Saturday, May 19, 2018

Support for secession by state

The following map and subsequent table show percentages by state who, according to a 2014 Reuters-Ipsos poll, support "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government" ("don't know" responses are excluded; N = 12,734):


StateSecede
1) Alaska58.3%
2) New Mexico45.2%
3) Texas40.4%
4) Illinois38.9%
5) District of Columbia38.1%
6) Alabama38.0%
7) Utah37.6%
8) Louisiana37.5%
9) Montana37.2%
10) Rhode Island36.9%
11) Nebraska36.2%
12) Delaware36.1%
13) West Virginia35.4%
14) Georgia35.3%
15) Vermont35.1%
16) Wyoming34.8%
17) Oregon33.9%
18) Virginia33.8%
19) Kentucky33.0%
20) South Carolina32.7%
21) Idaho32.5%
22) Florida32.2%
23) Colorado32.2%
24) New York32.1%
25) Arkansas32.0%
26) Oklahoma31.6%
27) North Dakota31.6%
28) Mississippi31.5%
29) California30.0%
30) Maine29.8%
31) Kansas29.8%
32) Nevada29.7%
33) Tennessee29.7%
34) Arizona29.0%
35) New Hampshire28.8%
36) South Dakota28.4%
37) Maryland27.9%
38) Washington27.5%
39) Ohio27.3%
40) Hawaii27.2%
41) Michigan26.9%
42) Pennsylvania26.0%
43) Missouri25.9%
44) North Carolina25.7%
45) Iowa24.5%
46) Indiana24.3%
47) New Jersey23.4%
48) Wisconsin22.3%
49) Massachusetts21.2%
50) Minnesota20.6%
51) Connecticut19.2%

Just under 13,000 people across 51 states and the Imperial Capital comes to 250 people per, some with fewer and some with more, so bear in mind the limited sample sizes.

Speaking of the Imperial Capital, the 38% figure strains credulity more than any other result does. The sample is the poll's smallest, though, at just 70, so take it with a grain of salt.

The mountain states, the Southwest, and the Deep South show the greatest support for secession. The Upper Midwest shows the least appetite for it, though Illinois--a financially dysfunctional Midwestern state held captive by ultra leftist Chicago--is a notable exception.

It's not particularly surprising that Alaska, with its petroleum dividend, libertarian streak, and minimal association with the rest of the country in terms of culture and politics, shows the greatest support for breaking away. It is the only state where a majority of respondents favor secession.

One thing I inexplicably failed to bring attention to in the previous post is the political split among whites:


White Democrats express a lot more opposition to secession than white Republicans and independents do. But non-whites, who of course vote overwhelmingly Democrat, are more supportive than white Republicans are. There's a gaping chasm between white Democrats and their non-white political allies when it comes to political self-determination. And the non-white enthusiasm for political dissolution expressed in this poll was captured during Obama's more explicitly anti-white second term.

R-I should run the poll again today. I suspect non-white support for breakup now exceeds 50%. Sure, political dissolution will threaten the gibs, but identity is more powerful than economic well-being. That reality is something WEIRDOs have a lot of difficulty understanding. Everyone else takes it for granted and acts accordingly.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

US political dissolution a question of when and how, not if

Revisiting a poll from a few years ago reinforces my belief that the US is headed for political dissolution within the lifetimes of most people reading this. In the latter part of 2014, Reuters-Ipsos asked a huge number of respondents (N = 16,668) if they supported or opposed "your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government".

The following graph shows the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who supported the idea. "Don't know" answers, which constituted 23.5% of all responses, are excluded in the graph which presents the results dichotomously:


At 87, the Muslim sample size is small, so don't read it conclusively. Instead, take it suggestively--suggestive of exactly what you assumed to be the case. And the 2%? Maybe they should've thought twice about destroying the nation that was the greatest thing that ever happened to them.

