Saturday, June 16, 2018

Asian and Amerindian electoral inertia

Steve Sailer has a long-running gag about the Latino Electoral Tidal Wave failing to ever hit shore. Hispanic (and Asian) turnout rates among eligible voters have been and continue to be reliably lower than white and black rates are.

That's because the invaders New Americans aren't that interested in politics. Those on the losing side of the previous invasion aren't much interested, either. One reason blacks still loom disproportionately large in the minds of elites at the expense of other non-whites is because blacks are a lot more culturally salient than other non-whites are. Electoral behavior is part of that.

The following graph shows political interest by race. The GSS asked respondents about their personal level of interest in politics with five potential responses ranging from "not at all interested" on the low end to "very interested" on the high end. Inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension, the higher the score, the greater the interest (N = 2,730):

This isn't attributable to a large share of the browns and yellows being ineligible to vote on account of being non-citizens. Both foreign-born Hispanics and foreign-born Asians actually express modestly greater interest in politics than their native-born counterparts do!

Attributing greater interest to higher intelligence doesn't fit. Yes, Jews are on top, but whites come in ahead of Asians while blacks come in ahead of Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians despite having lower average IQ than any of them.

A loquacity-taciturn gradient fits better, with blacks and Jews expressing more interest while Amerindians and Asians express less.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), POLINT

Friday, June 15, 2018

Islam's clean bill of mental health

The following graph shows the percentages of GSS respondents, by religious affiliation, who have report having experienced poor mental health ("stress, depression, and problems with emotions") in the last thirty days (N = 7,088):

Funny that Buddhists--practitioners of a philosophy which is kind of like Stoicism but without an engagement in worldly affairs--appear to have the worst mental health of all. What are they stressing out about? Hey, nobody said achieving nirvana was easy!

We may think the exploding Muhammads are crazy. They're not. They have a more determined sense of purpose than we do.

Was the impetus to investigate this question my suspicion that Jewish neuroticism would starkly manifest itself? You can't prove anything! Anyway, that's not what this reveals.

Women tend to have poorer mental health than men. That holds all religious affiliations here. The sex disparity among Jews is stark, though. The following graph shows the difference between men and women by affiliation (percentage of men experiencing poor mental health subtracted from the percentage of women experiencing poor mental health):

While 66% of Jewish women experience poor mental health, just 36% of Jewish men do. The Jewish sample size is only 170, so maybe the gender divide is attributable to that. Maybe.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30), RELIG(1,2,3,4,6,9), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), SEX

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Nearly three times as many Californians would move to Canada as would move to flyover America

SurveyUSA is one of my favorite polling organizations because of the unique questions it poses. A few weeks ago a representative survey of 1,100 Californians statewide was commissioned. Respondents were presented with a hypothetical--if they could retain their current job and salary, would they be willing to move to selected other places if it meant their cost of living would be cut in half? The results:

- 12% would move to Nebraska
- 12% would move to Indiana
- 18% would move to Mississippi
- 31% would move to Canada
- 36% would move to Nevada
- 43% would move to Oregon

Parenthetically, the respondents were asked about each place separately, not which one of the six they'd prefer. One-in-five respondents pretty consistently said they were unsure. A plurality said they'd move to Oregon.

The blue bedfellow state is the most popular destination, followed by the blueish-purple Nevada, then Canada, and then finally the red states.

Canada ahead of Mississippi, Nebraska, and Indiana? Even with the residency requirements to contend with? It doesn't get much more middle American than Nebraska or Indiana. The weather obviously isn't driving these responses--it's the politics and the culture. Why are California and Indiana under the jurisdiction of the same national government, again?

Time for the political dissolution of these disunited states. Californians have more affinity for Canadians than they do for Hoosiers--and the feelings are probably mutual.

But won't there be war between the states/regions if they separate?

Highly unlikely. Far more probable is that tomorrow the relationship between the country of California and the country of the American Midlands will be comparable to that of the US and Canada today. And tomorrow California may have a modestly better relationship with Canada than the US does today while Indiana may have a modestly worse one. Big deal.

