Friday, June 29, 2018

Parochialism in autumn

Agnostic, in the context of explaining why ¡Ocasio!'s victory means the invasion will end:
The past several decades have proven decisively that we will get absolutely nothing done on immigration by electing hardline candidates.


To reiterate for the millionth time, the Bernie people do not have to explicitly call for reducing immigration in order to achieve that effect. They just have to force higher wages and benefits on employers, and call for an end to the heartless exploitation of vulnerable immigrants -- e.g., if employers and slumlords want to hire / house immigrants, they should be giving them better-than-US-average wages, benefits, and rent prices.  


If you want to know why the Bernie people are still on a high about the Ocasio-Cortez victory -- now you understand.
Here's her campaign platform flyer:

And here's her two-minute TV spot:

So abolishing ICE, calling for streamlined and open immigration to the US from anywhere, making college free to immigrants, making housing free for immigrants, making health care free for immigrants, giving a government-guaranteed job to any immigrant who shows up, and keeping immigrants out of prison--all while vociferously calling for more immigration and more refugees--is supposed to reduce the flow of foreigners into the country?

Agnostic would have us turn the battering ram we've been using to smash the now-teetering gate of the GOP citadel around, lumber through miles of hostile territory under siege for the duration, and try ramming it into the triply-reinforced, ten-foot wide iron wall surrounding the Democrat citadel instead. It's not just delusional, it's suicidal.

Humorously, the post preceding Agnostic's celebration of ¡Ocasio!'s win asserted American elites care more about foreign children than native ones while populists--like, say, ¡Ocasio!--are not so hopelessly out of touch. ¡Ocasio!:

Well that's inconvenient.

I've been in on the National Question for well over a decade now. The idea that hardline immigration candidates have been elected in anything close to sizable numbers is risible.

In 2008, Tom Tancredo took a line on immigration similar to Ted Cruz's in 2016, and Tancredo got 1% in the Republican primary polls before dropping out early in the race. Excepting Trump, Cruz and Tancredo took the hardest lines of any Republican politicians of national prominence in decades and neither had a thing to say about legal immigration that didn't lavish praise on it.

No one from either party has even questioned legal immigration in a generation since Pat Buchanan did so a generation ago. That's finally starting to change.

Until a couple of years ago, issues polls consistently showed immigration bumping along near the bottom of the list of Republican voters' priorities. Now immigration is at or near the top of those lists, especially among younger Republicans.

Over the same period of time, Democrat voters have become increasingly supportive of open borders and opposed to immigration restriction of any kind. Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign was nearly snuffed out in the crib when he called open borders "a Koch brothers' proposal". If he said anything like that today, his position as a spiritual leader among rank-and-file leftists would be over before midnight. Sanders became a force on the left not by saying sensible things about immigration but by shutting up about them.

The reason Crowley has been able to repeatedly run unchallenged in a district that is half Hispanic for primary after primary after primary is because until now white ethnics and (((tribe members))) who doled out the gibs were acceptable to non-white voters. Increasingly that's no longer the case. There are politically ambitious non-whites all over the country eyeing single-party urban districts currently held by pale males and seeing huge opportunities.

The Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, has received an enormous amount of attention in the wake of ¡Ocasio!'s upset. She is one of the thirteen candidates across the country the organization has endorsed. Here's how they breakdown demographically (based on my best guesses--one of those categorized as a Hispanic woman here may actually be a dago):

Four black women
Three Hispanic women
One white woman
One (((white))) woman
One Muslim man
One black man
One male Pacific Islander
One white man

Parenthetically, the sole white man is probably a bugger--no wedding ring, no apparent girlfriend, and a proclivity for pink shirts. They're all unfettered supporters of open borders, of course.

Here's the DSA's introductory video:

Libertarians, this is what open borders gets us. Most communists in the US are non-white and non-whites are more likely to identify as socialist than whites are.

The question is not what causes poverty. Poverty is the natural default. The question is what causes prosperity. Ice People, private property, and freedom of association gets close. The DSA is antithetical to all of these things.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

¡Ocasio!'s special occasion

I'd been getting a sinking feeling that Democrats had come to realize doing what they had done to garner big wins in Florida, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even California was the easiest route to sealing heritage America's fate and ensuring the Great Replacement. Run putatively moderate whites to avoid spooking soccer moms  and then have them, upon stepping foot in the capitol building or the governor's mansion, work relentlessly to keep the borders wide open for all the world's non-Afrikaners to flood in. It could have worked.

