Friday, November 30, 2018

Fidelity is a straight thing

Not just behaviorally, but morally as well. From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages who do not say it is important "for your friends and family to be faithful to their spouses":

Respondents are not just talking about themselves, they're describing their broader social circles. Same-sex marriage was from the beginning about tearing down the pair-bonded nuclear family structure that, among other things like maximizing the number of men with genes in the game, allowed for social trust to accumulate to levels unlike anything the world had ever seen before or will likely ever see again.

The otherkin are even worse. With buggers, it's pathogens and neoteny. With the 141-genders crowd, it's full-blown mental illness as cause celebre.

Since we're talking about civilizational sappers, the percentages who say marital fidelity is not important, this time by race:

"Natural conservatives", ha!

Heritage America, why didn't you fight for yourself?

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Designer babies will be communism's great comeback?

By the time the scales fell from my eyes in the mid-2000s, veterans of the Steveosphere were regularly referencing a BBC article from 1998 reporting on how 91% of Chinese scientists supported genetic engineering for eugenic purposes. The Han Menace won't be held back by all the egalitarian make believe that is retarding the West, we said! Here I am mentioning the article, by way of an undergraduate philosophy paper, in 2005.

The future has arrived. Assuming it isn't a hoax, the first CRISPR babies have been born. Razib Khan has a good discussion of the details that is accessible to lay people, so there is little point in an inferior second-hand rehashing here. This is probably the biggest story of the year, possibly the decade, conceivably even the millennium! As this post will serve as a personal time capsule, indulge me as I make a record of my reactions.

As a father of three children under five, I wonder if I've screwed them over by bringing them into the world a few years too soon. Have kids now, the breeders said, because you'll always be able to come up with a reason as to why now isn't the right time! That's the glass half-empty reaction.

The glass half-full take is that because genetically engineering the unborn is at this juncture controversial even in China, it was done by way of gene deletion--which is easier than addition--and to a gene that is well-known. The intention in the approach was to avoid pleiotropic effects and limit ethical concerns as much possible given current technology and understanding. Mendellian diseases are the lowest hanging fruit. We're still presumably several years or decades away from more genetically complex traits like height, intelligence, and personality become reliably customizable. It means my grandchildren could conceivably be among the world's first super humans. Half-full? That cup is overflowing!

That's if anything more than simple edits are viable. Maybe pleiotropy really will make it an unworkable mess that exacts an unacceptably high toll in terms of human suffering for an unreliable or even unrealizable desired outcome. I feel like a Luddite positing as much, but I'm just a curious observer so what do I know?

Parenthetically, Western tsk-tsking isn't going to stop this. The Chinese are going balls-to-the-wall on this stuff. The government is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into it.

What are the ideological implications of customizable humans? That blank slatist egalitarianism--and it's associated economic systems such as communism and socialism--may actually correspond to reality in a way that it has up to this point never been the case in all of human history. The general consensus on the HBD-realist right is that the left will never accept biological realities about genetic differences. I disagree. When they realize it serves their ideological interests to do so, they'll turn on a dime. Everything they said yesterday won't mean a thing to them tomorrow.

We'll advance from Final Fantasy IV, where each character was genuinely unique in their traits and attributes, to Final Fantasy VI, where the differences are predominately aesthetic and each meat stick is interchangeable with any other.

One of the least convincing parts of Brave New World is Huxley's rigid class system. It's inefficient and inherently unstable. Huxley presumed control would be centralized. It was a reasonable assumption in the 1950s, but is outmoded in The Current Year. CRISPR is already cheap and it's going to get a lot cheaper. The idea that a national government is going to be able to clamp down on the distribution of certain software and its associated programming code seems risible to me.

As Richard Spencer is fond of saying, we live in interesting times.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Darkness destroys democracy

WaPo's motto:

Democracy Dies in Darkness.