Parenthetically, the new invaders Americans who have colonized California aren't going anywhere. The survey asked respondents to pick from seven statements the one best describing themselves, ranging from "I am in the process of relocating to another state" on the emigration end of the spectrum to "I will never, ever leave California" on the staying put side of things.

Percentages of respondents, by race, why said they were "never, ever" leaving:

California Dreaming is a thing new Americans do and Old Stock Americans don't. The golden state is gone.

Monday, June 11, 2018

A tale of two phrases

Steve Sailer is surprised to find the phrase "Jewish privilege" mentioned in the New York Times, itself a salient manifestation of Jewish privilege (my editorial comment, emphatically not Steve's).

In a presumed attempt to humiliate gentiles, the rarity is brought up by a Jewish writer who brazenly acts as though it's a phrase gentiles toss around nonchalantly all the time even though xi (the writer's first name is "Taffy") knows full well that if a gentile of any stature ever accidentally uttered the phrase that he would be figuratively crucified as a result.

Over the last ten years, the newspaper has included the phrase "Jewish privilege" twice. Once in the recent article Steve linked to and once back in 2010, in an article entitled "An Israeli Finds New Meanings in a Nazi Film". Here's where the phrase appears in that 2010 piece:
Whether cringing at the sight of naked men and women being forced at gunpoint into a ritual bath, or contemptuously dismissing the Nazis’ efforts to highlight Jewish privilege (“My mother wore her beautiful coat, and sometimes a hat. So what?”), the survivors seem to speak for those who cannot.
Nope, no gentiles talking about Jewish privilege there, either. Except for you-know-who, of course. You're not a nazi, are you? So subtle!

While the disproportionately Jewish New York Times rarely writes about Jewish privilege--and only does so in the context of framing the idea as one-part risible and two-parts evil--it writes about "white privilege" with regularity. Some 206 times over the last decade, to be precise.

Taking a cue from the article excerpted above, here's a subtle graphic comparing the frequencies of appearance by phrase in the paper over the preceding decade:

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Centrists find politics boring, wish it would go away

Steve Sailer:
Centrists aren’t typically well-informed people who understand fully the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments of the left and the right. Centrists aren’t normally Mickey Kaus writing a ten-part debate with himself over whether to vote for Gore or Bush in 2000 (he eventually decided upon Gore).

Instead, centrists are more often people who find politics boring and annoying and wish it would just go away.
The GSS permits a testing of that assertion. The following graph shows political interest by self-described ideology. The survey asked respondents about their personal level of interest in politics with five potential responses ranging from "not at all interested" on the low end to "very interested" on the high end. Inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension, the higher the score, the greater the interest (N = 5,091):

Steve's assessment is spot on.

Relatedly, moderates tend to be less intelligent than liberals or conservatives. Dumbest of all are self-described conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, probably because many of them are just randomly selecting designations due to ignorance and a fear of being recognized for that ignorance.

GSS variables used: POLVIEWS, POLINT

Friday, June 08, 2018

Brief miscellany of items

- From a friend on business in DC:

Wearing MAGA hats in the most hostile place in the country to do so isn't for the faint of heart. These young shitlords are made of stern stuff. They're exactly what we need.

- Relatedly, a good dissident cartoon for someone like Ben Garrison to create would depict a couple of these well put-together young MAGA men seeing the Imperial Capital's sights while a swamp-dwelling SWPLs watches them walk by while loudly remarking on how backwards they are. Meanwhile the periphery of the cartoon is filled out with ghetto blacks chimping out, exploding Muhammads in their ninja outfits, pozzed degenerates in assless chaps, taciturn Amerindian peasants raking leaves, a Hmong nanny pushing a white baby in a stroller, and all the other Hotel Babylonia extras the SWPL nervously pretends to love.

Maybe in the follow up cartoon the SWPL can have his John Rocker/Falling Down moment.