Fortunately, the invaders are impatient. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez primaried an old ethnic swamp creature by marrying PoC ascendancy with rank socialism. Here's her well-produced two-minute campaign ad where she calls for "medicare for all, tuition-free public college, a federal jobs guarantee, and criminal justice reform". You'll notice more hijabs than hu-whites and see more words written in Spanish than in English:

"Not all Democrats are the same."

 "We can do it now! It doesn't take 100 years to do this."

There are the old Italian and Irish ethnics and there are the old (((tribal))) Democrats, and then there are the New Democrats--the Democrats who roll their Rs and sport their ninja outfits. Ocasio's cover photo does not include a single member of the old guard:

They need to step aside now. Not in a generation, not in a century--¡NOW!

Yesterday's primary is a harbinger of things to come, but it's already apparent at the national level. Potential white Democrat presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are geezers--aged 76, 69, and 75, respectively. Odds-on favorite Kamala Harris, in contrast, is 53 and Cory Booker, who rounds out the top five, is 49.

Agnostic thinks the socialist left is going to transform the DNC into a party of immigration He's delusional. What this victory makes salient--and she'll win the district easily in November--to normies and even to many SWPLs, is that socialism in America is about using heavy hand of the federal government to take from whites and give to non-whites.

Single-payer? Get out of here. That's nothing more than the plundering of the shrinking number of young whites to foot the medical bills of non-whites and the affluent silents and boomers who signed off on this whole mess to begin with!

In multiracial societies, democracy is a skins game. But in multiracial societies, socialism is also a skins game. As the country fills up with Sun People, this is the political future. It's going to get harder and harder for quisling whites and the 2% to pretend there will be a place for them when the numbers of Latin Americans, Africans, and Arabs reach critical mass.

Three cheers for the invaders in New York's 14th district. Sow, water, and fertilize the seeds of the white left's budding cognitive dissonance. The fate of the West depends on it.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

On the dissident right

Z-Man devotes an hour to a treatment of the dissident right:

In the intro, he mentions it's a phrase he's heard with increasing frequency as of late. Although it predates the phrase "alt right" that supplanted everything else in 2015, "dissident right" may come out on top yet. We're not there yet, however:

These nebulous terms are valuable to some degree on account of being nebulous. I'm not a stickler for what language is used. As a longtime reader of the Derb, who coined the phrase "dissident right", I've always thought of alt right as being a subset of the broader dissident right. To be on the alt right is to be on the dissident right, but to be on the dissident right is not necessarily to be on the alt right.

The preceding spergy paragraph (mine, not Derb's) does not represent the hour Z devotes in the least. It's an accessible, practically applicable delineation of what the dissident right is, what it is not, and how it exists in juxtaposition to progressivism, libertarianism, and conservatism. It hits all the important points while striking a perfect balance between weightiness and concision.

There are a couple of things to quibble with--Z overstates the Neanderthal contribution to human DNA by an order of magnitude because he think everyone who is anyone sports the same caliber of brow ridge he does, for instance--but there are fewer nits to pick than any presentation I'd be able to put together would contain. It's one I'll be linking and pointing to with frequency in the future.

Parenthetically, he references the Darwin fish people used to sport on the back of their vehicles a decade ago in a description of what are sometimes called "liberal creationists". As that anti-scientific position becomes increasingly untenable without massive cognitive dissonance--not to mention utter ignorance of genomics in particular and biology more generally--I'm going to start calling them "darwin fish creationists" instead.

Friday, June 22, 2018

California skin games

From a SurveyUSA poll conducted back in April, illustration 364,140 of how in a multiracial society, democracy inevitably devolves into a skins game, even on the left. The following shows the percentages of whites, Hispanics, and Asians who said they were supporting gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and John Chiang:

The racial percentages all fall short of 100% because the poll asked about eight candidates in addition to an "other" candidate option--these three were the top (D)s. The black sample was too small for SurveyUSA to break those out by candidate.

Although California is majority-minority, non-Hispanic whites still comprise a majority of the electorate because Hispanics and Asians are slackers. Newsom won the primary and so consequently will be California's next governor.

A couple other noteworthy observations. Firstly, political dissolution is on the horizon. No matter how it's sliced, Gen Z and millennials are more favorably predisposed to political dissolution than boomers and silents. When the latter disappears, the political landscape will look a lot different. Support for the CAL3 initiative that would break the state up into three new smaller states, by age:

Secondly, even in a state like California where blacks make up a small and shrinking proportion of the non-white coalition, they are open borders fanatics. The survey asked respondents whether the national guard should be used to secure the southern border and what it should focus on if used. The percentages who said the national guard should not be utilized, with "not sure" responses excluded, by race:

The other two possible responses were the based "patrol for those crossing [the border illegally]" and the cucked "focus on gangs and drugs".

