Sunday, March 18, 2018

Overwhelming majority say illegal immigration is a threat

Over the last several months the Democrats have quietly put into place a winning electoral--running moderate white men. Those moderate white men in Virginia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania sound nothing like their colleagues in California.

Celebrating the dispossession of white Americans by illegal alien invaders comes naturally to someone like Kevin de Leon, who cut his political teeth as a community organizer organizing against Proposition 187, the judicial snuffing out of which sealed California's fate as majority non-white and thus forever blue.

It's an acquired taste for guys like Northam, Jones, and Lamb, though. Inexplicably, Jones and Lamb were able to avoid saying just about anything at all about immigration, and Northam only had to fend off a couple hail mary immigration ads by bugman Gillespie, whose heart was never in it anyway.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted last Fall--one that unsurprisingly never made the site's topline--provides the GOP with some very low-hanging fruit to pick ahead of the 2018 mid-terms. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who think illegal immigration either poses "no threat" or a "minimal threat" to the United States (N = 2,383; other possible responses were a "moderate threat", a "serious threat", and an "imminent "threat; "not sure" responses are excluded):

Republicans, ask your opponents exactly this--"Do you think illegal immigration is a threat to our country?"

Demand an answer. Outside of California, it's a devastating no-win question for Democrats to face. The invaders will tear Nancy Pelosi to pieces for not displaying sufficient zealotry in her desire to throw the doors open to all the beautiful brown skins and brown eyes in Latin America. How will these same invaders react to a pale white male who says their invasion is a threat? DACA, which would be dead now if not for the country's treasonous judiciary, contained the answer.

Our champions have flipped out over Trump appearing set to give the game away on multiple fronts--the biggest ones being immigration and guns. In both cases, Trump will end up doing the right thing.

Playing the role our champions have to keep him honest--and also to allow the tactical gambit to work--is laudable, but perhaps we can be more sanguine about these instances. Trump knows elected Democrats cannot go along with him on anything at all without their non-white base going berserk. The more accommodating and reasonable the president appears--while praetorian prefect Stephen Miller guides actual policy decisions--the more appealing Trumpism becomes to white independents and Democrats.

Everything is downstream of immigration. Not only is it the only issue that really matters, though, it's also a populist one where the optics favor Republicans. That the Stupid Party doesn't make every election about it--like, say, Donald Trump did--is why they continue to earn their Stupid Party moniker. 

Friday, March 16, 2018

We should have picked our own damned cotton


It's not okay to be white
No two-story buildings? No wheel? No surprise. The self-evident glee on their faces is the same sadistic glee their cousins experience when they're carving up the faces of Afrikaner toddlers.

Jared Taylor has said that if the founders could do it over again, he'd suggest Jefferson replace the second comma in the second paragraph of the Declaration with the word "in".

Z-Man's advice is even better: "Pick your own cotton".

(A parenthetical contemporary corollary to today's plutocrats: "Clean your own toilets").

Consider the cities of Nagasaki and Detroit in 1940 and today. In the interim, Nagasaki had an atomic bomb dropped on it and Detroit became majority-black. Which city is better off now? Rhetorical.

When the black population reaches critical mass, maintaining--let alone constructing--civilization effectively becomes impossible. Be it Baltimore, Haiti, or Zimbabwe, the outcome is never in doubt.

Oh c'mon, AE. I'm no Pollyanna but our future is Brazil, not South Africa!

Don't be so sure. We're looking at 4,000,000,000 sub-Saharan Africans incapable of feeding themselves by century's end. Those currently fleeing the dark continent are headed to Europe rather than North America in no small part because Donald Trump is in the White House. But that need not remain the case.

Is it difficult to imagine a president Kamala Harris browbeating us into taking in millions of teenage African refugees on account of it being Who We Are? The median ages in these 5.0+ TFR countries are in the high teens and early twenties, so 20 million 'refugees' becomes 100 million of someone else's babies a generation later.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Support for free speech among young college graduates has plummeted over last several decades

These are not unreasonable objections based on what was presented in the previous post. If the general tendency was for people to become more supportive of free speech as they aged, in fact, it could even be misleading. That, however, is not the case, as is illustrated below. People tend to become more conservative as they age, and their tolerance for disagreeable speech is no exception.

