Saturday, July 14, 2018

Support for the death penalty by selected demographics

After reading a recent post by Heartiste on a young woman throwing herself on a convicted serial killer old enough to be her father (or her grandfather!) and thinking for the 4,140th time how if the vote was restricted to property-owning married men with children so many social ills would be ameliorated almost overnight, I took a look at a series of Reuters-Ipsos polls on capital punishment. I come to dispense a couple of white pills.

The first graph shows percentages, by selected demographics, who support the potential use of capital punishment. The y-axis here is set at 50%, with "don't know" responses (constituting 9.2% of the total) excluded. Even a majority of blacks support the death penalty (N = 8,219):

Unmarried women are the least moored by sex and marital status. The marriage gap is wider among women than it is among men, a pattern that consistently emerges across a whole host of issues from gun rights to border walls. When it comes to politics, marriage tends to move wives closer to their husbands rather than moving husbands closer to their wives.

Parenthetically, I wonder if attraction to murderous badboys follows a similar distribution among women as the propensity to be a murderous badboy does among men. After all, women don't do much killing. They do apparently do their fair share--and then some!--of loving killers, though.

The greata beta in me may be skewing my perception, but these women rarely seem to be very feminine. If that assessment is accurate, it's a little tough to reconcile with the tendency for feminine women to be attracted to masculine men and for soyboys and manjaws to settle for one another.

Not only does bringing the hypothetical hammer down enjoy overwhelming public support, concerns about dindus disproportionately being on the receiving end doesn't bother people much, either. The second graph shows the percentages of respondents, by selected demographics, who are concerned about racial disparities in capital punishment sentences (N = 8,219):

In this graph the highest y-value shown is just 40%. Again, even blacks, at least in the abstract, don't object to D'BrickshAdonis getting a lethal injection for mowing down funeral-goers in a drive-by.


Alliumnsk said...

There could be another explanation why marriage gap is wider amongst women. Many men who are not married, are because of lack of opportunity; for women it's a decision and therefore has better correlation with political views. (this could be wrong however).

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, to the extent that there is causation I could have it backwards. It is remarkable how consistent it is, though.

snorlax said...

I don't think there are all that many women who don't want to be married, although plenty are delusional about their own attractiveness and therefore are unable to attract a husband they consider up to their standard.

Jim Bowery said...

"if the vote was restricted to property-owning married men with children so many social ills would be ameliorated almost overnight"

Compare restricting voting to the militia -- the only ready proxy for which that I know of in electoral statistics is the military vote.

Favoring property owners over the militia is what led to Revolutionary War veterans' land being confiscated to pay the foreign war debts of coastal merchants. This, in turn, led to Shay's Rebellion. This, in turn, led the Continental Congress to draft the US Constitution, primarily, to put down such rebellions through a more powerful central government.

This congenital defect in the moral foundation of the US Constitution is now coming home to roost. The offering up of Trump by a tiny minority of property apologists and military intelligence is far too little and far too late.

A properly founded polity would recognize the contract young men make with positions of power in which they give up their natural material right to single combat to the death -- the way young males of sexual species obtain the essentials of reproduction -- and in exchange they enjoy collective defense and provision of the essentials of reproduction. That means property is taxed and the young men receive the revenue. With this revenue they equip themselves, first, with a house and training with tools of a trade and weapons and, second, a child bearing mate, third, children -- all by the age of 18, at which point they can be considered men with community standing. At that point they enter into public life and are capable of delivering social goods to their locale. Males who do not so equip themselves, and benefit their locale with this material substitute for their natural right, are first admonished by men in their locale, second punished and third exiled from the locale. The lawful mechanism(s) by which punishment and exile are accomplished may be up for debate but that is the only reasonable debate when we're talking about the foundation of civilization and statecraft.

Zagg said...

Snorkax: I believe that it’s the case that an overwhelming majority of women want to get married, but a great many of them don’t want to stay married.

Issac said...

Jim that sounds like a concept for a small ethnostate, but in the present context young white men pay taxes for brown homes and "exiled," beaners have no trouble returning to your country.

Jim Bowery said...

When I talk about "A properly founded polity" I am clearly being counterfactual -- so arguing "in the present context" diverts the discussion. Border enforcement is the first responsibility of a State to its young men, as in the absence of any State the individual young men would engage individual combat over resources -- including territory, as well as women -- to form families. This is why the male chromosome is so geographically structured, compared to mtDNA, across all sexual species.

Moreover, by denying exile is proper role -- by so detracting from my point -- you are denying the very thing that makes my proposed political economy scale to a Federation (although some would prefer the term Confederation) that includes not just member ethnostates -- but member states of virtually any social order preferred by their residents.

If people are interested in working with white "individualism" to achieve white culture, they'd better heed my words -- as they comprise a declaration of war for white culture. If the want to work against white "individualism" -- they'll merely be pitting whites against non-whites on terms that favor non-whites. I'd say "good luck with that" except that I, unlike so many "white nationalists" am not functionally anti-white.

Issac said...

If arguing in the only meaningful context ruins your position, you should reconsider what it is you are trying to accomplish. The mentality of the sheltered materialist bougie who believes to have found platonic truths, clouded by inexplicable reality in the present, has likely stumbled upon nothing but his own desires with no relationship to realistic salutary action.

Black Death said...

Interesting that a majority of every demographic supports the death penalty. Also, the majority of blacks are not concerned about racial disparity in its application.

I guess I'm still in favor of the death penalty, but it really doesn't seem to make much difference anymore. If a convicted murderer puts up a stout legal defense, it's usually a decade or two after the crime that he (or she) is executed. The crime is so remote that few remember it anymore.

My ideal is Charlotte Corday, who was guillotined in 1793, four days after murdering Jean-Paul Marat (in his bath). Now that has deterrent value!

Jim Bowery said...

Issac, barring some miracle, there are going to be rivers of blood. That this condition does not presently obtain means it is counterfactual. Sticking your head in the sand works for "the only meaningful context" to you. Adults have to prepare for eventualities.

Those who believe that white evolutionary psychology and morality are "platonic truths" with "no relationship" to such preparations are contributing less than zero to whites.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's an interesting hypothetical but the military constitutes a fraction of 1% of the total population and is made up of a lot of thrill seekers without much skin in the game. Wouldn't we risk a redux of the Marius' Mules problem?

What issue are property-owning married men with children unsensible on? The biggest mark against them is allowing this all to happen--but so did those in the military!

Black Death,

Practically it doesn't mean much, at least not now. But it's encouraging to see the sentiment is still out there. We may call on it at some point in the future. At least the flame still flickers.

Jim Bowery said...

Despite provisioning a militia, the organizing principle of the Marian Reforms remained a property-based command structure. As is always the case, property owners have an incentive to shift taxes off of property and onto people and their activities while reducing labor costs with immigration. Property owners then internalize the positive network externalities that are the essential strength of civilization, while requiring less and less of them to attain and keep wealth. This selects for people that understand how to capture the positive network externalities of civilization and against people who understand how to utilize property in economic activity. That is only one reason why favoring property owners in the political economy is civilizational suicide. Immigration is obviously another huge factor as, to the network effect capturing mind, each new person represents not only more tax revenue that he doesn't have to pay, but more aggregate (network effect) demand for his property.

This is exactly what happened to the Roman Republic, and is happening today throughout Western Civilization.

A proper reform is very different from the Marian Reform:

1) Recognize that civilization is founded on individuals that could, in the absence of civilization, have a fighting chance at reproduction.
2) Recognize that the reason they give up their right to initiate force against property owners is because civilization's collective force offers them a better deal than they'd have in one-on-one combat against someone who owns homestead property necessary for reproduction.
3) Don't permit the property owners to collect the positive network externality of civilization and, instead, tax it away from property.
4) Don't permit the government to collect the positive network externality of civilization and, instead, disperse it to the founding stock to do with as they wish.
5) Let market-driven command hierarchies replace government as the individuals with their citizens dividend streams provide the foundation of the economy's demand in terms of homestead acquisition thence family formation.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

Despite still having a lot of residual liberalism - I never had a problem with the death penalty. I mean if there's no hope of them ever being a free person again - wouldn't it theoretically be more humane to just put them to sleep than to keep them in a cage for decades? I actually made that argument on dailykos once and the post got deleted

Audacious Epigone said...


Ah, thanks. I should clarify that by property owners I'm (mostly) referring not to people who productively realize income from their property, but who have simply demonstrated an ability to keep their own finances in the black and who have at least some skin in the game.


Ha, you're always talking about how you offered this or that reasonable, moderate suggestion at the daily kos and... it got deleted! It's almost as if intellectual curiosity is not the contemporary left's thing, not even a little bit.

Jay Fink said...

I am pleased to see the great majority of my fellow Jews support the death penalty. I am surprised considering how liberal Jews are...I thought they would compare the death penalty to the Holocaust or some such nonsense.

I am an outlier in that I am a very enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty. I have fantasies of daily executions which are broadcast live on a death penalty cable network. Everyone would get together and cheer as they see the state execute the killer. Everyone would feel uplifted knowing justice was served.....ok back to reality...the death penalty is hardly used anymore. The elite (and the women attracted to murderers) got their wish despite the fact that the majority support the death penalty to this day.

Jim Bowery said...

AE, no one has more "skin in the game" than someone who has places their bodies between chaos and civilization. Indeed, whenever I run across the phrase "skin in the game" in any other sense (as it is used by the FairTax folks), I can't help but get an almost overwhelming urge that I should be tracking down the origin of the particular usage in recent political discourse so I can go find them and offer them a deal:

Take personal responsibility for the care of a war veteran who is bouncing around on those springy leg replacements or, alternatively, donate their legs to the local compost bin.

Jim Bowery said...

SHYLOCK: What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? / You have among you many a purchased slave, / Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules, / You use in abject and in slavish parts / Because you bought them. Shall I say to you / “Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs! / Why sweat they under burdens? Let their beds / Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates / Be seasoned with such viands”? You will answer / “The slaves are ours!” So do I answer you: / The pound of flesh which I demand of him / Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it. / If you deny me, fie upon your law: / There is no force in the decrees of Venice. / I stand for judgment. Answer: shall I have it?

Audacious Epigone said...


We did that a few centuries ago. It was public sport. Gratuitous, but we had spines then.


When it comes to military interventions, undoubtedly. Ron Paul got a lot of support from servicemen for obvious reasons. Are idealistic 18 yos going through boot camp the ones I want deciding political arrangements for my wife and three kids, though? It'd be better than the close to universal suffrage we have now, I'll concede that much.

Jim Bowery said...

AE you may have missed that I all but replaced political arrangements with business arrangements. Moreover, those business arrangements are geared toward family formation at the age of 18 -- families headed by young men in a position to responsibly sire children with young women before those young women are turned into the sterile worker caste temple whores of mammon that are made of the best of our young women today.

By shortening the generation time and expanding the actual childbearing years of young women and outbidding the economy on behalf of the family for the best of the genes of women...

It is quite plausible that the young men going through, whatever will replace "bootcamp" in this world, will very much share your concerns by the age of 21.

Moreover, if you are an able bodied man, you will be in the militia well into your 50s if not beyond. During this entire time you'll be in receipt of the dividends and using them to deliver social goods to the community including not just your own armaments and training, and not just children of good genetic stock and upbringing, but charity (including training men younger than yourself) to those you consider worthy.

The militia becomes "the welfare state" -- and it will be policing itself through exclusionary "politics".

Jim Bowery said...

See In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace the Welfare State by Charles Murray. said...

Issac wants so much to believe this can go on. Being a rentseeker, he has to, the alternative being his possible expulsion. There is no government here anymore really. Just an alien parasite trying to get past the obvious. The "celebration of the End of Whites" CANNOT EVER BE WALKED BACK. Censorship is a GOOD THING. The enemy came into society based on opening doors. Irregardless of the border issues, the doors can be slammed on them.
Hubris cometh before the FALL. An insignificant minority. 6 Million here, and perhaps 20 Million in the Whole World. INSIGNIFICANT.

Audacious Epigone said...


I read the book several years ago. It was a libertarian defense of universal basic income as I recall. Is there more in that paper?

Jim Bowery said...

From the standpoint of my proposed political economy, the thing to pay attention to about Murray's perspective on the UBI is this:

"The Plan confers personal accountability whether the recipient wants it or not, producing cascading secondary and tertiary effects. A person who asks for help because he has frittered away his monthly check will find people and organizations who will help (America has a history of producing such people and organizations in abundance), but that help can come with expectations and demands that are hard to make of a person who has no income stream."

The further simplification I propose is to replace not just the welfare state, but the political system, monetary system, military and eugenics in the same way as anarcho capitalism replaces all of those things -- but with one critical difference:

I replace the "non-aggression axiom" of anarcho-capitalism with a "male intrasexual selection axiom" that has a 600 million year old history of organic reality of individual aggression between males for the "unconditional basic income" nature provides to individual males who will fight other individual males -- not in some abstract proxy for aggression -- but in blood and guts "may the best man win" selection regime that created nervous systems coordinating senses with muscles.

Those who can't face this "axiom" can't face that which created them and those who can't face that which created them are like The Nation of Immigrants that denies their debt to The Nation of Settlers.

Jim Bowery said...

Tying this back back to "Rivers of Blood":

If what I just said sounds like I'm implying The Nation of Settlers stands as Creator to The Nation of Immigrants, you heard right.

This is why getting a visceral sense of the hierarchy of Creation isn't some "Platonic Ideal" but is of decisive military importance:

Once the Nation of Settlers -- particularly the males -- get that visceral sense, they will recover their Manhood and, indeed, Godhood relative to the Nation of Immigrants -- recognizing that the Nation of Settlers built things up from nature and can take things down to Nature again -- wiping out the Nation of Immigrants in the process the way God can cleans the world of his Creation if it goes awry.

If this scares the living shit out of you -- you've just experienced The Fear of God that all Immigrants should experience rather than the insular contempt they feel based on the VR game they play around in called "civilization".

Audacious Epigone said...


If this scares the living shit out of you

I suspect it scares the bejesus out of the 2%!