This poll was conducted during Obama's presidency, nearly a year before Donald Trump shocked the world by announcing his candidacy. Even during the Obama administration large numbers of non-whites--especially "new Americans"--liked the idea of getting out. Imagine what those figures would look like in 2018.

The warning that secession will lead to civil war has always struck me as highly unlikely. That  nearly half of the country's armed forces support political dissolution further confirms it.

If Texas goes, blue states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while red states begin planning on how to follow Texas' lead. If California goes, red states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while blue states begin planning on how to follow California's lead.

One reason secession strikes many as practically unthinkable at first blush is because the political zeitgeist is still overwhelmingly shaped and controlled by boomers. The generational divide is actually starker than the racial divide is. When the boomers exit the stage, the possibility will suddenly seem all too real.

To people who grew up in a country of 150 million that was 90% white with a minority that had been here from the beginning, the thing made sense. To people trying to survive inside an empire of over 330 million people who are religiously, ethnically, financially, linguistically, racially, politically, and culturally divided--bitterly divided--it makes no sense. About the only thing keeping the it together now is a mix of inertia and economic expediency.

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Support for it exists all over the dissident right--Heartiste, Z-Man, Vox Day, Julian Langness, Jared Taylor. Our favorite septuagenarian is even thinking it over. It's not just gaining traction out here on the political frontier, though. The Federalist recently carried a column in support of the idea. Even the NYT is dipping a toe in the water.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Stefan Molyneux on the GSS and free speech absolutism



Regular readers who watch this presentation will recognize that it is strikingly similar to this post. It also draws from this one.

This is not on account of Molyneux being a plagiarist. He contacted me and I subsequently worked with his producer, Michael, who had seen the post and found the topic fascinating. Over the course of several e-mail exchanges, I helped Michael understand how to navigate the GSS in general and how to replicate the results from that post specifically.

Michael was extremely cordial and complimentary. He offered to compensate me for my time. I refused and made it clear that no attribution was necessary. There are posts on this blog that delve into things Molyneux understandably doesn't need to get tangled up in. While I know the data presented are always reliably and precisely pulled from primary sources, it's easy to imagine a large portion of his audience questioning the validity of his presentation upon seeing the blog as the source. Pointing to the GSS directly is a better way to go.

Oh, and now we have a guy with nearly one million subscribers giving a detailed presentation based on the GSS, one of the most underutilized data sources in the world of social science. Three cheers!

Molyneux is doing civilizational-saving work. So far as I'm aware no one else is doing as much to spread realism about race and IQ as he is. Charles Murray gave the relationship salience with The Bell Curve, and other psychometricians and evolutionary psychologists have conducted research on it, but no one with a platform approaching the size of Molyneux's has weaved it into discussions of every topic it applies to (which is just about every topic there is).

Understanding IQ differences as an abstract concept is one thing. Actively applying it to everything aspect of existence is another. The latter is what will change the zeitgeist, and no one is doing as much to realize that change as Molyneux.

Parenthetically, Molyneux (or Michael) didn't apply the BORN filter when tracking free speech absolutism by intelligence (the relevant portion of the presentation takes place around the 31 minute mark). Since intelligence in this context is estimated based on the English vocabulary of respondents, it's an imprecise proxy if people who are not native English speakers are included. Consequently, my figures--which exclude respondents born outside the US--are modestly higher at all ranges of intelligence.