From R-I, the percentages of respondents who say they are either "not very confident" or "not at all confident" about elections in the US being "accurate and legitimate":

Credit where credit is due!

The contemporary US is an empire. It is not a republic and it is certainly not a nation:

United by descent? Nope.

United by history? Nope.

United by culture? Nope.

United by language? Nope.

Empires fall. Nations emerge from the rubble. The question is not of "if" but of "when" and of "how" the American empire will collapse. Amicably and orderly, one hopes, though that becomes less and less likely by the day.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Young bloods want blood

I'm fond of referencing Razib Khan's observation--and auguring--about how we haven't had our Sulla... yet. Trust in institutions, and the processes of those institutions, is plummeting. Across the Western world it increasingly feels as though every dispute involves bad blood. Good faith disagreements are the exception.

Do not expect millennials or Zs to arrest that trend. Expect them to accelerate it, on both sides of the political chasm and in every fissure all the way down into the abyss.

First, percentages of Clinton voters who agree that the House should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, by age. The poll was conducted in October and November of 2018. "Unsure" responses are excluded:

And the percentages of Trump voters who say the president should fire Robert Mueller, again by age range with the unsure excluded:

Tangentially, here's R-I commissioning an embarrassingly bad trolling expedition, one that is trolling for the answer the organization wants (and gets, with 76% supporting to 18% opposing). Even the accompanying graphic is designed to manipulate middle Americans:

Birthright citizenship hits Sunday School in Omaha

The question is especially germane in light of Trump's recent 'threat' to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship. But attaching "or naturalized" gives the game away. The first definition of naturalized from
1. To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth).
Most Americans think those who have been granted citizenship are in fact US citizens. Shocker! Ask if the children of illegal aliens should automatically be granted citizenship if they are born in the US and the results will be much different. 

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Californians of every race say Trump thinks less of black people

Looking through past polling on Calexit over the last couple of years led to a poll from SurveyUSA with some interesting results. The range of questions the organization puts forward is laudable, though the sample sizes are small. Reuters-Ipsos' huge samples have spoiled me. In this particular survey, questions focus less on perceptions of Trump than on perceptions of the deplorables who voted for him.

- A plurality of Californians who did not vote for Trump think those who did are "bad people":

When Hillary Clinton assigned 30+ million Americans to the deplorable basket, she was channeling a common sentiment in Bluestatistan. We're not talking about disagreements between fellow countrymen here. We're talking about burning hatreds between rival factions inside of an irreconcilably disunited empire. Yet another reason to be bullish on the long-term prospects of political dissolution.

- Validating another stereotype, women are less likely (capable?) of separating political beliefs from presumed moral worth. While Californian men who did not vote for Trump are split, with 37% seeing Trump voters as "good people" and 38% seeing them as "bad people", women are more conclusive in their condemnation. Just 23% say Trump voters are "good people" to 42% who see us as "bad people".

- While 40% of non-Trump voters say those who voted for Trump are "bad people", 55% of them say Trump voters are "racist".

How about that white pill!? Some 15% of those on the left allow that it is at least theoretically possible for someone to be racist without necessarily being a bad person. They're more nuanced than we give them credit for!

- An outright majority of non-Trump voters, 55%, see Trump voters as racists. Only 23% do not see them that way, while the remainder are unsure. Some 49% of non-Trump voters see Trump voters as sexist compared to 25% who do not. The rest are unsure. So by more than a 2-to-1 margin, those who oppose Trump think those who support him are racists and sexists, two of the worst things people can be in The Current Year. Bye bye, Mx American pie!

- During his presidential campaign, Trump went out of his way to pander to blacks. The only criticisms he leveled in the general direction of "the black community" were of president Obama (duh) and Black Lives Matter. He brought in Steve Harvey, lots of black preachers, touted good things being said about him by black celebrities like Dennis Rodman and Mike Tyson, turned Jamiel Shaw into a household name, took Ben Carson under his wing, had 'Diamond and Silk' do warmup at some of his rallies, etc etc ad nauseum.

