Thursday, September 21, 2017

How the foreign-born vote in the United States

Here's one to file neatly under the blog's tagline.

The following graph shows the electoral behavior of foreign-born voters--mostly voting legally--in US presidential elections since 1992*:

Bringing in ringers. Electing a new people. Choose whatever metaphor you'd like to describe the disenfranchisement of Heritage America.

We have to go back to 1988 to find an election where the Republican candidate won the foreign-born vote.

That was a different era.

Those foreigners are not today's foreigners. The ink on the amnesty legislation Reagan eagerly signed was still drying and the massive chain migration it set in motion only just beginning.

The Cold War, when many of those the US took in were Soviet dissidents, was ongoing.

Hyper-partisanship hadn't reached the point it has today. Now landslide victories are nearly impossible. In 1988, Bush senior beat McGovern 426-111 in the electoral college. There has not been a margin of victory so wide since, and until the political dissolution of the US begins, there won't be again.

Begrudgingly, it must be admitted that the Bushes have done less poorly among the foreign-born than other Republicans have. I suppose if the well-being of the Republican party matters more to you than the well-being of the country your grandchildren will inherit, that's something to celebrate.

On the other hand, losing by a narrower margin is still losing. To celebrate as much is to be like Lisa and Marge as they're shoveling down Grandma Plopwell's government-sponsored pudding:
Lisa: This pudding's pretty good.

Marge: I can feel the pounds just melting off!
GSS variables used: PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), BORN(2)

* Data come from the GSS for elections from 1988 through 2012. The 2016 results come from the officially commissioned media national exit polling.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

It's so PC it's killing me

From Reuters-Ipsos, a poll on the following:

The subsequent graph shows, by selected demographics, the percentages who agree. "Neither agree nor disagree" responses, which 17.6% of those sampled answered with, are excluded (n = 4,670):

Notice the y-axis begins at 50%. That's because even among gays, the group expressing the least concern about political correctness, a slim majority view it as a threat to liberty. This is great news.

Tempering it a bit is the realization that the public is, in general, 'better' on the abstracts than on the specifics. We say we want fewer wars of choice and less policing of the world, but ask about whether or not bombing Syria is a good thing and everyone is on board. We want less political correctness, but discussions about group differences in behavioral traits? Man, the air sure got thick in here. At least the tops of my shoes are fascinating!

Clever sillies are at work here.

Trump voters are even more anti-PC than Republicans in general, while Clinton voters are less so than Democrats in general. Self-identified Democrats who voted for Trump come in at 79.8% while self-identified cucks Republicans who voted for Clinton do so at 71.4%.

Heartiste, the world's most astute observer of human nature, offered counsel the other day that is of particular relevance to the subject at hand:
Alt-Righters should be hitting this free speech angle HARD. Every rally should feature the defense of free speech and assembly as its unifying theme, because free speech permits the expression and exposure of every other theme that energizes the pro-White counterculture. Freedom to express ideas without getting fired or purged or blacklisted means that there’s a chance those ideas percolate into mass consciousness and the needle moves away from the Lies and Ugliness of Equalism and toward Truth and Beauty.

Free speech is the first right enunciated in the Bill of Rights for a reason. Without it, all other rights are effectively voided. Given its importance to a republic, the default defense of free speech should always err on the side of absolutism.

Codified free speech is uniquely American. It’s what sets us apart from the rest of the benighted world, and from our ancestral homelands in Europe. It’s why when we’re kids learning about the Bill of Rights, we feel pride in our 1A heritage. It’s as American as apple pie and imported chinese junk. The Wild-Right needs to own free speech and assembly, and hang the smelly albatross of speech criminalization on the Leftoid Fuggernaut. Champion 1A, and the rest of your revolutionary pro-White agenda starts to look more A-1 to normies.
Pair that salient support for free speech with opposition to political correctness. These terms, like "amnesty", are among the precious few we have at our disposal that send shitlibs scurrying away in fear. They're our "nazi" and our "white supremacist".

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Deplorable Doctor Pol?

The totalitarian instinct on display:

In the way of background, "The Incredible Doctor Pol" program is a reality show based in rural central Michigan that follows the professional activities in doctor Jan Pol's veterinarian office and of members of his staff as they're doing field visits. The county Pol operates in, like the state itself, went for Trump.

My wife loves the show and I occasionally watch it with her. Pol is an eminently likable character. His work is real. It doesn't involve a hint of the virtue-signaling dreck that gives shrikes like this woman away from a mile out:

Footage in the episode "Happy Birthday Moo" briefly showed a few members of the Pol family wearing shirts that said "Keeping America Great" during a Labor Day walk in Michigan. The episode aired in July of 2017, so the footage was presumably from 2016, prior to Trump's election. It was thus more likely anti- than pro-Trump, but it's unclear what political statement, if any, was being made:

The shirts were custom designed so they could've just been meant as a generic celebration of working Americans.

Whatever the intention, it's incidental to this woman's reaction and the window into the mind of the cultMarx id it provides. That 99% of everything on network, cable and streaming services is implicitly--if not explicitly--cultMarxist isn't enough for zealots like her. An innocuous nod in the other direction is an intolerable intrusion into their ever-expanding intellectual safe spaces dead zones.