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Trump's 2016 white vote share by state

Reuters-Ipsos' interactive polling explorer site has just added state filters back into the mix after pulling them a couple of years ago. This finally allows a look at non-Hispanic white vote share by state for the 2016 US presidential election. The sample size is huge, with 84,210 whites who either voted for Trump or Clinton included. The following map and subsequent table shows Trump's white voter share by state in a two-way race:


StateT'sWht%
1) Mississippi81.5
2) Alabama77.2
3) Louisiana74.4
4) Wyoming71.4
5) Arkansas71.4
6) South Carolina70.8
7) Georgia 70.4
8) South Dakota70.3
9) Tennessee70.2
10) West Virginia68.7
11) Alaska67.6
12) Texas66.5
13) Idaho65.9
14) Oklahoma65.5
15) North Dakota64.7
16) Missouri62.3
17) North Carolina62.2
18) Montana61.6
19) Utah60.7
20) Indiana60.5
21) Kentucky60.4
22) Florida60.1
23) Nebraska60.0
24) Arizona60.0
25) Kansas59.6
26) Virginia57.9
27) New Mexico56.5
28) Pennsylvania56.1
29) Nevada55.2
30) Ohio54.4
31) Colorado53.4
32) Michigan52.8
33) Maryland51.9
34) Delaware51.3
35) Wisconsin50.8
36) New Jersey50.4
37) Iowa50.2
38) Maine49.9
39) Minnesota49.1
40) New York48.9
41) Illinois48.1
42) Connecticut48.0
43) Washington47.8
44) California46.7
45) New Hampshire44.9
46) Oregon43.4
47) Rhode Island43.1
48) Massachusetts40.8
49) Vermont39.4
50) Hawaii36.8
51) District of Columbia36.3

Reuters has a pretty consistent left-leaning bias in its polling. Nationally, it shows Trump getting 56.8% of the two-way white vote compared to the 61.0% reported by the officially commissioned exit poll on election night. Add a compensating four points to Trump's state shares and he picks up Maine, Minnesota, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Washington, and California. Just an extra 137 electoral votes--no big deal!

The exact hypothetical margin of victory in the 2016 ethnoUnited States presidential election isn't as important as the fact that the Republican victory would be overwhelming both in the popular vote and in the electoral college.

Keep in mind that McMuffin's presence in Utah filches a lot of Trump's margin of white victory from him and that in this rendering McMuffin probably also steals Minnesota from Trump to give to Clinton.

The white vote in the Imperial Capital seems too pro-Trump. The two-way white sample size is only 391 there so make of it what you will.

If the vote were restricted to white men (forgive my not taking the time to shade accordingly--this is purely winner-take-all fantasy fun):

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Oy vey, the edge slips away

A recurring observation in the discussion based on IQ estimates for American Jews (among others) in the GSS was that the chosen ones, to quote Sid "come across as above average in intelligence today, but not terrifyingly brilliant the way they did 100 years ago".

The commenters here are invaluable. The following graph shows the IQ advantage Jews enjoy over non-Hispanic white gentiles by decade when the surveys were conducted. To avoid language confounding, responses are restricted to those born in the US. IQ estimates are based on Wordsum scores with a mean white gentile of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (N = 9,599):


The most obvious reason for this move towards convergence is out-marriage. The overall intermarriage rate for Jews in the US is 58%. It's an astounding 71% among non-Orthodox Jews. With fertility below replacement, most Jews marrying non-Jews, and little Jewish immigration into the US, the 2% is on its way to becoming the 1% is on its way to becoming the 0.X%.

Here are the converted IQ estimates for Jews and white gentiles that were used to construct the preceding table:

DecadeJewIQWhiteIQ
1980s110.199.1
1990s108.199.9
2000s107.6100.9
2010s107.2100.3

GSS variables used: WORDSUM, BORN(1), ETHNIC(2,6-11,13-15,18,19,21,23-27,36), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)

Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Thus spoke Vox Popoli

Vox Day, in the context of an interview about sexual promiscuity and the damage it does to children:
Once God is removed from the picture, so are the limits of the moral structure He has imposed on Man. And then, "do what thou wilt" becomes the whole of the law.
The following graph shows the percentages of people who have ever cheated on a spouse while married, by their belief (or lack thereof) in God. Responses are from 2000 onward and are restricted to non-Hispanic whites (N = 6,271):


The next graph shows the percentages who say having sex under the age of seventeen is "always wrong"(N = 6,402):


The last graph shows the percentages who say homosexual acts are "always wrong" (N = 6,128):


Cause, effect, and the potential noisy confounds and confounding noise aside, Vox Day's assertion has a powerful plausibility to it.