- This was sent to me by a former employee. Kevin Yoder, our congress critter in Kansas' third district, is a cuck on the National Question. We have huge Sprint and Cerner presences here, and Yoder has been bought-and-sold by them. Trump the candidate may be dead, but Trumpism has only just begun.

- Cloud People invariably talk about "populism" and "democracy" as though they are antonyms, as though the former threatens the latter. Think about that for a second. Do they have a shred of intellectual integrity between them? Rhetorical.

- Doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculating, at present around 127 million men in the US are fertile. That compares to about 47 million women in the US who are currently fertile. Women aren't the natural gatekeepers of sex only because it's a potential investment of nine months (or eighteen years!) of their lives compared to 15 minutes of a man. They're also gatekeepers because there are in the general population a lot more fertile men than there are fertile women at any given time.

- Without unadulterated freedom of association, identity politics is inevitable. As soon as the government forces one party to interact with another party against its will (and on behalf of the other party's will), it has chosen sides. And when the government chooses sides based on identity, only fools--or WEIRDOs, if you prefer--unilaterally disarm by failing to act tribally.

It is in this context that I am regrettably forced to celebrate a heritage American WASP's filleting of a kykedyke and a low-IQ Latina in the highest court in the land. Being reduced to base identity instead of being able to appreciate said filleting on the quality of the craft alone pains me. Alas, what else remains?

Wednesday, June 06, 2018

Fuentes, King of Amren

The 2018 AmRen videos have all been up for several days now. As I recounted at the time, Nick Fuentes was the conference's most impressive speaker even without handicapping for age:
Nicholas Fuentes delivered a masterful speech, and not just because he cited the Hispanic Heritage Survey's bottle of white pills. If our Occidental Renaissance is to occur, Gen Z is going to have to lead it. If we are fortunate, Fuentes will play a major part in that.

Fuentes was born in 1998. He's all of 20 years old. He left a strong impression of precocity today, especially the way he handled thinly-veiled mini homilies that were couched as questions during the question and answer session following his speech.

The boomers who tore into him spectacularly misread the situation on the ground. Jordan Peterson has one of the best-selling books in the world because he understands the challenges young men face. Fuentes does, too, and he has the added bonus of being part of that very cohort. People who are able to resonate with these young men are worth their weight in gold.
Fuentes' presentation dominated in terms of online viewership, so the assessment wasn't a unique one (and to the extent the blog piqued interest, great):

He hosts a livestream show during the week beginning at 8pm EST. That falls in the middle of the nightly bedtime ritual with the next generation so I only catch it occasionally but this is one red-pilled Gen Zs in your social circles should be made aware of.

Parenthetically, you'll notice Jared Taylor's conspicuous absence in the above graph. Youtube restricted his video so that it never shows up in the platform's suggested videos and its view count goes unreported. History will give him the same treatment but we will not forget we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Monday, June 04, 2018

Racial preferences are unpopular; Or why the Sailer Strategy is an electoral winner

Running against affirmative action--with campaign ads showing white men and women coming home to somberly deliver bad news to the family about being passed over for the job or promotion--is a political winner. Or at least it would be if the Stupid Party had the sense to capitalize on it.

In fairness to the GOP, they are pushing hard on immigration, at least in the primaries. Stopping the invasion now regularly tops issue priority lists, especially among young Republicans. It's a happy reminder to those of us who've been in this thing for decades that the National Question has finally obtained the salience it deserves.

Anyway, from the GSS comes the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who support preferential hiring and promotional opportunities for blacks in the workplace. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from America's post-racial era. The data is dichotomous--respondents either support or oppose, no "don't know" or "unsure" responses were recorded:

Even most Jewish Democrats say they are opposed. So do blacks. Whether they are actually opposed, a residual sense of fairness means advocating for racial preferences is something only downwardly mobile non-white college students who don't belong anywhere near a university and the blue checkmark brigade on Twitter do much of.

