Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Trait variability by sex in the General Social Survey

Before the Greater Male Variability hypothesis falls out of the news, take a look at the standard deviations, by sex, among GSS respondents on a host of major life measures:


Traits that are more determinative of male sexual market value (SMV) than of female SMV show greater variability among men, just as the hypothesis predicts.

There are a couple of exceptions to the greater male variability rule, though, where female variability is greater. And wouldn't you know it, it's for the two traits that are distinctly more determinative of female SMV than of male SMV value.

Parenthetically, the intelligence measure via the ten-question vocabulary test has an artificial ceiling because respondents can do no better than get 10 out of 10 questions correct. If there were 100 words or a 1,000 words on the test, it's likely that the male SD would be even larger relative to the female SD than it appears here. It would probably resemble the disparity in educational attainment.

Regarding wealth, a lot of it is shared in marriage or accrues to women who outlive the men who accumulated it, so the gap as shown above likely understates the true difference in variability between men and women in affluence. There are more male billionaires but also more homeless men without a penny to their names than there are women.

Even with these quite imperfect measures, then, the results seem almost too good to be true, but the items used are honestly the ones that came to mind as having utility for evaluating what the survey had to offer regarding the question.

If you're aware of other broad measures in the GSS that should be considered, please share in the comments (they cannot be dichotomous, obviously--the responses need to exist across a spectrum).

GSS variables used: WEALTH, HEIGHT, WEIGHT, RLOOKS, GOD(1-5), EDUC, WORDSUM, BORN(1), SEX

Monday, September 17, 2018

Becoming Darren Wilson

The percentages of respondents who thought the Grand Jury should've indicted police officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown:


In multiracial societies, you don't use standards of ethical behavior or the morality of actions to assess justice, you assess justice in accordance to race and ethnicity.

Brown was a criminal thug who assaulted and stole from a clerk and then tried to steal a cop's gun and shoot him with it after being pulled over for walking down the middle of the road. Brown was very obviously guilty as sin yet only 1-in-5 blacks thought officer Wilson should not have been sacrificed.

Is South Africa making sense now? If blacks were 90% of the US population instead of less than 15% of it, Wilson wouldn't have just had his career ruined and to have gone into hiding, he and his family would've been butchered like Boers.
Mendacious media's blood libel against middle America

Welcome to the skins game. There are only two questions you'll need to ask going forward: Who? Whom?

Let them guide the formation, maintenance, and enforcement of all of your nation's policies, especially its immigration policies.

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Throwing November


And tax cuts. From Reuters-Ipsos, the issue registered Democrats and Republicans identified as the most important one in determining their mid-term congressional votes (N = 26,785): 


The contrast between the priorities of congressional Republican 'leadership' and what their voters care about is why the GOP is called the Stupid Party. That's unfair to people like Paul Ryan, though, who are doing exactly what their paymasters want them to do. The stupid slur may be more aptly applied to Republican voters. They voted for a Muslim ban and a wall and all they got were these lousy corporate tax cuts, after all.

The mid-terms are largely about motivating the base to turn out, so it could be plausibly argued that's why Republican congressional leadership is trying to throw the House to Democrats avoid the National Question. After all, Democrats are fired up about it, too. Right?

No, not really, as the graph above illustrates. VDare nails it by asserting that they want to lose.

Friday, September 14, 2018

Don't be Republican; Do the left thing

This religious service--where rigid intellectual, moral, and spiritual conformity is assumed--fronts as a corporate activity led by chief executives of the country's leading tech company, one of the largest publicly-traded firms in the world:



This particular meeting took place prior to James Damore's defenestration. How a centrist like Damore managed to avoid being raised up as a blood sacrifice at one of these gatherings is anyone's guess.

From the FEC, the distributions of 9,132 personal donations to 2016 US presidential campaigns from Google employees, by candidate and also by party:



Yes, Democrats outraised Republicans nearly 30-to-1. And yes, Jill Stein received more in campaign contributions from Google employees than any Republican. Indeed, she received more than the top three GOP recipients--Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich--combined!