Stefan Molyneux, himself an atheist, regularly points out how devastating it has been for the West not to have killed God, but to have failed to replace Him with anything worthy of reverence.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), TEENSEX(1)(2-4), HOMOSEX(1)(2-4), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR(2000-2016), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6)

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Jew IQ

Vox Day recently disputed the notion that ZOG is a result of high Jewish IQ. In so doing, he's drawing swords with the likes of Gregory Cochran, Charles Murray, and Stephen Pinker. To atrociously mix metaphors, that prices me way out of the cognitive market, so I won't comment on the merits or demerits of Vox's assertion.

What I will do is take a look at what light the GSS can shed on the question. The following graph shows mean IQ estimates by selected demographics computed by converting the mean wordsum score among native-born non-Hispanic whites to 100 and assuming a standard deviation of 15 (N = 8,896):


To avoid language fluency issues, results are restricted to respondents who were born in the US. For contemporary relevance, all data is from the year 2000 onward.

One big issue with using wordsum as an IQ proxy--the two positively correlate at .71--is that because the vocabulary quiz only contains 10 questions, there is a converted IQ ceiling of 130, exactly two standard deviations above the white mean. Respondents who ace it all get recorded as having IQs of 130. While 4.2% of gentile whites score 10 out of 10, 12.1% of Jews do. In statistical terms, the first Pearson coefficient of skewness for gentile whites is -.20. For Jews it is -.66.

This artificially pulls the mean of high scoring group down. If the artificial ceiling was removed, the Jewish mean would likely increase by a couple of points.

The problem theoretically exists on the left side of the distribution, too, but it's of far lesser consequence because a wordsum score of zero converts to an IQ of 46.2. The number of respondents with IQs under 50 who are administered the survey must be negligible. It's unlikely they'd even be capable of completing it.

Another big issue is that estimating IQ in this way focuses entirely on verbal IQ at the expense of visuo-spatial IQ. Asians in the US tend to have modestly higher IQs than whites on account of a small visuo-spatial advantage over whites while whites enjoy a smaller advantage over Asians on verbal measures of IQ. Hispanics and American Indians also do better on visuo-spatial side of IQ tests than on the verbal side. Blacks and Jews, in contrast, do better on verbal than on the visuo-spatial.

Consequently, this method presumably modestly overstates black and Jewish IQ while modestly understating Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian IQ.

The GSS doesn't inquire about whether or not Jews are Ashkenazi, but it does ask about race. Among Jews who self-identify racially as white and so who are presumably Ashkenazi, mean IQ is 108.9. Among non-white Jews, mean IQ is 96.5.

Finally, Jewishness is inquired about in a religious rather than an ethnic context in the GSS. Some portion of ethnic Jews identify as having no religion and thus are not included in the Jewish results but are instead included in the Gentile white results. The Jewish-Gentile gap reported here is thus likely modestly understated as a result.

Parenthetically, here are the ten wordsum items. If you're reading this blog there's a good chance you'd score a perfect 10 out of 10. Forget the 2% being the cognitive elite--we outperform the vast majority of (((them))). We are the true cognitive elite!

GSS variables used: WORDSUM, BORN(1), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6)(7), CLASS, YEAR(2000-2016)

Friday, May 04, 2018

Links in a great chain

As someone with high hopes for Nicholas Fuentes, this discussion does not disappoint. Richard Spencer, whose career I've followed for a decade now, is in top form.

Except for when he offers up this canard, that is:



This assertion was initially reported by the US Census in May of 2012 based on population estimates from 2011. Fortunately, the CDC releases actual birth data for the previous year based on all recorded births across the entire country each June. A month after the Census' sensational estimate, the actual figures came out and undercut the incorrect estimate. And that incorrect estimate has continued to be incorrect in each subsequent year.

