and unhelpful ideas that still provoke and challenge a bad status quo are useful in their own right. So I may disagree with the ideas but won't denounce them.

Aristotle said there is a golden mean between two extremes which become bad if taken too far in either direction. In my case, I want a woman with whom we can build a life together. A "strong, independent woman" and a "submissive" one aren't what I'm looking for.

Overall, I would say America in general and the region in which I came of age in particular are too far along the "strong, independent" BS that's harmful. You can take it too far in the other direction (believe me, I worked in an Islamic country and I mentored young women to help them find and pursue their dreams in life, so I'm familiar with that other extreme), but we still need to go down that direction until we find our golden mean.

I will say, however, that you can get women from traditional upbringings and show them how to pursue their dreams in life. It's next to impossible to take hardened feminists who have been on the cock carousel and turn them into women you want to reproduce with or even be around, so I can't deny that C. of my plan for increasing white TFRs will be damn hard.

Coyote said...

AE, you should reverse the colors on your TFR map.

Anonymous said...

Yes Whites who mix with Hispanics are mixing with Hispanics of European descent, which is to be expected as Europeans are genetically homogeneous and mix amongst themselves in all the European Diasporas ( like attracts like etc )