All for naught. The percentages, by race, of all Californians--not just non-Trump voters--who say Trump thinks less of black people. "Not sure" responses, constituting 16% of the total, are excluded:

Conciliatory gestures are for cucks. Dignity-destroying grovels have no purchase. This is war. Race war. The war remains mostly figurative for now. It's not guaranteed to stay that way. We should separate while doing so with some degree of amicability remains viable.

The current political arrangement in the US delenda est!

Monday, November 19, 2018

White liberals: "Don't leave us alone with the dindus!"

Why the disparity between white leftists and non-whites on the question of political dissolution? White liberals--especially Jews--are strongly opposed while the POC ascendancy is relatively supportive. White conservatives fall in between the beleaguered and the ascendant ends of the leftist demographic spectrum:

This bugman does not want secession (via krusty):

Even without having looked at it in detail, it's hard to believe he's unaware that Hispanics in the Southwest are supportive of breaking away from the US than any other group is. He lives in California, after all.
Physiognomy is real

He's desperate to paint political dissolution as an exclusively far-white desire--even though that's both empirically and historically ignorant--to maximize the number of people who dismiss the idea out of hand. He's desperate because he realizes at some level, as do many other white male Democrats, that the POC ascendancy has no intention of treating them as equals. Come the revolution, they get the rope.

In contemporary America, non-deviant heterosexual white men are public enemy number one. If red state America secedes, the Joe Crowleys and Michael Capuanos of new blue state America become objects of hate.

Does low-T Atkins look like he'd fare well in a world without spellskiting badwhites absorbing all the abuse that would otherwise hit him? Rhetorical.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Not your grandfather's America

An overarching reason political dissolution seems likely is how starkly generational feelings about it are. Among Jews, for example, while just 6.8% of those aged fifty and older favor peaceful secession, 35.6% of those under fifty years old do. Those are the buckets I had to use to get statistical significant sample sizes, but the Jewish trend follows the general age trend all the way up and down the spectrum.

More than partisan affiliation, political orientation, educational attainment, income, race, sex, or geography, the best predictor for support is age. Boomers and the remaining Silents are strongly opposed, Xers less stridently so, millennials and Zs far more open to it. Support for secession strictly by age range:

Why? The short answer must be that not only is the US not working now, we've never seen it work and there are no reasons for us to believe that will change with the course we're currently on. As long as we've been cognizant of politics and current events, the story has been one of perpetual national decline and increasing disunity--with a brief reprieve for a year or two following 9/11--coupled with a continuous drop in trust in all the major institutions in society and also of social trust between individuals. Income stagnation, pointless and unwinnable wars, family breakdown, unaffordable housing and education, population replacement, and a ruling class that is at best annoyed by our existence.

Parenthetically, snorlax attributes the apparent age gap to the way the poll is worded, arguing that a lot of younger people don't know what the word "withdraw" means. It seems unlikely to me as I explained here. Building on that, support for it among those under the age of 40 with advanced degrees is a staggering 54.8%, with an actual majority supporting in absolute terms even with "don't know" responses counted. And that's a sample size of 3,323! Among those under 40 with less education, the corresponding figure is 42.7%. 

Friday, November 16, 2018

Severing the Southwest

A few additional ruminations regarding political dissolution:

- What accounts for the exceptionally low level of support for political dissolution among Jews?

The first thing that comes to mind is that a national breakup means the end of America's global military hegemony. Many AIPAC members will be out of a job and the American wars for Israel will be over.

Or maybe a lot of Jews, as difficult as their neuroticism makes it for gentiles to pick up on, really do appreciate the US for being the best country in the history of the world to be a Jew in.

Or it could be the SWPL simulacrum effect--the tendency for American Jews to be especially liberal white liberals. Jewish support for peaceful secession is at 17.0%, but support among college-educated non-Jewish white liberals making at least $100,000 a year is only modestly higher at 23.4%.