That's where the hive running the world's search engine results is coming from.

A message from a friend with decades of experience in Silicon Valley provided a being hit on the head lesson, describing what should have become common knowledge by now:
I wish the Right understood deeply how much they are considered morally illegitimate in some very important quarters. The Right loses because they are a bunch of rubes, suckers, and fools who do not realize their own good will is not returned in kind by the other side.
In the interest of fairness, the biggest driver of traffic to this humble blog is Google. Or at least it was before this post!

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Pillars of salt

Jig Bohnson writes:
Did you read the Pennsylvania report, or the NY Times victim oped? Surprising number of female victims and heterosexual predators. It is not accurate to call this a strictly gay scandal.
Excerpted directly from the gorillion-page report:
Most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were prepubescent.
Over 1,000 victims were identified (although they are obviously not named in the report). If for the sake of both simplicity and the benefit of Sodom we assume 501 male victims and 500 female victims and assume 5% of the population is gay--not bisexual, but exclusively homosexual--we get homosexuals overrepresented among the perpetrators at a rate of nearly 2,000% relative to the broader adult population.

If we take a more plausible estimate of 1,000 male victims and 100 female victims, and assume 2.5% of the population is gay, we get homosexuals overrepresented among the perpetrators by a rate of 39,000% relative to the broader adult population!

Not only are a lot of these creeps homosexuals, they're also pedophiles. This isn't surprising given that male homosexuals, who are neotenous across a whole range of characteristics, are more likely to be pedophilic than heterosexual men are (the rate is disputed, but I suspect the difference is large).

Sacrificing children to Moloch, god of Diversity, is standard operating procedure for the cultMarx left, so there should be no question as to why the mendacious media does everything it can to obfuscate the gay, pedophilic angles to this ongoing disgrace.

In the Current Year, the Church could, with a little diligence and a dollop of technical savvy, keep most faggots away from the cloth. This is a problem that could mostly be reformed away, but only by focusing on the gay.

That won't happen, though. Better a nearly 2,000-year old pillar of Western civilization collapse into the dust than rude, after all!

Sure, taking down a sacred institution like the Catholic Church is generally desirable, but not at the expense of taking down something truly sacred--homosexuals. The media acts accordingly.

Here, for example, is the accompanying photo to the top search engine-returned article on the report, from the Washington Post. Meshes rather well with #MeToo, you see:


The major media commits plenty sins of commission, but it's the perpetual sins of omission that really distort the perception of reality that credulous consumers of news end up with.

Tangentially, since validating stereotypes is the blog's raison d'etre, let's validate another one. Relative to males, female sexuality is fluid. Bisexuality is predominately a woman's thing. Indeed, of the 222 self-identified bisexuals included in the GSS, 70% (156) have been women to just 30% (66) that have been men.

Additionally, most bisexual women have children while most bisexual men do not. It's thus a stretch to consider most "bisexual" women gay.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(2), SEX, CHILDS

Sunday, September 09, 2018

Don't allow buggers unsupervised access to boys

Pat Buchanan on the crisis of the Catholic church:
For too long, the Catholic faithful have been forced to pay damages and reparations for crimes and sins of predator priests and the hierarchy’s collusion and complicity in covering them up.

And it needs be stated clearly: This is a homosexual scandal.
The percentage of men, by sexual orientation, who do not deem it always morally wrong for 14 year-olds to have sex. Responses are from 2008 through 2016 (N = 2,649):


The question implies those being inquired about are roughly the same age, but if it is acceptable for an 18 year-old and a 38 year-old, why not a 14 year-old and a 34 year-old?

Allowing gay men private access to teenage boys is a really bad idea, an idea considerably worse even than giving heterosexual men private access to teenage girls. Buggers are often emotionally neotenous. Self-restraint, especially when it comes to sensual debauchery, is not a virtue male homosexuals tend to possess.

Giving sodomites bishoprics is akin to selecting the most dissolute heterosexual middle-aged men around and putting them in close, private contact with teenage girls whom they have power and authority over and hoping nothing bad will come of it.