The following table shows the actual percentage of total births in the US that were to non-Hispanic white mothers by year going back to 2011 (sources for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016):

YearWhite births
201154.4%
201254.0%
201354.1%
201453.9%
201553.5%
201652.1%

Some of these white women are of course giving birth to multiracial babies. For obvious reasons, tracking the mother's race is easier than tracking the father's. By a strictly one-drop rule, the percentage of births to whites is surely below 50%, probably well below it, since baby Elizabeth Warren and Nick Fuentes would be included in the non-white tally by this accounting. It would also dictate we describe the US on the order of 1% or 2% black, since the majority of blacks in America have some European ancestry.

Parenthetically, Spencer's example of Alabama is way off the mark. As of 2016, the latest year for which data is available, 60% of babies born in the state were non-Hispanic white (at the link are pie charts showing the racial distribution of births for all 50 states and the Imperial Capital).

The thrust of what Spencer says doesn't suffer a loss of relevance just because it's exaggerated, but precision is important. So is avoiding unnecessarily ingesting black pills. We're not licked yet.

A primary purpose of the alt right (or dissident right, or identitarian movement, or whatever the preferred phrase) is to change the culture. Celebrating procreation--our procreation--needs to be part of that change.

In his AmRen conference remarks last year and during his speech this year, Jared Taylor expressed regret for not having had more children, noting specifically that the reason for it is that he assumed he wouldn't like fatherhood and nobody ever told him how wonderful it would be--he ended up discovering it later in life.

I understand this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Hell, it probably rubs most people the wrong way since most white people are below replacement!

It's an issue that gets me fired up not only because it's literally of existential importance but also because I held off, Idiocracy-style, through my twenties. I've never liked caring for pets. What were the chances I'd enjoy parenthood? With the benefit of hindsight, 100% as it turns out. I've now experienced a range of emotions I could not have experienced without having become a father. Unconditional love is reserved for our children, no one else.

Don't read this blog for emotional safeguarding, please. There is no point in fighting for an abstract idea of our posterity if we don't create any actual posterity to fight for.

We talk about the need for self-improvement. To get off the couch and into the gym. To stop drinking from the pop culture sewer and start distilling a salubrious culture of our own. To stop being supine and start standing up for ourselves. The shame we feel when we pass on the potential to grow the tribe is the same sort of shame we come up short on these other endeavors. Pressure to power. Stress to strength. Remember, others have done more with less.

This isn't a blanket call for MOAR WHITE BABIES (though that'd be fine with me). I know my audience. All human behavioral traits are heritable. The personality characteristics that make you a race realist grateful for your ancestors and guided by a concern for your descendents are personality characteristics your children will tend to share. If we don't do it (heh), we'll be relying on the Mennonites and the Mormons to win the future for us.

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Concluding thoughts on the Hater's Ball

Before returning to form by hewing to the data, permit me a few thoughts to wrap up reactions to the AmRen conference.

Z-Man astutely noted there were a fair number of women in attendance, on the order of 10%. That's a good sign. It indicates a move towards social normalization. So does the genuinely friendly reactions and responses our side seemingly uniformly received from law enforcement agents tasked with protecting the event.

The generational divide is another indication that identitarianism will become more socially acceptable in the US in the future. The young guys, especially the numerous Identity Evuropa contingent were affable, enthusiastic, and inquisitive. These were the merry warriors who waged the meme wars of 2015 and 2016. Now they're moving out of the virtual world and into the real one, one that is their oyster.

Parenthetically, I met the people behind hategraphs on twatter and garth volbeck on Gab, both of whom fit this general description very well. Think Paul Kersey, who reminds suburbanites like yours truly as the most popular kid on the block growing up.

In stark contrast, the older attendees were dour and abrasive. For many of them, the event is a despair porn climax. That's not meant to disparage--we are here because they were there long before, and some of this disparity is a consequence of youthful exuberance contrasting with grizzled realism. 