To show that the previous results are not simply an artifact of asking boomers about their positions on free speech when they are middle-aged while asking subsequent generations the same question when they are in their teens and twenties and also to show that, contrary to Steven Pinker and Fatt Yglesias, it is not the young, college-educated pups who are currently raising the torch of free speech, the following graph shows percentages of respondents who favor allowing "racists" to speak in public, by the decade they participated in the survey and by their age at the time of participation (N = 5,411):

In the seventies, then, we're looking at college-educated boomers (born between 1941 and 1960, concentrated most heavily among those born in the late forties and early fifties) on the green trend line. This is among the highest level of support for free speech shown in the survey's nearly half-century of existence. Boomers, both in their youth and in their later years, expressed more support for free speech than their parents did and than their children would.

The next batch of college-educated under-thirties (late boomers and early Xers) express less support for free speech than the cohort preceding them. With each passing decade, support for free speech among college-educated under-thirties declines. It is on pace to be a minority position among young college graduates a generation down the road--at about the same time whites become a minority in the country their ancestors built, in fact. Purely coincidentally, of course.

As a member of the twitterverse put it:

To repeat, free speech faces a bleak future. Diversity may well be its downfall.

Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, AGE(18-29)(40-60), DEGREE(2-4), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Contrary to Steven Pinker, support for free speech is falling

The article Pinker links to is by a square-jawed writer who took data from an academic who probably got the idea from (covertly) reading Steve Sailer, as so many of the intelligentsia do. It covers the same GSS free speech module previous posts have been based on here. There is no mention of demographic differences in support for free speech beyond the strong relationship between support for it and general intelligence.

The data Yglesias presents is not inaccurate. Expressed support for the right of homosexuals and atheists to speak publicly has steadily increased over the last several decades. People in the West no longer care if gays bugger, proselytize, marry, etc. Christianity, long since put out to pasture in Europe, is cratering in the US. After the Cold War ended, support for allowing communists and militarists to speak began to markedly increase as well. Collapsed and discredited. What's the harm?

These four categories don't deal with biological differences between individuals and populations, though. Identity is the most important issue of the 21st century, and only the question about "racists" addresses it.

The definition of "racist" has expanded enormously over the last couple of generations to encompass just about everyone to the right of, to take a random example, Steven Pinker. It now putatively includes the half of the population--and the majority of white Americans--who voted for Donald Trump. Pinker and Yglesias both know damned well that cultural elites and non-whites are increasingly applying the "racist" label to everyone who put the president in office.

Indeed, a recent poll found that a majority of people in the US think president Trump is a racist. Combine that with the graph above, and we're looking at well north of 100 million people in the US believing that the president should not be allowed to speak!

We see why they hit us with bike locks in the city that birthed the free speech movement, I guess. Deplorables must be silenced.

Support for the free speech of "racists" is most assuredly not rising. To the contrary, it is falling. And yes, it's falling among liberals. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by decade of birth and political orientation, who say racists should be permitted to speak in public (N = 32,858):

The right to openly talk about controversial or contentious subjects is a boomer ideal, one on track to die with them. It was born of a confident, victorious people during an era of nearly no immigration. The disunited polyglot of squabbling tribes now camped out from sea to shining sea have no use for it. Contrary to Pinker's opinion, it's future is bleak.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, COHORT(1910-1919)(1920-1929)(1930-1939)(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Handicapping the 2018 mid-terms

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of adults, by selected demographics, who are "certain to vote" in the 2018 mid-term elections (N = 12,155):

Excepting Jews (the blue wave!), all the bars look pretty good for the GOP's prospects--except for the presidential candidate those polled voted for in 2016, and that's a big one.

Another poll shows Republicans only enjoying a 55%-45% edge among whites in a two-way race on a generic ballot.If that comes to pass we're looking at a congressional massacre. On the other hand, this is Reuters, an outfit that regularly inflates Democrat polling numbers.

Firing legal shots at the fugitive state everyone else loves to hate is an encouraging move, but Trump has to really feed the base in the next six months if he doesn't want to spend the next two years dealing with impeachment proceedings loosely tied to the Fake Russia perjury trap.

A lot will depend on what Democrats do. Will it be the moderate white guy play a la Northam in Virginia and Jones in Alabama, or will it be a ballot pulled from the Coalition of the Fringes? Diane Feinstein's fate will likely be a leading indicator. Early polling suggests (((Feinstein))) will blow her halfling challenger out. If she does, 2018 is going to be tough.