In Republican primaries there is scarcely a position more popular than opposition to affirmative action. Opposition to affirmative action leads to opposition to Diversity!. Opposition to Diversity! leads to opposition to disparate impact. Opposition to disparate impact leads to a sense of white identity. Without unadulterated isonomy and freedom of association, identity politics becomes a necessity. Opposition to affirmative action is prerequisite for getting there.

GSS variables used: AFFRMACT(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1,2,4-13)(3), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6), YEAR(2008-2016)

Saturday, June 02, 2018

White births as a percentage of total births by state (2017)

The preliminary birth figures for 2017 are in. The following graph and table show the percentages of births by state that were to non-Hispanic white babies:

1) Vermont90.8
2) West Virginia90.7
3) Maine89.1
4) New Hampshire86.8
5) Kentucky80.9
6) Montana79.4
7) Wyoming78.6
8) Iowa78.1
9) Idaho77.3
10) Utah75.1
11) North Dakota73.9
12) Missouri73.6
13) Indiana73.6
14) Ohio72.2
15) Wisconsin71.3
16) South Dakota71.0
17) Kansas70.1
18) Nebraska69.1
19) Minnesota68.6
20) Michigan67.7
21) Pennsylvania67.0
22) Oregon67.0
23) Tennessee66.3
24) Arkansas64.2
25) Alabama58.3
26) Colorado58.3
27) Washington57.9
28) Oklahoma57.7
29) Rhode Island57.6
30) Massachusetts57.2
31) South Carolina56.6
32) Virginia55.4
33) North Carolina53.5
34) Connecticut53.5
35) Illinois52.8
United States51.7
36) Louisiana51.7
37) Alaska50.4
38) Mississippi49.8
39) Delaware48.9
40) New York48.9
41) New Jersey45.3
42) Georgia44.1
43) Florida43.0
44) Maryland41.6
45) Arizona41.2
46) Nevada36.8
47) Texas33.4
48) District of Columbia31.8
49) New Mexico27.6
50) California27.1
51) Hawaii19.5

The hoped-for Trump bump failed to materialize. Total births were down from 2016, as was the national percentage of births to white babies.

At 51.7% in 2017, we are fast approaching the point where non-white births outnumber white births in America. If it doesn't happen this year, it looks like it will happen in 2019. I expect members of the intellectual dark web will complain the media isn't giving Trump the credit he deserves for being in office when non-white babies outnumbered white babies for the first time when the historical milestone is reached!

As has been pointed out numerous times previously, the sensational assertion based on Census estimates that this happened back in 2012 will turn out to merely be six or seven years premature.

The four most populous states in the union are now natally majority-minority. In California, barely one-in-four babies are white. Future president Kamala Harris is California Dreaming this for the entire country.

In Texas, it's one-in-three. The putatively rock-ribbed Republican stronghold is undergoing a demographic transformation that will turn it purple and then blue. Texas is to my knowledge the only state in the country where whites vote more strongly Republican than non-whites vote Democrat. They do so only marginally, though--the white and non-white votes are essentially the inverse of one another. This means when non-whites reach an electoral majority in the lone star state, it'll move to the Democrat column. The writing is on the exit polling walls:

The Southwest is lost. It's past time for political dissolution. A decade ago, we were mocked for advocating secession. In a decade, we'll be on the cusp of it.

Parenthetically, a common response I hear when political dissolution is brought up is that the smaller political entities crawling out of the national carcass will, individually, all be demographically overwhelmed just as the country as a whole is now.

I don't buy it. Imagine Brussels has the same power to determine immigration policy for the EU that the Imperial Capital currently has in the US. The Visegrad group would be powerless to keep the invaders out.

Now imagine the states have the power to defy the Imperial Capital as individual European countries are currently defying Brussels. In my home state immigration patriot Kris Kobach is running neck-and-neck with the current governor for the upcoming August primary. If instead of governor Kobach of Kansas we had president Kobach of Kansas, our government's approach to invasion would look a lot like Hungary's does.