From a commenter:
The Sailer strat of pidgeonholing the Democrats into the party of black grievance and third world immigration is the last chance for USG to come back to regular historical nationhood by the stairs instead of the window.
Seems to me there are three broad potential strategic approaches to take with regards to politics and demographics:

- Old America (legacy whites and blacks) vs New America (Hispanics, Asians, and other recent settlers) -- This is the civic nationalist approach long advocated by Steve Sailer (a position he may have since become less hopeful for, having pivoted somewhat since then towards painting the Democrats as the Black Party). Civic nationalism manifested politically in the form of the Trump presidential effort. During the campaign (and through most of his presidency), Trump has made it a point to frame everything as Americans vs the world. Obama never did that.

One glaring problem with this is that most blacks, who've been in the US from the beginning, don't think of themselves as Americans.

- Ice People (whites, including Jews, and Asians) vs Sun People (blacks and browns) -- This is the meritocracy approach. It probably most closely approximates my own natural sentiments of the three. It is also probably the least workable in practice. For it to be viable, either political dissolution will have to occur or democracy will have to go.

- White identitarianism -- AmRen, Identity Evropa, secessionism, and most of what is considered Alt Right. Ourselves and our posterity.

Ultimately, the first two options work against the third. The third is the most 'extreme', but it may also be the only viable one. If so, then pursuing either of the first two--ie celebrating the Kanye development--is little more than a distraction that wastes precious time getting to the third approach.

How to split the difference to give civic nationalism a chance by putting the interests of current citizens far ahead of those of non-citizens? Three things:

1) A moratorium on immigration lasting at least one full generation
2) The repatriation of all non-citizens to their countries of origin
3) A restoration of native fertility to replacement (at minimum)

Tuesday, May 01, 2018

Black Pilled

Heartiste on Kanye West running off the plantation:
I predict a coming black sex gap, in which black men will vote less D while black women continue voting D with near-unanimity. The reason?

TRUMP.
Kanye has a huge following. Whether it presages a lasting shift in the sentiments of black men or is just a momentary blip, the initial movement is hard to ignore.

For the week ending April 22nd, Trump's Reuters-Ipsos polling approval (with "mixed feelings" discounted) among black men came in at 11.2%. Kanye's crush made headlines a couple of days later and by the end of the following week, April 29th, Trump's approval among black men had rocketed to 23.7%, the highest mark the 45th president has ever achieved among black men.

The corresponding figures for black women were 6.7% approval week ending April 22nd and 9.9% approval week ending April 29th, the latter of which falls four points short of Trump's high-water mark among black women.

The sample sizes are in the low hundreds so it could just be a noisy coincidence, but it would be quite a coincidence if that's the case. Results for the current week will be in next Monday. We'll be able to pronounce with more confidence then.

Paul Kersey:


That resonates well enough. But there are ramifications for whites from this, too. This line of apology for his new Trump love will be particularly effective against SWPLs:


Christian Lander didn't subtitle Stuff White People Like "the definitive guide to the unique taste of millions" just for kicks. Nothing is more important to them than their own idea of who they are. This could get fun fast.

Parenthetically, here we have another example of an observation I was first made aware of by Steve Sailer several years ago--the blackest blacks are the ones who tend to break rank. Curtis Jackson had nice things to say about the bumbling butcher. Herman Cain captured the hearts of cuckservatives for awhile. Diamond and Silk are darker than anyone in the Congressional Black Caucus. Steve Harvey doesn't have to prove his blackety blackety blackety black bona fides to anyone. John Legend vs Kanye West:


The Reuters-Ipsos presidential approval poll has been administered continuously since the beginning of 2018. It has accumulated a staggering sample size of 44,798 respondents. The following graph shows Trump's approval by selected demographic characteristics, again with "mixed feelings" responses excluded: