Sunday, October 21, 2018

Color doesn't matter, ideology does

So says Shapiro, anyway.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll of tens of thousands of registered, self-described conservatives who intend to vote in the mid-terms suggests that, at least when it comes to political outcomes, Benny Passports is incorrect. The following graph shows the percentages of conservatives who plan on voting for the congressional Democrat candidate in a two-way race next month (the residuals not shown are the percentages of each who plan on voting Republican):


For more than 4-in-5 conservative blacks, whatever the conservative party is selling isn't enough to overcome the attractiveness of supporting the de facto liberal non-white party just to vote for the de facto conservative white party. The same is true for approaching half of conservative Asians and Hispanics, and for 1-in-3 conservative Jews.

56 comments:

  1. I remember seeing on a blog, possibly this one, that describing oneself as either a conservative Democrat or liberal Republican is strongly correlated with low IQ. The blogger hypothesized this is because people too dim to understand the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" just pick at random.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your data shows that ideology is the primary driver of voting patterns for everyone except blacks. To expand on snorlax's point, even if we were to exclude the fraction of blacks (2/5?) who simply picked 'conservative' at random, you are still left with those who picked 'conservative' because they aint' got no love for hos and associate 'liberal' with uppity women who object to male behaviour of the type found here.


    Anyway, we all know by now that, while blacks have many talents and are endowed by our creator with an eternal soul and all that, they are, by and large, incapable of advanced ratiocination and, as a group, cannot live up to modern standards of civilization, including participating in multi-party electoral systems in the standard manner (not that this one in particular is anything we should be particularly proud of). This is a melancholy fact which we must deal with as best we can.

    It is not, however, a master-key to unlocking how the world works. For people of IQ 90 and above, Ben Shapiro is clearly correct, ideology is what matters. If you convert someone to evanglelical Christianity, or orthodox Judaism, or Muh Amerikuh, or any of the other ideologies within the right-wing coalition then you can be reasonably sure they will vote Republican. Not 100% because people are funny, but pretty sure. The same is true for people you can convert to Ben Shapiro's ideology, namely movement conservatism. The problem is it's really hard to convert people to this ideology because it is simultaneously highly elaborate and really dumb and so only appeals to high-IQ mildly autistic people like, well, Ben Shapiro.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i don't know if this has ever been brought up - but the fact of the matter is that blacks are voting in a system they themselves didn't create. So it only makes sense that oddities such as this happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stats like these are useful insofar as they puncture the adolescent libertarian individualistic worldview that ignores ingroup-outgroup dynamics, historical power relationships and cultural hegemony.

    They're unhelpful if all they do is effectively encourage people to unilaterally disarm in an age where the ideas of intellectual elites have more power to determine cultural trends than ever before.

    So Ben Shapiroism is dumb and inaccurate, but as a description of what the Right's priorities should be, I dare say it's more right than wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting. Some thoughts here:

    1) As others have stated, some proportion of these people are just too stupid / tuned out to know what "conservative" means politically

    2) Some other portion of these people may be (correctly) judging themselves to be conservative relative to their surroundings and peers, but they are not conservative in an absolute political compass sense, and thus are still voting correctly for their political positions.

    3) Finally there is the proportion who are voting on the basis of their identity ahead of their beliefs and possibly interests.

    To zoom in on #3, is there some data source which has people's responses to questions on political compass type issues so that their true ideology could be directly compared with their voting, by racial group?


    ReplyDelete
  6. >Your data shows that ideology is the primary driver of voting patterns for everyone except blacks.

    It shows no such thing.

    >For people of IQ 90 and above, Ben Shapiro is clearly correct, ideology is what matters.

    In other words, if you fail to use proper controls, you contaminate the data. Race/ethnicity is a primary driver of (average) IQ.

    And the Jewish and Asian bars relative to whites contradicts your point even then.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gabriel -

    If you convert someone to evangelical Christianity, or orthodox Judaism, or Muh Amerikuh, or any of the other ideologies within the right-wing coalition then you can be reasonably sure they will vote Republican.

    Not quite. Southern Baptists, Pentecostals and particularly Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons[1] put immense effort into converting blacks, Hispanics and (East, South and Polynesian) Asians and have actually been quite successful[2] in this, which is the primary reason why they're going full cuck on immigration[3]. Said converts are substantially more likely to vote Republican than their coethnics, but still lean Democrat overall.

    Likewise, while sources differ because, at a fairly dispersed c. one half percent of the population, they're a difficult group to scientifically poll or isolate to specific voting precincts, most agree that Orthodox Jews are substantially more likely to vote Republican than secular Jews, but still lean Democrat overall, particularly when excluding the ultra-Orthodox, who usually[4] vote 90% GOP at the Presidential level.

    There are some confounding factors WRT to the previous paragraph, like that many of our self-identified Orthodox Jews, such as Jared Kushner or Rahm Emanuel, wouldn't be considered as such in Israel or the shtetl. And there's the enormous, 40+ point partisan gap between menschen and yentas, which, unlike for everyone else, persists even after marriage. Male Orthodox Jews are probably a pretty red[5] demographic but yalls bitches be craycray.

    As for Muh Amerikuh, once again, both whites and minorities who are active-duty military or veterans[6] are substantially more likely to vote Republican than their coethnics, but the minorities still lean Democrat overall.

    Taken together, it's clear that ideology makes a significant impact on voting patterns, but so does identity. Between Lee and the squeaky manlet, I'd say Minister Mentor still has the better of the argument; Shapiro's point is essentially tautological (conservative minorities are conservative—but they're much less likely to be conservative in the first place) and still only half-true.