A plurality of all respondents chose the cucked answer, so don't optimistically come away thinking the inverse of the bars above are the percentages who want the National Guard to stop illegal alien crossings. Most of the residuals just say they want the drugs and gang activity halted. The invasion itself is okay--we'd just like it to be a little more peaceful and sober is all!

This is a finding that crops up everywhere. For example, from Pew Research:

Blacks are more inclined to accept rapefugees than Hispanics. Hispanics are also twice as supportive of Trump's immigration stances as blacks.

If I retained an ounce of hope in civic nationalism, this reality would challenge that hope. Since I don't, it serves as another battering ram to smash into the quixotic civic nationalists who think a multiracial democracy can do anything other than devolve into a skins game.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Camp of the Squatemalans

Most of the 2012 invaders were "unaccompanied minors". Most female invaders, including children, coming through Mexico are sexually assaulted along the way. Many of the adults with the children aren't the real parents of the children. Incarceration requires family separation. Concern for Tommy Robinson's children? For the carcasses of raped and mutilated Afrikaner toddlers?

No novel observations there. Using the opposition's principles against it is standard operating procedure, literally right out of the Alinsky playbook. In a generation or two, if we're still around, we'll be whispering to each other how we should've shot the invaders on sight just as our European brethren will be whispering to each other how the migrant vessels should've been sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean.

President Trump--or as I suspect in this case, Stephen Miller (heaven preserve him)--is a formidable tactician himself. When news of the executive order reuniting families broke, I assumed another hard cucking. Instead, Trump boxed the anti-whites in. The EO doesn't instruct the resurrection of catch-and-release. It allows the children to accompany their scofflaw putative parents in detention centers, nice detention centers run by HHS.

The anti-whites are pissed because the EO provides Trump with great optics without relenting on the actual "zero tolerance" (I know, I know, but it's not nothing). It's obvious the anti-whites don't give a damn about the child-invaders. They want the borders wide open, but even they can't quite say that yet, so they went the family-separation route assuming the results would be the same. Nope. They were outplayed on the invasion front by the Trump administration again.

On the topic of invasion, the American Bar Association is a festering den of thieves and robbers. From the ABA's head harpy and "social activist":

"appears to violate longstanding precedent protecting rights to family integrity"--ie, this has no constitutional basis, but black robes have through the magic of case law allowed us to call it illegal because we're allowed to do that with anything and everything we want to do it with.

Still on the topic, here's a man made of the stuff the West needs to survive:

Dispense with the "undocumented migrants" phraseology. Kobach doesn't even use the cucky "illegal immigrants". He uses the based and legally descriptive term "illegal aliens" instead.

Fellow Kansans--and readers who know Kansans--are urged to support this great man in the GOP gubernatorial primary on August 7th. Here's his twatter cover photo:

A pretty wife who stayed pretty after bringing five lovely children into the world. And is that a retriever on the left? Looks like we know Kobach is good on the pit bull question, too.

Compare Kobach's photo to Paul Ryan's:

All the rafter ties in the world aren't enough to visit justice on these miscreants determined to destroy ourselves and our posterity.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

To preserve and protect White European heritage

Mom and baby have spent a lot of time sleeping in this hospital cell over the last couple of days so dad has correspondingly had a lot time to scroll through Reuters-Ipsos polling looking for interesting queries. The interactive site doesn't organize polls chronologically but instead puts them into categories and sub-categories of which there are around 100. As a consequence, many slip past me unnoticed when they're first released.

The following is based on one such poll from last year. Searching the archives to make sure I hadn't previously covered it reveals that an anonymous commenter did point to it a couple months ago but I failed to take notice then. Better late than never.

Unless you'd like the blog to lay off the 2% already, that is. The subsequent graph shows the percentages of R-I respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who agreed with the assertion that "America must protect and preserve its White European heritage" (N = 4,024; the response "neither agree nor disagree", comprising 29% of all responses, is excluded):

There were only 104 Jews included in the survey, so there's a lifeline if you're looking for one. Given that Hispanics, Asians, and even blacks appear to express less hostility towards European heritage than Jews do, you probably are!

The distance between white Democrats and white independents on the one hand and the closeness of white independents and white Republicans on the other is a white pill of sorts. Anti-white sentiment among whites isn't a natural predisposition, it's an ideological one. When it comes to explicit hostility towards Heritage America, there is the non-left and then there is the left.

A civilization that fails to protect and preserve the legacy of its ancestors will fail to protect and preserve the future for its descendants.

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 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.