- Much speculation on how political separation might play out assumes the Southwest will take a leading role in dissolution, and with good reason. Reuters-Ipsos groups states into eight geographical regions that are similar to the nine divisions the US Census employs:

The West Coast and the Southwest are the most supportive of secession. The Mountain States and the Southeast are modestly less so. The Plains, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England are the least supportive.

Z-Man often points out that for nearly all of the US' history the country has been ruled by Yankees. In Albion's Seed terms, the Puritans and the Midlanders want to hold the country together. The Cavaliers, the Borderlanders, and non-whites are more open to separation.

- In the previous post it was noted that support for secession did not track partisan affiliation, with a nearly identical 28.3% of Republicans and 28.5% of Democrats in support. The poll's first wave occurred in 2014 while the second wave picked up in 2016 and ended in January of 2017. Though partisanship isn't an especially large factor in predicting support for secession, when the 'other side' has the presidency, support tends to increase.

Support for secession, by partisan affiliation, during a portion of Obama's second term and after Trump won the 2016 election through his inauguration:

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

New York Magazine contemplates secession--the time for political dissolution draws nearer

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Advocating it a decade ago was met with mockery even from many of those on the dissident right. No longer. A few years ago, Pat Buchanan began talking about it. Now it's entering mainstream discourse. From New York Magazine (via IHTG):

Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same.
There is no longer any racial, religious, moral, cultural, political, linguistic, or ethnic unity in the US as it is currently defined. The last remaining bond holding the thing together, beyond inertia, is economic expediency. It's why talk of dissolution will begin in interest once the impending economic downturn hits. The Federal Reserve, with rates already under three percent, will be unable to stave it off.

It is as a nationalist that I support political dissolution. A nation requires a shared sense of the aforementioned characteristics. As currently constituted, the United States shares none of these things. It is not a nation. It is an empire comprised of several disparate nations inside of it. The empire must fall for those nations to flourish.

When the US dollar loses its status as the world's reserve currency, it will become obvious that not only are the federal government's debts unpayable--which just about everyone already assumes to be the case--but that they are no longer even serviceable. Running away from the Imperial Capital's obligations will start to sound appealing. Gubernatorial campaigns will put secession at the center of the platform and the breakup will begin.

The NYMag article takes a fairly predictable stab at what dissolution might look like, at least initially, but it would be excessively audacious to pretend to know precisely how it will play out. It may be municipalities that get the ball rolling, it may be a single state, a compact of states, an entire region, or it may manifest in some other way.

However it begins, once it has it will not take long for the cascade to occur. Imagine a Texit that includes Oklahoma and Arkansas. Rather than prevent the exit, leftists will be cheering--Congress, the presidency, and the making of the Supreme Court will forever be under Democrat control. Remaining red state America will presented with a stark choice--effectively forfeit all political power indefinitely, or bail. Many other states will follow Texas' lead and choose the latter.

Initially, the emergent states will be based on preexisting political and geographical arrangements but over time the realignment will take on distinct racial and ethnic characteristics. Savvy red states will drastically slash welfare benefits while encouraging, even aiding, low-income residents (read blacks) in relocating to Blue America where benefits are more generous. SWPLs won't stop migrants from truly foreign lands moving in now, so they're certainly not going to stop former American blacks and browns from moving in tomorrow.

The conjecture on what potentially follows dissolution is just that. Political dissolution sounds scarier than it should. That there will be any support for militarily stopping a state or compact of states from seceding is highly unlikely. The federal government could hardly get away with snuffing out the Branch Davidian complex a generation ago. In the Current Year there is no stomach for scaling that up by a factor of ten thousand. The Soviet Union's disintegration was not bloody and neither will that of the United States.

As for the concern that an emergent smaller new country or countries will be susceptible to invasion, there is no invasion of Mexico, Canada, or Cuba on the table today and those countries don't even have nukes. Let Montana purchase a few nuclear warheads and its risk of invasion will be nil.

When the topic comes up in conversation and people ask what will change from the way things are now, I answer that the money withheld from their paychecks each week for federal income taxes will no longer be withheld and whatever services the federal government provides them--if they can think of any, because I can't!--will no longer be provided to them.

The reason we're whipped into a frenzy each time a putative federal government shutdown looms ahead of a debt ceiling 'crisis' is because the Cloud People don't want the Dirt People to realize how superfluous said Cloud People are. Furlough a couple million federal government employees and nothing happens? Why didn't we scrub these parasites off sooner?

Last Spring I put together a couple of posts based on a Reuters-Ipsos poll from 2014 asking respondents whether or not they supported "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government". Unbeknownst to me at the time but subsequently brought to my attention by a pro-secession Faceborg group, R-I picked the poll back up a couple of years later, running it through Trump's inauguration in January of 2017.

As a consequence, we now have a sample size of 37,465 to work with--more than twice as large as the one initially used. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected demographics, who support peaceful secession. "Don't know" responses, constituting one-fifth of all responses, are excluded:

That the military is a bastion of pro-secessionist sentiment doesn't bode particularly well for the idea that the federal government will successfully instruct the army to turn its guns on states or compacts electing to leave the union.

Political dissolution is most strongly supported by the young and by non-whites. Boomers are strongly opposed, but from Xers on down it's hardly a radical idea. In other words, it is the country's future.

Political dissolution is a decidedly non-partisan issue. More than one-quarter of Republicans and of Democrats, and nearly one-third of independents are supportive of the idea. As support grows across the political spectrum, the possibility of a relatively amicable breakup will grow with it. Acrimony--let alone bloodshed--will be unnecessary and should be avoided. A soft landing is preferable to crashing into the mountainside for all on board.

Monday, November 12, 2018

2018 midterms continued

A few more observations from the 2018 midterms:

- We hear a lot about the educational divide. Democrats are increasingly winning the college-educated while Republicans are increasingly winning those without college degrees.

That's descriptive when it comes to whites (including Jews). It's not so with non-whites, though:

- While higher educational attainment is inversely correlated with voting Republican among whites, higher income remains positively correlated with it.

Today's archetypal Republican is the master plumber who owns twenty work trucks. The archetypal Democrat is the barista at Starbucks with a PhD in women's studies. The master plumber's doctor and the his employees fall somewhere in between.

- Sixteen nations, under no god, divisible, with liberty and justice for none. These disUnited States of moribund America:

Ignore the crazy talk about political dissolution on the horizon. What do you mean people living in America don't agree on anything? They agree on this, that the country is becoming more and more divided by the day! Really, nothing to worry about. Just fifty million more Africans, fifty million more Latin Americans, fifty million more Asians, fifty million more Muslims and everything will be perfectly fine!

- Relatedly, the decline of the moderate (full exit polling data was unavailable for 2002 and appears to be incomplete for 2010 as well):

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Saboteurs, by accident or by intention

VDare carried the previous post containing some reactions to the 2018 congressional midterms, highlighting the finding that the vast majority of Democrats think it important that fewer whites and fewer men be elected to public office:

An NPC, putatively sympathetic to VDare's mission, immediately and publicly cried foul:

He was of course blatantly incorrect. The exit poll contains the question. Rather than apologize and exit stage left with his tail between his legs after being corrected on his sloppy ignorance, he spouted more ignorance:

The exit poll shows party vote distribution by answer to the question. I simply flipped this to show the answer distribution by party vote. To get the 75.1% figure, the first blue column in the chart, I took .41*.87*18778, finding 6,698 respondents to have been Democrat voters who say whites are favored over minorities in the US. Then I took .19*.12*18778 to get 428 Democrat voters who say minorities are favored and .33*.29*18778 to get 1,797 Democrat voters saying neither are favored. Finally, I divided 6,698 by the total Democrat voter exit poll sample, 6698+428+1797, to get .751 or 75.1%.