    I have some more thoughts on the rest of your comment, but as this is getting pretty long I'll try to get to that later.

    1. Who are as I understand it theologically much further removed from any trinitarian Christian denomination than Judaism is, but in any case they're "within the right-wing coalition."
    2. IIRC most of their new American converts and the overwhelming majority internationally are nonwhite.
    3. I remember seeing something about some Jewish sect (Chabad?) which proselytizes and has converted (and/or "converted") a bunch of Africans whom they're now demanding be admitted to Israel. Know anything about this?
    4. The most recent exception was voting 90% Gore/Lieberman in 2000, an excellent demonstration of identity trumping ideology. That same year, 90% of foreign-born Muslims voted Bush/Cheney, an equally excellent demonstration that the past is a different country.
    5. A wag might say American Jews are 100% red.
    6. Not a perfect predictor of such sentiment, but good enough for government work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jig (and Gabriel) -

    WRT to your points 2 and 3, an important phenomenon that nobody's mentioned is when minorities, as an unprincipled exception, hold far more conservative stances for the ingroup than the outgroup.

    Brazilians who voted in their recent election at the Boston consulate, very few of whom, if representative of those resident in Massachusetts, are what we'd consider white, went 90%(!!!) for Bolsonaro, even as they vote overwhelmingly Democrat[1] in our elections. Same with the ones who voted at the San Francisco(!!!!) consulate.

    Likewise, 90% of Venezuelan-Americans support the opposition, even as 70% vote Democrat. Same with Vietnamese-Americans.

    IIRC, a plurality of Polish citizens in Britain voted for Korwin-Mikke in their last election, and the Euroskeptic right as a whole won something like 80%, even as (again IIRC) around 70% vote Labour in British elections.

    For another example, Trump won (IIRC) around 80% of American citizens in Israel. I'm guessing the Israeli right still wins a majority of that group, but a substantially smaller one. And, while it's true as some, including yours truly, have pointed out, that only a minority of liberal American Jews favor the Israeli right or its ethnocentric policies, I think it's fair to say among that group there was far more gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over SEPARATING CHILDREN!!!! than the IDF mowing down Gazans by the multi-dozen on their southern border.

    In other threads Gabriel has made the point that conservative Europeans (and Asians) favor immigration restriction for their own country, as an unprincipled exception, and open borders for every other country, whereas Israelis much more consistently favor nationalism in countries other than their own.

    That's an interesting observation, but missing an important piece of data: Conservative Americans (at least the Trump and Cruz wings[2] of the GOP), who favor nationalism both for America and every other country, including Britain, France, Hungary, Japan, Israel and so forth. Why it is that conservative Americans make far fewer unprincipled exceptions than their foreign or leftist counterparts, is itself a question worth exploring.

    1. Although Trump did make substantial inroads, judging by the 25-point swings he achieved in Fall River and New Bedford.
    2. Cuckservatives favor nationalism in every country except America. (Hence the term). It's really weird; you'll frequently find still- or ex-but-only-grudgingly-NeverTrumpers loudly cheering for e.g. Marine Le Pen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Snorlax,

    That data is complicated by the non-overlapping nature of expats and dual citizens. As an EU citizen you can legally work in any of the EU-27, so there is no real benefit to becoming a citizen of another EU country outside of voting. Conservative-leaning Poles in the UK probably intend to only work temporarily in the UK, so they are less inclined to pick up a second passport. Leftist Poles would rather like to live in Poztopia so they have an incentive to become a UK citizen.

    At least as far as the US goes, the procedure for expats voting is rather complicated, I don't think you can vote in a embassy/consulate as the Constitution reserves election administration to the states. The US also has a population of several million permanent residents that have never filed the paperwork to naturalize. Both in 2012 and 2016 the left has tried to weaponize those two, given the obvious leanings of both demographics.

    I've never seen a NeverTrumper praise the Le Pens, who ran a campaign that would be called "socialist" in the US. Postnational Review endorsed Macron.

    I do think part of the problem is that the conservative parties don't cooperate on an international level, while the liberal and socialist parties do. There isn't a FOX News International, so the message that foreigners get of US politics is entirely leftist. What is really galling is when UK/CAN/AUS/NZ Conservative(etc) MPs back a Dem candidate for President, at the very least they should shut up and say nothing, but they should do us the courtesy of endorsing their right-wing brethren.

    ReplyDelete
  10. snorlax,

    Indeed, I didpost on that a ... decade (wow!) ago.

    Some of it could be random guessing in terms of ideology, though I'm not sure how many low-IQ types know they are voting Democrat but don't know anything about the popular conception of their ideological orientations. Some, for sure. It doesn't really hold for Asians or Jews, though, who are on average more intelligent than white gentiles but who are also more likely to vote Dem even while self-describing as conservative. .

    Razib's speculation is worth considering, too--there are some people who aren't very interested or committed to politics who put voting the way the family votes ahead of any ideological bent. Those people work against Shapiro's assertion, too.

    Gabriel,

    I'm of course being hyperbolic when I insinuate that the flip of what Shapiro says is true, that it's color--which is just a low-brow way of saying race/ethnicity/biology--rather than ideology that matters. They both do. The more spergy and the higher the IQ--two things that are correlated positively but not perfectly so--the stronger the role of ideology, the more conformist and lower the IQ, the more color matters.

    Current immigration into the US is tilted heavily towards the latter, though. Color is going to matter more and more in the future, especially if this test run caravan gets in. Two years down the road, it may be a flood of Venezuelans. And two years after that, under president Kamala, it could be a flood of sub-Saharan Africans.

    krusty,

    They should have their own system. They should have their own country. Shh, don't say anything about Liberia!

    ---

    Great comments per usual. More later!