GSS variables used: TEENSEX(1), SEX(1), SEXORNT

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Did Charlottesville kill the alt right?

No. The ideas and sentiments driving it live on, perhaps--as Swedes go to the polls to possibly make the Sweden Democrats the country's largest party--stronger than ever before. But the term itself may have been a casualty. The following graph shows internet search engine interest for "alt right" since January of 2016:


Parenthetically, I realize the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA in 2016 was the second such event, not the first, but it is the only such event associated with the phrase "Unite the Right" generally recognizable among the public today, and that will be even more strongly the case in the future.

Campaign contributions per vote received, 2016 US presidential election

The last time the Republican candidate for president raised more money than the Democrat did was in 2004, when George Bush brought in 10% more than John Kerry. 

In 2016, Hillary Clinton raised nearly twice as much as Donald Trump. The following table shows how much the top five vote-getting candidates in 2016 'paid' for each vote they received:


Whether it should be called an oligarchy, a kleptocracy, a kakocracy, a corporatocracy, or something else, the thing that rules us is of the left. 

Friday, September 07, 2018

Democrats running on immigration restriction of any kind?

Are there any in the country who are doing so in gubernatorial, House, or Senate elections in November? In Kansas, Kris Kobach's opponent Laura Kelly offers not a word about immigration in the "issues" section of her campaign website. And Sharice Davis, who is running against the useless Kevin Yoder, has this to say:
Do the hard work necessary to finally achieve comprehensive immigration reform. 
Work across the aisle to develop common sense policy that supports our nation’s role as a beacon of hope for people around the world.
Fight to protect DACA recipients and create a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants -- our friends, teachers, neighbors -- who have known no other home.
In 2015, Bernie Sanders famously called open borders a "Koch brothers' policy". Had he not immediately course-corrected, never to volunteer another word in opposition to unfettered immigration, he would not have been able to challenge Hillary for the nomination and to have become the spiritual leader of the party that he is today. As strongly in favor of open borders as Democrat politicians are, their grassroots activists are even more zealously demanding of them.

What I'm looking for is anything even a baby-step beyond "comprehensive immigration reform".

I'm currently working on a project with a well known cultural dissident--much better known than I am--and would like to assert that there is not a single Democrat across the country running on enforcement of our existing immigration laws, let alone calls for tougher ones.

For that assertion to be made, though, it needs to be valid. If you're aware of any information to the contrary, please share in the comments.

Thursday, September 06, 2018

Trading Texas for New Germania

As Ted Cruz fights for his political life in Texas--and the day the state flips reliably blue at the presidential level draws nearer--it's worth noting that even had he lost Texas, Trump would've had a plurality of the electoral college:


The Lone Star state is the only change

I'm fond of saying he would've won even without Texas. In actuality, that's not a foregone conclusion. The rogue electoral votes in blue states probably would've went with Clinton if it meant anything more than virtue-signaling. And if not, throwing the election to the House--even under Republican control--would not have guaranteed a Trump presidency. The compromise candidate was ready!

On the other hand, if Evan McMullin hadn't played spoiler in Minnesota, Trump could've won there and thus indisputably won the presidency.

That's the lesson to draw here. If the GOP is able to pick up the upper Midwest, excepting Illinois, it can afford to lose Texas, which it is going to do short of Operation Wetback 2.0 beginning yesterday. If that doesn't happen, there won't be another Republican president, ever.

The realignment will make the implicit native-born whiteness of the Republican party more explicit and the explicit foreign-born non-whiteness of the Democrat party even more obvious than it already is.

There should be a Trumpian 2018 mid-term map highlighting the congressional districts and senate seats where Trump Republicans--with non-Trumpian Republicans conspicuously excluded--are on the ballot in November. Trump should be utilizing his direct access to tens of millions of voters to push said map on a regular basis from now through November.

Nothing like that is happening, though, because Trump is a transitional figure rather than a truly transformational one. He has widened the political Overton Window and he has provided a template for electoral success, but it's clear he is not going to be much involved in actually putting the political infrastructure in place to ensure Trumpism outlives Trump.