Having settled this, another ostensible ally revealed himself to be a charlatan by continuing with the public concern troll sabotaging. Though he did so in a series of tweets, he subsequently turned it into a convenient little post of his own, gathering it into one place to be refuted:
1. The chart has no source.

2. The author falsely claimed that he always gives sources. Actually he had to be asked the source on Twitter because he hadn't given it. The source is these CNN exit polls.

3. To get the chart, the author did math on the CNN exit poll data. He did not show his work.

4. I checked what math he did by asking him on Twitter, since he didn't document it. His math was wrong. Where he got 75.1%, the correct answer was 75%. He added an extra significant figure to exaggerate how good his data was. He admitted I was right, but thought the matter deserved the comment "lol" rather than saying e.g. "My mistake, I will fix it."
1. and 2.: It's provided in the body of the post. In the interest of readers' time, I don't link to the same source multiple times in the course of a single post since I know there are some readers who click on all the hyperlinks provided. I've been doing this for awhile and have a well-deserved reputation for being meticulous with my source data. The color commentary may be crap, but the presentation of the data is not.

3. Vanishingly few people want to see the presented results worked out step-by-step from the raw source data. It's a blog post, not a formal paper being submitted for academic publication (though most people who read such papers skip over the parts where authors show their work, too!).

4. Edison captures responses. CNN presents them as rounded percentages for ease of consumption. Probable absolute numbers are not difficult to work out.

Sticking to the first blue bar in the graph, the 75.1% figure, the number of Democrat voters who said whites are favored is more likely 6,698 people, as my percentages indicate, than the 6,698.1126 people he'd prefer I imply. Having worked backwards to obtain actual number of respondents, I then created a graph where the absolute numbers of responses are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage.

Technically we may be off a response or two with a sample size in the tens of thousands. But I find 10.4%, the first red bar presented for example, which would more precisely represented as something like 10.3%-10.5%, to generally be more useful than simply 10%. The 10% implies it could be as low as 9.5% when we can get closer to the actual figure than that. I could start putting error bars on the percentages--that'd make it really fun to read!

I laughed because of how characteristically spergy this self-proclaimed fan of Ayn Rand is. To make a big deal over 75.1% being presented instead of the 75% he'd prefer is risible. Validating stereotypes!

Intentional saboteurs won't care about any of this. But if they're generally on our side--and I suspect both of them are--there's a takeaway from this extended exchange that sullied VDare's twatter account: Good faith questions about the data should first be attempted privately. Both people could've easily DMed me or VDare to be forwarded to me.

There are organizations like the $PLC and the ADL who like nothing more than useful idiots like this who blow a bunch of smoke for them. They use it to create the vague perception that VDare and other dissident sites like them cannot be trusted when they in fact can be.

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

93% of Democrats think it's important that fewer whites be elected

Some reactions to the blue splash:

- I'm quite pleased with the congressional predictions we made. Richard and I put the House at Ds 225, Rs 210. There are a handful as of yet undeclared but it looks like the final result is going to be Ds 229, Rs 206. In the Senate, we nailed every incumbent party hold and got all three of our predicted flips correct but failed to predict two additional flips, one in Florida (understandable) and one in Indiana (inexplicable). The latter isn't a missed free throw, it's a missed layup.

- The Kemp, DeSantis, and King contests were three of the night's four most important. Cheers to and for all of them.

Kris Kobach's defeat stings more than any other could, though. I spent several hours canvassing for him and know well several people who did far, far more than I did.

As has been recounted here before, I first met Kris when I was in college as he debated the late Richard Nadler over the topic of immigration at a dinner club hosted by journalist Jack Cashill in 2005 (or maybe 2006). Since then I've watched him fight almost single-handedly to make National Question issues like in-state tuition and sanctuary cities top political concerns in Kansas. As expected, he's regularly been stabbed in the back by corporatist cucks and in the front by criminal organizations like the ACLU, but he refuses to be deterred. The man is indefatigable.