    ReplyDelete
  11. AE,

    The caravan could be a challenge of cosmic proportions for Trump. If he blinks, and the crowd gets in to tie its claims up in asylum for years until they win, he'll be toast like LBJ. If he calls up the military under his plenary power as commander-in-chief and there are casualties/fatalities on the caravan side; impeachment/coup d'├ętat is likely. If he uses his power as commander-in-chief to put the military on the border, and build the wall under plenary power, it would be a demonstration of strength that could see the GOP keep the House en route to a 2020 landslide heralding an Orban-Putin "illiberal democracy".

    --

    Our rhetoric has to be dumbed down from claiming "Soros" is behind the caravan. Only hardcore partisans even know who Soros is. And the Open Society Foundation is so large and wealthy that ol'George probably doesn't know the minutiae of where every check is going to.

    Better off to just say that "the Communists" and "the cartels" are behind the caravans, that sounds scary to Boomers/Silents while probably humorous to X/Millenial/Zeds.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's really weird; you'll frequently find still- or ex-but-only-grudgingly-NeverTrumpers loudly cheering for e.g. Marine Le Pen.

    This is an attitude I associate with Ross Douthat, Michael Brendan Dougherty and perhaps a few other similar Catholic thinkers. I wouldn't say their approach is very common. The archetypal NeverTrumper finds European populism just as creepy as Trumpism, probably moreso. A somewhat larger number of NeverTrump types do seem more sympathetic to the idea of immigration restrictionism in Europe because the immigrants over there are Muslims, though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IHTG,

    For some entertainment, look up what Ann Coulter was saying about Le Pen in 2002.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter050202.asp

    ReplyDelete
  14. Trump in statistical tie, matching his numbers during the NK summit euphoria.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx?version=print

    I don't put as much stock in Gallup, after their flameout in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ouch

    https://poll.qu.edu/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=2579

    White men: 62% for the (full cuck) GOP Senate candidate, even white college is 58%

    Everyone else: A majority for the disgusting and corrupt Bob Menendez

    The implied assumption is that wymyn are willing to overlook a lot to preserve the right to kill their offspring. Almost like they shouldn't be voting at all. And perhaps people who won't vote for the "white party" should return to their homelands.



    ReplyDelete
  16. 216 -

    That data is complicated by the non-overlapping nature of expats and dual citizens.

    That's a good point, and one I considered mentioning but didn't for length. I'd say the gaps are so large that, even adjusting for that discrepancy, there must still be a YUGE proportion of "hypocrites."

    At least as far as the US goes, the procedure for expats voting is rather complicated, I don't think you can vote in a embassy/consulate as the Constitution reserves election administration to the states.

    Yes, US expats have to request an absentee ballot; I believe embassies and consulates will help with this, but they don't offer on-premises voting like most other countries'.

    I do think part of the problem is that the conservative parties don't cooperate on an international level, while the liberal and socialist parties do. There isn't a FOX News International, so the message that foreigners get of US politics is entirely leftist.

    Yes; I often make the point that all foreign media coverage of US politics is taken directly from the New York Times, which is why even otherwise-sensible foreigners suddenly sound like, well, the New York Times when the discussion turns to American politics. That's why nearly all foreigners except Israelis (who have ample firsthand knowledge of the NYT's bias) are hysterically anti-Trump.

    I was listening to NPR (as a passenger in someone else's car) the day after the election, and they were doing a run-through of the "international reaction." A center-right Spanish newspaper said Trump's election shows that America "has yet to come to terms with its legacy of slavery" or some such. I wonder if Spanish has that proverb about hand grenades and houses made of sugar crystal.

    For some entertainment, look up what Ann Coulter was saying about Le Pen in 2002.

    <3

    216, IHTG -

    I've never seen a NeverTrumper praise the Le Pens, who ran a campaign that would be called "socialist" in the US. Postnational Review endorsed Macron.

    I was thinking more of the rank-and-file than pundits. And the word I used was "frequently," not "universally." NR is actually fairly solid on immigration although they consider it infinitely less important than muh tax cuts, which is probably why they endorsed Macron. And they all but jizz themselves over Netanyahu, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Tony Abbott and Maxime Bernier.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jig,

    R-I doesn't allow multiple questions to be cross tabbed because their pool is constantly in flux but the GSS does. I've done a pretty deep dive with blacks, though as Gabriel points out they are the most blatant example of color trumping ideology almost completely.

    snorlax,

    Re: feelings towards Le Pen in the US, there is a strong parenthetical element in play. Jennifer Rubin I remember in particular flipping out over the younger niece Le Pen speaking at CPAC, but the other usual suspects like Max Boot and Bill Kristol did as well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AE -

    TBF Romney and McCain received 1/3 to 1/2 the black support that GOP candidates typically do. Those gaps probably still exist but are much narrower when the Dem is non-black.

    ReplyDelete
  19. snorlax,

    The GOP can't do much to get more than a token (heh) number of black votes, the fundamental nature of the GOP precludes it switching stances on the provision of more social programs, public sector employees, and affirmative action against its own white base. It's not a surprise that black women are monolithically Dem, they are double beneficiaries of A/A.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/09/27/20160928%20-%20Black%20Voter%20Turnout.JPG

    What can happen is that black turnout can be depressed, BLM was a plot to overcome the Dem strategic midterm deficit. A good economy would be doing this, but Trump stepped in it by going after Kapernick, that was a serious error. There was also that dead soldier in the conversation with a Black Dem congresswoman last year. Angry blacks only benefit the GOP when they start rioting.

    Trump has the trademark Boomer nature of being tone-deaf to black concerns, "you got Civil Rights, why are you still complaining, bootstraps". Sometimes he has overcome this, but its a learned behavior for him at best. And in a good economy, going after "welfare" that isn't associated with crooked (immigrant-run) businesses or illegal immigrants comes off as bullying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If anyone is wondering why Mitt Romney lost in '12

    https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/1054463730266918912

    In one stroke he managed to insult both the GOP's underclass base, and the underclass non-whites their Kempish ideals demand they favor.

    47%

    ReplyDelete
  21. @snorlax

    A lot to deal with here.

    1) Are J's Witnesses Right Wing, I always assumed they were Lefty?
    2) On orthodox Jews, what data are you working from? My memory is that Modern Orthodox are split about 50-50 and ultra-orthodox are 80-20 or more. As you correctly note, within modern orthodoxy, voting right wing correlates very strongly with levels of ideological and lifestyle adherence to orthodox Judaism.
    3) Wait a second ... Rahm Emmanuel identifies as orthodox? I just googled it and it seems he is what we call conservadox, I think corroborating my point.
    4) Re. Bolsonaro voters, I'm not sure I totally buy this. During the French presidential election it was widely reported that French citizens in Israel voted approx 95-5 for Macron over Le Pen, which is on the face of it massively hypocritical given that the are right-leaning dmographic. However, it turned out to be bullshit. Less than 10% of eligble voters turned up and they were basically all old people with holocaust neurosis and a few s**tlibs. I'm willing to bet that something similar is going on with this. Probably only hardcore Brazilian patriots bothered to turn up and I wouldn't bet against them being Trump supporters.
    5) On the blacks, not Chabad (who, whatever their other flaws, have an instinctive race realism). It was Fakeservative Jews who did it, though a few of the group seems to have converted orthodox on their own initiative, with some freelance LWMO Rabbi. Even the pictures that they use as propaganda to prove how religiously Jewish they are demonstrate basic ignorance about where to place phylacteries; it's a big joke.
    6) Polish citizens in England is a bit of a special case for obvious reasons. You can't expect even the most principled voter to vote in favour of their being kicked out of the country and sent back home to 25% unemployment.
    7) I don't think Israeli Jews are really more consistent (I mostly say that to invert a well-known WN meme), I just think they are more consistent in favouring immigration restrictions for America. Europeans just don't like Americans very much and Israelis like Trump. I'd be interested to see data on Israeli attitudes to immigration in, say, Germany and French attitudes to immigration in Italy etc.
    8) I don't really buy military service as an accurate indicator of American patriotism. My anecdotal impression is that blacks who buy into Amerika F**k yeah, really buy into it, whereas a lot of black soldiers are Malcolm X types who want a well-paying job/like playing with guns.

    But my fundamental point is this: identities are ideologies. Americans seem to define ideology as a 'a set of normative propositions related to each other by being derived from one or more moral postulates', but that's just not what ideology means (I'm a bit loathe to quote the dictionary since, whenever I do that, someone accuses me of practising Talmudic logic). Blackety black is an ideology. Not a coherent one, but that makes it more of an effective motivator, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  22. hiddentribes.us

    Here's a quick snapshot of each group:

    Progressive Activists (8 percent of the population) are deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America's direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media.

    Traditional Liberals (11 percent of the population) tend to be cautious, rational, and idealistic. They value tolerance and compromise. They place great faith in institutions.

    Passive Liberals (15 percent of the population) tend to feel isolated from their communities. They are insecure in their beliefs and try to avoid political conversations. They have a fatalistic view of politics and feel that the circumstances of their lives are beyond their control.

    The Politically Disengaged (26 percent of the population) are untrusting, suspicious about external threats, conspiratorially minded, and pessimistic about progress. They tend to be patriotic yet detached from politics.

    Moderates (15 percent of the population) are engaged in their communities, well informed, and civic-minded. Their faith is often an important part of their lives. They shy away from extremism of any sort.

    Traditional Conservatives (19 percent of the population) tend to be religious, patriotic, and highly moralistic. They believe deeply in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

    Devoted Conservatives (6 percent of the population) are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat.

    The website says that the extreme Left wing, and the two hard right wings, dominate our media, our establishment, and so forth. These factions are very stubborn, outspoken, rigid, and unwilling to listen, yield, or concede to opposing viewpoints. The other 5 groups, who comprise 2/3 of the population, aren't as dogmatic but they have little visibility or influence.

    A good 1/4 of the population is fully alienated from political activity; this strikes me as being a much more widespread sentiment than what was seen in the 1940's-1960's (a high point of civility among elites, and a time of idealism and optimism). Well into an era of high corruption (like the last 10-15 years), much of the public realizes that they've been, and probably still are, being played by cynical activists and elites. Might as well tune them out. Should war or an economic crisis break out, that apathy will turn to rage (only a minority of the population froths at the mouth over Roe V Wade or gun rights/restrictions) if elites do not act competently.

    - On some issues, like police brutality, whites and hispanics align much more closely to each other than they do with blacks.

    - Prog activists score substantially lower on measures of loyalty, respect for authority, and concern for purity than do the other groups. This could reflect on this group probably being the youngest of all the "tribes".

    The website has a quiz tab at the top. I took it and I came out as a Traditional Liberal. I know that on some questions I coulda taken the "I'm scared shitless that everything around me is collapsing or on the verge of collapse" response, but I'm not a believer in hysteria, not when you've learned enough about other periods and nations (folks, we're not living in Stalin, or Hitler, Or Pol Pot land....At least not yet.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. The reason that most of us find TrueCons and TrueLibs to be such annoying assholes is because they really are a loud and selfish minority, who in more wholesome and equitable time periods are de-platformed by the powers that be (in the 1950's, it wasn't socially acceptable to say anything positive about Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia).

    In corrupt periods, the opposite holds true; the activist minority eggs each other on to take more and more outlandish stances that are essentially designed to alienate normies. People of most stripes don't think that you should be able to own and use machine guns with impunity, while they also don't think that publicly taking a dump on an American flag qualifies as protected speech. Indeed, the GI generation in the late 60's generally took a fairly hard tack against the most crazed rioters and protesters, as Boomer activists often pitched various battles as a "war" against the GI led campus and police authorities. But that was during an era of elite competence; we now have an era of elite decadence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ snorlax

    Very interesting point. It is important though to separate the 'homeland/diaspora' conservatism dichotomy from the 'ingroup/outgroup' conservatism dichotomy.

    An example I have heard mentioned in this vein is Armenians. Armenia is a very traditional country where people go to church all the time and men expect to marry a virgin. However in L.A. Armenians behave like, well, Kardashians. That is an example of people behaving differently in their homeland versus in the diaspora, but not of being conservative for the ingroup and liberal for the outgroup - after all the Kardashians are fully slutting it up themselves, not just encouraging others to do so.

    I think that an accurate analysis would put Jews in the 'homeland/diaspora' dichotomy as well. Jews in Israel are conservative and Jews in America are liberal, but American Jews are liberal for themselves. Jewish American families (non-orthodox) generally preach and practice ingroup liberalism - hence the 70% intermarriage rate, widespread acceptance of gay family members, etc.


    Where the real hypocritical 'ingroup/outgroup' conservatism dichotomy comes into play is most glaringly with Muslims in the West. Families who would slit their son's throat if he ever put on a dress or their daughter's throat if she ever so much as gave her phone number to a boy nonetheless vote overwhelmingly for the left wing party of their country of residence, and have nothing to say against anything LGBTQIAXYZ that these parties are pushing. You even have Linda Sarsour who wears her hijab to a slutwalk protest - let that sink in for a second.


    I'm not sure where these MA Brazilians fit in, but if what you are saying is the case then it seems to be the ingroup/outgroup hypocrisy. Some blacks in the US (non-Muslim) seem to also seem to display some of the ingroup/outgroup conservatism hypocrisy especially around gender roles. Hispanics in the US display a bit of both diaspora/homeland and ingroup/outgroup - they live more socially liberally in the US than they do in say Mexico but also tolerate things in society that they wouldn't necessarily tolerate in their own families. But still nobody can hold a candle to Muslims.


    ReplyDelete
  25. Mr. Rational10/23/18, 7:28 AM

    Trump has the trademark Boomer nature of being tone-deaf to black concerns

    What profit hath a candidate, if he acquire wokeness but lose his own base?

    Blacks are irrelevant to the GOP.  The way to win is to peel off the sympathetic Whites who have always wondered why Blacks can't just behave themselves and be productive instead of race hustling.  Trump is doing it exactly right.  Every mention of the Black unemployment rate is a sledgehammer blow on that wedge.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ Jig Bohnson

    When talking about the liberalism of jews and hispanics in the US it should be mentioned that they have lower divorce rates than whites.

    No matter how liberal US jews could be, i would say that they also value marriage and family and have lower levels of single motherhood as they strive to have high quality children.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mr. Rational,

    Trump didn't gain anything among white voters by using "rapists" and "son of a bitch". Testing the machismo of non-Asian minorities is a loser. There are significant numbers of "white college" voters that are explicitly turned off by such appeals.

    And there is the issue that white non-college voters have yet to see meaningful impacts in their lives from the tax cuts/trade deals/immigration restrictions. So they are reverting to form and electing two NWLs in Michigan, a moderate Dem in MN Governor, and two NWLs for Senator in MN. Ohio is going to easily re-elect a socialist Senator who was against NAFTA from the start.

    We managed to piss off white college Midwesterners, and failed to consolidate the gains among non-college whites in the Midwest/Greater New England.

    Trump's personal dislike ratings are unavoidable, and his mistakes emboldened the Javanka argument.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 216 -

    Au contraire, "rapists" made him the instant frontrunner for the GOP nom.* Although he probably did overegg the pudding WRT the NFL kneelers.

    And there is the issue that white non-college voters have yet to see meaningful impacts in their lives from the tax cuts/trade deals/immigration restrictions. So they are reverting to form

    This was almost certainly unavoidable, with the one exception being that he should've started the tariffs much earlier.

    Also, perhaps I'm just being a hack, but I'm growing increasingly convinced that the polls are wrong, just as they were in 2014 and 2016. Republicans are doing extremely well in early voting, way better than 2016 or even 2014.

    *And since NBC cancelled The Apprentice in retaliation, forced him to truly commit to what was probably intended to be a vanity campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  29. O/T

    Locusts

    https://www.bloombergquint.com/businessweek/boise-and-reno-capitalize-on-the-california-real-estate-exodus#gs.gI5mZCY

    The map is also an indicator that the US needs to adopt a "foreign buyers tax" as exists in UK/CAN/AUS. 20% is a good start.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Snorlax,

    "Wall" is far more effective than "rapists", but "drugs" was also effective.

    Tariffs are only useful as leverage, they are not a sustainable solution. Right now Trump has no leverage with China/EU, because they think the Dems will take Congress and impeach him.

    The refugee resettlement program could have been suspended on day 1, the President has plenary power to bar any immigration he so chooses, so even the visa programs (H-1B, H-2B, etc) could have been suspended. The wall could have been built using the plenary power as commander in chief. All of these actions would have demonstrated strength and caused real terms wage gains.

    And he could have taken a populist tack and vetoed the renewal of EB-5, but umm...some in-laws of his make money off of it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ Passer By:

    Interestingly, anecdotally I would guess that (secular) Jews are right in line with their socioeconomic class on divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, while Hispanics probably have modestly lower divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births than their socioeconomic class. After all for Hispanics in the working / low class, their class peers are underclass AAs who have essentially a 100% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and underclass whites who are also north of 50% these days I believe, so it would be difficult not to be lower.

    So I would bet that Hispanics are modestly conservative / traditional compared to their socioeconomic class, and secular Jews are in line with their socioeconomic class.

    It would be interesting to see AE come up with some actual numbers on this though.


    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Passer:
    Yeah, Hispanics and Jews do strive harder (than do Urban/ suburban Gentile whites, esp. those of liberal bent) to have high quality children, as opposed to just mostly using kids as props on their Stage.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @ Feryl:
    The stuff at hiddentribes.us is indeed gripping.
    I do fear, that the category of "Purity/Disgust: Abhorrence for things that evoke disgust", is too vague.
    After all, I'm sure that Lefties are plenty disgusted by expressions of "racism", "sexism", etc.

    My instincts tell me that recent events (esp. the feminists' extremism etc. in the Kav circus), have great potential to move many of the Politically Disengaged, and maybe the Moderates, toward the right.
    Ho do you see this?

    ReplyDelete
  34. General rule of thumb for American politics, IMO: White Americans like black people (or at least really want to like black people which politically means the same thing more often than not) but find Hispanics and Asians boring.

    An electoral strategy focused on "peeling off" whites who are mad at BLM sounds like something from the late 1980s. Lee Atwater has been dead 27 years friends.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ IHTG
    OK, non-rural whites really *want* to like black people, but, when they're clocked in the jaw about the *danger* from BLM etc., they'll *quietly* take care of biz.
    And, if the males start to shut off the noisy SJW women (e.g. MGTOW, out of fear of Pussy-hat BS rape charges), they'll be more open to hearing key truths about BLM etc.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ananymouse,

    BLM is yesterday's news, its utility was extinguished after 2016, replaced with the revival of the 2012 "War on Women" with the "Womens march". It should be referred to in the past tense in the same visage as Gamergate.

    The Dems have a better angle for spiking black turnout: nominating high profile black candidates. White Dems, as discussed previously, have fully drunk the critical race theory koolaid, rather than the previous stances of "politically incorrect liberalism". So running h8YT socialists like Gillum, Abrams and Harris no longer scares away the center-left.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ 216
    I'll grant that, strictly speaking, BLM is yesterday's news.
    I didn't mean so much BLM per se, but rather, the whole mentality which supported them.
    You still have "blue" area churches, etc., displaying BLM banners.

    I should've just referred to the general run of black expressions of honky-hate, which, trust me, the BLM-types will, here and there, keep trotting out.

    As to your larger point, about how White Dems have fully drunk the koolaid, I wonder if this applies as much to Feryl's Passive Liberals, as to the Traditional Liberals, insofar as the former are "are insecure in their beliefs".
    While running h8YT socialists no longer scares away the center-left right now, I suspect that this could easily be changed, esp. by, say, new riots.

    ReplyDelete
  38. O/T

    https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers/status/1054824232444743681

    I actually like this, its rare to see a leftist spell it out openly.
    "Your feelings don't matter"


    ReplyDelete

  39. "Interestingly, anecdotally I would guess that (secular) Jews are right in line with their socioeconomic class on divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, while Hispanics probably have modestly lower divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births than their socioeconomic class. After all for Hispanics in the working / low class, their class peers are underclass AAs who have essentially a 100% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and underclass whites who are also north of 50% these days I believe, so it would be difficult not to be lower.

    So I would bet that Hispanics are modestly conservative / traditional compared to their socioeconomic class, and secular Jews are in line with their socioeconomic class. "

    Per Steve Sailer, Hispanics slightly underperform in overall accomplishment/status relative to IQ. From a variety of sources, and personal observations, Asians overperform relative to IQ. Blacks can only do so much to deal with their IQ handicap, though it should be said that higher IQ blacks (who granted, are often AA recipients) tend to end up being corrupt at an alarming rate. Jews are obsessed with only associating with the most high caliber people, so as to continue their high levels of accomplishment. With North Asians and Jews, it's evident that people who generally have an IQ over say, 100, will feel a great deal of parental and peer pressure to maintain the high performance of their ethnic group.....If they also have a great deal of conscientiousness within their community. And this is why Nordic whites, NE Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews, absent the onset of dysgenics, do so well. You need to have an IQ of circa 100 and a population that doesn't want to let others down. Disturbingly, among modern whites, status has come to be associated with putting down one's own ethnic group. In the days of the Soviet Union, Anglo-Germanic sphere whites were still mostly committed to the protection of their ethnic group, even if they did so via euphemisms (e.g., trashing Asians and Slavs as dirty commies, instead of openly admitting that the mostly Anglo-Teutonic white population in itself deserved to be protected from the malign influence of other ethnic groups). As opposed to "dumbing down" Western whites genetically, it appears that Western whites will simply be pushed out of existence all together in more and more of their homelands.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "My instincts tell me that recent events (esp. the feminists' extremism etc. in the Kav circus), have great potential to move many of the Politically Disengaged, and maybe the Moderates, toward the right.
    Ho do you see this?"

    The opposite, actually. Moronic culture war touchdown dances (and rage fests from the losers) just reinforce how retarded elites have become since circa 1990. Which inspires greater apathy and alienation among normies.

    It will be the onset of a great war (from within or without), a disease epidemic that our poltical and medical establishment can't corral, and/or an economic disaster that will force elites to cut the crap and make some long over due decisions. Make the right decisions, be hailed as heroes and visionaries; make the wrong decisions, and you will socially and spiritually damage the country for the next several decades....And the damage could be so severe that we never recover.

    Keep in mind that in the lead-up to the civil war, it was actually a culture war (as in, a moral issue) debate that sparked the animosity. Northern abolitionists declared slavery immoral, and vowed to eradicate it no matter the economic or political costs. Southerners said that it was nobody's business but their own how they made use of slaves, and besides, it was considered to be an economic boon for them, which those Yankees couldn't be bothered to appreciate. Well la-de-da, the culture war shit storm itself ignited a genuine crisis level problem (sustained, armed, and organized conflict between both sides) and it was up to Lincoln et al to figure out what the hell to do about it. Neither side's elites would back down, and the bloodshed dragged on, horrifying younger generations or sending them into a numbed stupor, as they couldn't fathom how clueless and worthless middle aged and elderly people seemed to be, judging from the "leaders" they produced.

    It won't be feminist issues that ignite a real crisis. A more likely culprit is something that arises from the tension between globalists and nationalists. The Republicans could well be on the ropes, soon, in Georgia, more of Texas, much of the Northeast, and so on. It's going to be so blatantly obvious "brainwashed" younger generations don't worship Reagan or machine guns, and Dem championed ethnic groups and affluent whites are well on their way to pushing Reaganite whites (and perhaps whites in general) out of the limelight, that the GOP might become a vehicle for reactionary extremist whites who attempt to organize militias and such to harass, roust, defund, lay seige to, etc. the Dem strongholds of urban areas and highly affluent/elite coastal white neighborhoods. Using un-democratic means to strengthen the power of reactionary politicians and judges might also be in the cards for this Right movement, motivated no doubt by the sense that the Left cheats all the time, so why can't we too?

    Trump's failure to recalibrate this country's demographics will probably render his presidency a failure in the eyes of traditionalist whites, whose very numbers are dwindling (Ur racist gun toting Boomer uncle is a dying breed). But Trump represents many of the failings and naivete of his generation (trying to invoke Nixonisms 55 years later, in a vastly different climate). Yet still, there are enough Boomer and Gen X-er Reaganite whites around to try and organize an anti-Left resistance in the post Trump era that will no doubt include hard Left Dem presidents and senators. This resistance by default will make use of Millennials, since you don't wage war with old people. Still, adherence to Reaganism will no doubt grate on the nerves of younger generations, who just want greater cultural stability and fairness in society, not obnoxious social Darwinism.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A "good crisis" is a more or less self-inflicted but unintentional one (such as the Great Depression), or one thrust upon us "unfairly" by an external source (e.g., the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor, or the British beginning to really try the patience of American colonists). A "bad crisis" is one that decadent and moronic elites bring about on purpose and without shame, e.g. Arrogant abolitionists dissing and eventually smiting Confederates who stubbornly refused to admit that slavery was, ya know, kinda ethically suspect and probably did contribute to corruption. The Civil War era is overflowing with bombastic and belligerent elites acting like the cartoon showboating athletes of the last 30+ years.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Feryl,

    On a personal level, I cannot accept the legitimacy of a hard Left President elected on an anti-white platform. And the signing of a gun ban should in effect be the death warrant of anyone that legislated for it, enforces it and adjudicates it. If the Right doesn't enforce these terms it will perish under the whims of a globalist left aiming for the South Africa scenario.

    We have the right to self-determination unencumbered by the whims of any who oppose us. That us what Woodrow Wilson claimed was the reason for starting the last century of wars. It's time liberals have to uphold their end of the bargain, by force or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Gabriel,

    They're mostly apolitical. I remember something like 75% of them express no party affiliation at all. I think it was from Pew. I'll look for it.

    Jig,

    By class, Jews do worse--more likely to be separated/divorced than n-H white gentiles. This isn't surprising to me, since liberalism is a big 'risk factor' for infidelity and divorce, especially among women.

    Re: whites vs Hispanics, Hispanics do better among the under- and working-classes, while whites do better among middle- and upper-classes.

    Interesting. May indeed be worth a post. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gabriel,

    Bam! According to Pew it is *exactly* 75% of Witnesses have no party affiliation (scroll about three-fourths of the way down to see the relevant data).

    And they are also 2-to-1 women. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Here is some data on the divorce rate, hispanics, on average, have lower divorce rate than whites.

    https://divorcescience.org/2012/06/29/351/

    “Total marriage rates are higher and divorce rates are lower for American Jews than they are for the general American population: there is a lower rate of juvenile delinquency among Jewish adolescents"

    https://www.jta.org/1960/03/15/archive/marriage-rates-reported-higher-divorce-rates-lower-for-u-s-jews

    Divorce rate of US jews 30%
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-jewish-divorce-rates-at-30-ny-orthodoxy-responds/

    Now, one could say that religious jews cause all jews to have lower divorce rate on average, but using that logic one could also say that religious non-jews also cause lower divorce rates on average among all american non-jews. So if you eliminate the religious from both groups, you could still end up with lower divorce rate for secular jews.

    Secular jews are highly educated, i think nearly 80 percent could be college educated, Compared with a national average US of 39.4% of adults, 61% of Jewish adults (and that included the religious jews too) in the United States have attained a bachelors degree education or higher.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/demographic-profile-of-american-jews

    And data shows that highly educated people have low divorce rates.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ Feryl:
    "... how retarded elites have become since circa 1990. Which inspires greater apathy and alienation among normies."
    Alienation, yes. But *apathy*, when they hear Righties clearly rip into the retardation of these elites, esp. about "always believe women"?

    I'm not saying that it'll be feminist issues that ignite a real crisis.
    I am saying that normies (esp. men) now have *hugely* greater reason to fear feminists, and support their foes, than they had pre-Kav.

    @ Passer:
    It makes sense that Jews would have lower divorce rates, owing somewhat to their higher education levels, this owing to their clear "excessive" valuing of education.
    But I suspect that, like the Hispanics, Jews also value family more.
    (Jewish mothers have long been notorious for pushing this.)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Random Dude on the Internet10/24/18, 4:32 PM

    OT but does anyone actually believe that the "bombs" found today weren't false flags?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Feryl,

    The coming financial crisis, which will be the catalyst for serious thinking about political dissolution, is going to be, as a crisis, a mix of good and bad as defined above.

    Passer by,

    Interesting. The GSS clearly shows the opposite, though maybe there is a wrinkle--marriage rates between n-H whites and Hispanics are virtually identical, as are divorce rates, but separation rates are much higher for Hispanics than for whites, on the order of 3x higher. Big sample, too, N = 13,384, all data from 2000 onward.

    Re: Jews v Gentiles, if SES isn't controlled for Jews look better. Political liberalism correlates with divorce likelihood, but lower SES correlates with it more strongly than political orientation does. Wealthy, conservative white gentiles are the least 'susceptible' to divorce among all whites (including Jews). Mitt Romney is the archetype. Marriage of fifty years, five children, no serious charges of infidelity (at least that I'm aware of).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Random Dude,

    My guess is not. Such a subtle October surprise. Coincidence!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mr. Rational10/24/18, 5:58 PM

    OT but does anyone actually believe that the "bombs" found today weren't false flags?

    Obviously there are some, because this crap HAD to have been focus-grouped in front of an audience of Prog-left activists.  Everyone else is looking at the un-cancelled postage, ridiculous pseudo-bomb and everything else and thinking "doesn't pass the laugh test".

    ReplyDelete
  51. "The coming financial crisis, which will be the catalyst for serious thinking about political dissolution, is going to be, as a crisis, a mix of good and bad as defined above. "

    Compare and contrast; 1930's elites protected themselves retroactively in the initial Progressive era of the 1890's-1920's, via trust busting, vice control, immigration control, and so on. When TSHTF with the Great Depression, many Americans were willing to be patient, with this patience being vindicated as the New Deal took shape. This is a stark contrast to American elites of the 1990's, 2000's, and 2010's, who've presided over the excesses of neo-liberalism (credit bubbles, housing bubbles, loan bubbles, rising inequality, high immigration levels, falling wages) and neo-conservatism with minimal accountability applied to the biggest predators and monopolies. Many Gen X-ers and essentially 99% of Millennials are frustrated and disgusted by the Boomer generation's resounding failure to produce quality leaders and wholesome team builders (at best, Boomers can do good works on a very limited scale, esp. if it involves their families), which is made evident by how they've done nothing to rein in crony capitalism, the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex..

    Eventually I'll look up this one book/author who says that generation personality is most informed by economic issues. He points out that Boomers benefited greatly from being born into New Deal blessed families, and when the majority of Boomers entered the workforce by the mid-late 70's, they immediately set about destroying New Deal America, an act for which most Boomers either benefited, or wanted to benefit, what with later Boomers being more disadvantaged yet also more Reaganite than early Boomers. Boomers were resolutely more disdainful of unions, social welfare programs, infrastructure spending, pension plans, and so forth, in comparison to older generations (Silents could be more against these things, in sentiment, yet Silents weren't so boldly ready to trash the economic practices of the 1930's-1960's).

    ReplyDelete
  52. The Great Depression came as a shock to a public that was becoming more confident in the 1920's. When, as I've said before, facial hair went out of style, corruption and vice were becoming a source of embarrassment (look at all the gamblers being kicked out of baseball), and elites were growing concerned about terrorism and crime syndicates started by immigrants and children of immigrants.

    On the other hand, another great crash in present day would not be a shock at all, given that elites had ample opportunities to improve society in the 90's and 2000's but instead did nothing, thus making the public cynical and fearful of arrogant and greedy elites. Given the perfidy and boastfulness of elites over the last 25 years, a major crash would likely be perceived as the de facto intentional infliction of even more distress on an already long-suffering and frustrated populace. The public would not react with the kind of grace that it did in the 1930's and 40's.

    ReplyDelete
  53. AE, Dalrock has had a few posts up over the past couple of years on Hispanics having slightly higher divorce rates than whites. However, when you look at the 2nd generation, the rates are much higher than whites.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/america-is-destroying-the-hispanic-family/
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/more-bad-news-for-marriage-is-baked-in/

    Also p. 16: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf


    I recall reading a paper a few years ago that Hispanic women's marital survival rates are like black women's. If they marry a white man, it goes up (racial hypergamy?). That means marriages between two 2nd gen Hispanics have even worse divorce that the statistics show.

    ReplyDelete
  54. HBS -

    If they marry a white man, it goes up (racial hypergamy?).

    Sounds more like correlation than causation to me. Hispanics who marry whites are likely on average themselves much whiter than Hispanics in general.

    ("Hispanic" really is a borderline-useless category for any kind of in-depth statistical analysis).

    ReplyDelete
  55. HBS,

    Thanks for the corroboration.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you want a vision of a nationalist post-White America, gaze into the eyes of Cesar Altier Sayoc! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6321331/Suspected-mail-bomber-identified-Cesar-Altier-Sayoc.html
    https://twitter.com/hardrock2016

    Florida is a crazy place. It's a swing state now but someday an American Bolsonaro comes out of there.

    ReplyDelete