There are people doing so of their own initiative, however. Kris Kobach, Brian Kemp, and Rick DeSantis were outspent and out-endorsed by the party establishments of their states. Without money but with the Trumpian message, they won their primaries and are modestly favored to win their respective governors' races.

The old guard isn't going to voluntarily adopt to the new reality nor willingly step aside to allow it to occur. Their chamber of commerce money, their desire for perpetual war, and their favorable major media treatment is simply going to have to be overwhelmed and overcome at the electoral level.

Tuesday, September 04, 2018

Nike's campaign to increase Air Jordan thefts by vibrants







Via (all above)

Via

Via

Via

Via

Via

Via

Via

Via

Via
Vox Day would say Colin Kaepernick is as American as Nike's sweatshop slaves are. Normally I'd be inclined to at least qualify that assertion, but today I'm perfectly happy to let it go. Buy New Balance.

One final twist of the shiv modest proposal with regards to the deified John McCain before I vow to never speak of him again--when the wall finally gets built, Trump should name it in McCain's honor. It's how the late quisling would've wanted it:



Such sincerity. "Hey ma, get off the dang roof!" That's how he saw all of us, as slack-jawed yokels. Enjoy Dante's inner circles, pal.

Sunday, September 02, 2018

Senator, you're no Vespasian

As we enter day six of the three-week long funeral, remembrance, visitation, and worship of the deified John McCain, I find my spirits lifted by revisiting Trump's plausibly deniable shiv from a little over a year ago:


As I wrote at the time:
My first reaction was that it was one hell of a troll--the prognosis for McCain's aggressive brain cancer is poor. It's highly improbable he will "get well soon". He'll likely die soon, within the next couple of years.
That the cancer was progressive and that McCain's prognosis was terminal was well known. Trump was surely aware that McCain would not "get well soon"--unless that referred to permanently getting rid of all the pains and stresses life entails!

Seeing every member of the Inner Uniparty gathered in the Cathedral--Trump himself conspicuously and explicitly uninvited--was clarifying. Ted Kennedy's death didn't even generate one-tenth this amount of Establishment masturbating. It's gratuitous and gross.

It has renewed the vigor of my support for the president. And it made me think of that scene from Mars Attacks!. Yeah, you know the one I'm referring to:



In a figurative sense, regarding their political careers, of course. Nothing more. Nothing!

McCain pushed more amnesties, started more wars, and bankrupted more future generations than anyone else in US history. Through the course of his dreadfully long congressional career, he never missed an opportunity to stab his party, his people, and his country in the back, whether it was throwing the 2008 election to Obama or saving Obamacare after promising for years to repeal it.

It's hardly surprising then that even in this putatively hyper-partisan age, his approval rating was higher among Democrats than it was among Republicans:


Think it's uncouth to express relief at another man's passing? Fine, I'll admit there is one thing he did in my lifetime that I approve of. It happened the Saturday before last. Good riddance.

Saturday, September 01, 2018

Rules for life on caring, corpulence

Fat people do not deserve your care. They may receive it, but they don't deserve to.

If I told you I'd give you $1 million tomorrow morning if today you worked out as you were instructed to work out and ate as you were instructed to eat, would you do it? Of course you would. So you have the will power to make the necessary changes with the right motivation.

Being significantly overweight is unhealthy and unattractive.

To allow oneself to become and then remain fat evinces a lack of self-care.

It is folly to care about a person more than he cares about himself.

Your ability to care is limited. Just because someone lives in a mud hut somewhere in Cameroon does not mean some amount of your finite ability to care should be siphoned off for him. It is an affront to those more deserving of your care.

Ikso fatso, fat people do not deserve your care.

Parenthetically, that is unless they are your minor children. In that case it is your duty to care excessively for and about them. They didn't choose to be your children but you chose to be their parent. It is acceptable to be an emotional martyr for your minor children, but not for anyone else.

And if you are fat, prove to yourself--and the world--that you are worthy of being cared about by caring about yourself and shedding the sludge!