How did his defeat happen? Laura Kelly effectively portrayed Kobach as the second coming of the deeply unpopular Sam Brownback. Kobach could have easily refuted this by pointing out that he had defeated Brownback's lieutenant governor and then replacement, Jeff Colyer, in the primaries and that Kobach and Brownback could hardly be any further apart on immigration than they are. Instead, he opted to try and win on the state's nearly 2-to-1 Republican party affiliation advantage by not saying a bad word about anyone with an (R) next to his name. It wasn't enough.

Then there is Johnson County, home to the Kansas City metro area's most affluent towns and suburbs. Over one-quarter of the state's votes came from the county, and Kelly won it by a devastating 55%-38%. Outside of Johnson the two virtually tied, 50.2%-49.8%. In Brownback's 4-point 2014 reelection win, the former governor took Johnson, 49%-48%.

Kobach underperformed Brownback by 3 points in every county combined except for Johnson. In Johnson, however, Kobach underperformed Brownback by a staggering 18 points. Had Kobach been able to mirror Brownback's 2014 performance in the county, he'd have won the election.

Johnson has a lot of transplants from other states and also, in no small part thanks to Kevin Yoder, lots of H-1B serfs working for tech companies such as Sprint, Garmin, and Cerner who have a large presence here. It's a county whose population has grown much faster than the rest of the state's over the last couple of decades. So have its median incomes and housing prices, the latter more rapidly than the former. It's becoming the kind of place Paul Ryan dreams about, and as a consequence it is becoming a place that Republicans increasingly cannot win. Conservative nationalist Kobach and Chamber of Commerce puppet Yoder both lost the county on Tuesday.

I'm not sure what's next for Kobach, but his story is not finished. If Trump appoints Kobach as Jeff Sessions' successor, the AG gets a major upgrade. If Trump appoints anyone other than Kobach as successor, it gets a serious downgrade. When Trump campaigned for Kobach last month, he joked about bringing Kris into the White House if he lost the governor's race. Time to make good on that!

- Next door, Missouri had three initiatives up for vote--one on raising the state's minimum wage, one on "ethics reform", and one on increasing the gasoline tax. The first two passed, the third failed.

That's what democracy inevitably leads to--people voting in favor of things that benefit them without requiring any sacrifice on their part, voting in favor of virtue-signaling that similarly doesn't require them to do anything, and voting against anything that requires them to incur real costs to themselves.

- The Russia Hoax has run its course. Some 54% of respondents say it is politically motivated while just 41% think it is justified. The partisan split is predictable. That means independents realize it is fake. It's unlikely Democrats will squander electoral goodwill by continuing to pursue it.

- Civic Nationalists remain a majority of GOP voters, but alt-right ideas continue to percolate through the electorate, with more than one-third of Republicans now realizing that the society their ancestors built systematically discriminates against them in favor of non-whites. Only one-in-ten Republicans buy into the 'white privilege' nonsense.

- In addition to overwhelmingly agreeing with Kinky Kamala about the nature of the country, a staggering 95% of Democrats say it is either "important" or "very important" to elect more women to public office and a similar 93% that it is either "important" or "very important" to elect more racial and ethnic minorities to public office.

Stated in another way, some 95% of Democrats say it is important or really important to elect fewer men and 93% say it is important or really important to elect fewer whites. But don't worry, Joe Biden is sure to get the 2020 Democrat nomination. Harris doesn't stand a chance!

- I will respond to the great thread in the previous post soon, specifically to Passer by who is not getting a beer from me on account of the outcome (but who will certainly enjoy a beer on me if he, or any other regular reader, drops me a line when passing through the KC area).

Monday, November 05, 2018

Predictions for 2018 midterms

Richard Spencer's outfit, the National Policy Institute, has a series of posts I contributed to. The literary portions are, for the most part, not mine. I'm an Austrian economically so the institute's description isn't the one I'd give, for example, but there is not in my mind anything implausible included.

I've followed Spencer for a long time, when he maintained a webiste called Alternative Right several years before the shorthand became a household phrase, back in the early Vanguard days (the podcast of radical traditionalism!). But I hadn't ever talked to him in any detail until this. It was a pleasure. He's a real human person with real feelings and real vulnerabilities.

He offered both to pay and give attribution but as is my MO both were politely declined. Regarding the former, our side of the great divide isn't flush with cash like our tormentors are. Donations and payments are a zero-sum game. I'd rather them find their way to others. Regarding the latter, this post is sufficient.

He's a strategic visionary, I'm a tactical incrementalist; he's high-brow, I'm distinctly middle-brow. As a consequence, I'm not always on the same wavelength as he is but as the duration suggests, I've always found him engaging and very often intellectually novel. He's the first to admit he's had some missteps, but he's been bleeding and sweating in an arena where for most of his adult life. He's fearless.

Anyway, the prediction I twisted his arm into publishing is Ds 225, Rs 210 in the House and Ds 48, Rs 52 in the Senate. The former is based on having tracked reported enthusiasm for several months and on the two-way split in R-I's congressional mid-term poll with the shakeout presumed to mirror the popular vote, handicapped 3 points net to account for Reuters-Ispos's leftward bias. The latter sees Missouri and North Dakota flipping to the GOP and Nevada back to the Democrats.

If you'll indulge me, offer yours in the comments. Virtual reputational skin in the game!

Friday, November 02, 2018

Gen Z loves Steve King!

Via reader HBS, another encouraging sign that Zs are going to be a cut or ten above Millennials (quite possibly the worst generation in American history):
CEDAR RAPIDS — If kids could vote, they would elect Republicans up and down the Iowa ballot, according to the Iowa Youth Straw Poll conducted Tuesday.

Almost 40,000 K-12 students in more than 300 schools participated in the unscientific straw poll, which was sponsored by Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate.
It gets better. The mock election included the state's four congressional districts and the governorship. Which Republican performed best of all, the only person in the poll who garnered an outright majority, you ask? Hint: We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.

From the article (the fourth district is Steve King's):

Middle America's striplings are waking up, taking stock, and making decisions that should have the POC ascendancy and their (((enablers))) worried.

Parenthetically, the parentheses denote secular, leftist non-practicing ethnic Jews in America, not our hard-white kindred spirits in Israel! (Acceptable, Gabriel?)

Thursday, November 01, 2018

Kinky Kamala, Harridan Harris

When a vinegar-drinking scold tries to turn on the charm, this is the result:

God in heaven.

In contrast, here's a sample of what comes naturally for her:

That many heterosexual white men recoil at the prospect of a president Harris will be a feature of her appeal during the Democratic primary process. In an address to the Human Rights Campaign in 2017, Harris revealed the rhetorical foundation of her 2020 campaign: “Racism in this country is real. Sexism, anti-Semitism are real in this country. Homophobia and transphobia are real in this country. And we must speak that truth so that we can deal with it.”

Sharing a debate stage with Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, it will be obvious to Democratic primary voters who is best able to speak said truth. For her white opponents to deny her assertions will be to relegate themselves to less than 1% support in the polls. For them to assent, as all will assuredly do, will be to cede all moral authority to Harris.

The alleged sex tapes of her with former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown will not derail her candidacy. To the contrary, she will be able to use their revelation to point out the political glass ceiling that forces qualified women of color like herself to debase themselves just for the opportunity to assume the positions of prominence they deserve and would have full access to in a fair society. Fortunately, having overcome these oppressive racist and misogynist obstacles firsthand, she will be uniquely situated to ensure their systematic removal!