Notice the insinuations in her puritanical post. Trump supporters--most white Americans, in other words--favor "racism" and oppose "human rights". The Dutch doctor--who has the most watched show in NatGeo Wild's history--is a disappointment to his homeland.

This woman is a great illustration of why Gen Z is turning away from the SJWism that defines so many neurotic, nihilistic millennials and burned out boomers alike. Spending all of one's energy scouting for things about which to scold people with a stern "This is NOT okay" is an immiserating, soul-crushing way to live. It's not a formula for human flourishing, which is why many SJWs are such miserable creatures.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Why the nineteenth was not in the original

On Pew's most recent news IQ quiz, the tendency for men to be better informed was confirmed for the umpteenth time. Men outscored women by double-digit percentages on all but two of the ten questions. Take the quick quiz here to see the questions and to remind yourself that, as someone reading this blog, you're far more informed than the average person is. I suspect most American readers will ace it easily.

The two where women held their own with men were predictably health-related--one on the water supply issue in Flint, Michigan and the other on the Zika virus.

Women are naturally focused on the hearth rather than on political maneuverings taking place on the other side of the world. As such, they're susceptible to demographically drowning their unborn grandchildren on account of seeing pictures of someone else's kid washed up on the beach. Modern technology allows our nurturing circuitry to be hacked. The Cloud People know this and exploit it relentlessly.

The question with the lowest rate of correct answers given is the one on the federal government's unemployment rate. It's the only quantitative question of the bunch. People think in terms of narratives, emotions, and relationships, not in terms of numbers.

Pew doesn't break out the results by race for obvious reasons. It's surprising they continue to be broken out by sex since doing so reliably reflects 'poorly' on women. The sex breakdown doesn't even appear in the body of the report Pew released, it has to be discovered by actually taking the test as a user. I suspect at some point educational attainment will be the only reported on demographic characteristic of the test takers.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Make Amnesty Die Again! #MADA

The 2016 presidential election utterly destroyed the aura of augury he'd enjoyed since 2012, but Nate Silver is learning. Via Steve, one of Silver's recent posts is entitled "Trump's Hardline Immigration Stance Got Him To The White House".

He's come along way from mocking Trump's campaign as a gag on account of it detailing a position on just one issue, immigration.

Silver essentially argues now that while most people are 'moderates' on immigration, a contingent of mostly Republicans are vociferous restrictionists and they scare congress critters away from amnesty whenever it is attempted.

As for the part about restrictionism polling poorly, that's an intended artifact crafted by the wording of the questions asked and the answers permitted. A couple of years ago Reuters-Ipsos conducted a refreshingly straightforward poll about whether all or most illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay or should be deported. The latter won by nearly 20 points overall and by 35 points among whites.

With regards to scaring congress, I couldn't agree more. Join in the terror by contacting your House member here and your senators here.

R-I also maintains a poll querying respondents on which issue from a list of twelve is most important to them. Healthcare and the economy always come out on top with polls like this. With that in mind, the following graph shows the percentages of Democrats, Republicans, independents, Clinton voters, and Trump voters who identify immigration as "the most important problem facing the US today" (n = 57,027):

There is a lot of overlap among Trump voters and Republicans and among Clinton voters and Democrats, of course. Among Democrats who voted for Trump, 10.0% chose immigration as the nation's biggest problem! That's where a lot of his crossover support came form. The issue really did put Trump into the White House.

The above comes to over 8 million Trump voters (current company included) who put the National Question ahead of the economy, healthcare, unemployment, terrorism, war, crime, morality, the environment, education, energy, or any other issue. 

If one in every ten of those voters--800,000-plus, or more than one for every "Dreamer"--demand their congress critters oppose DACA amnesty, it will die a deserved legislative death. Make amnesty die again!

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

An opportunity for heroism

A politically ambitious (or genuinely courageous representative of Heritage America) attaches a 'poison pill' amendment to the forthcoming DACA amnesty legislation Paul Ryan, his quisling band of cucks, and Democrats are currently working together to craft. This poison pill amendment expands amnesty to family members of "dreamers".

It immediately bumps the estimated number of amnesty recipients from 800,000 to multiple millions, which will become multiple millions more if the legislation is enacted.

Why not go all the way and amnesty all 11+ million illegals?

Because that's a bridge too far. Democrats will be able to convincingly tell their voters that the amendment was intended to make the bill fail as they vote against its inclusion. Cucks will jump at the opportunity to position themselves as stately moderates who just want to help the poor kiddies--many of whom are older than I, a father of two, am--without rewarding millions who broke the law, and so they too will vote against the amendment.

Additionally, House rules require that riders be relevant to the legislation under consideration. Dealing with family members of those directly effected will meet that requirement. A blanket amnesty may not.

Limiting it to the family members of dreamers will make it too risky for Democrats to vote against the amendment. Juan's parents, who risked so much to give him a shot at the American Dream, are going to be deported just as he's achieving it?! That's a record begging for a primarying, disqualification from aspirations of higher office, the ire of activist groups, unions, celebrities, etc.

Moreover, many Democrats will think the congressman who attached it too clever by half and think the expanded amnesty will pass. A vulnerability of the left is its tendency to overextend itself. That's begging to be exploited here.

Cucks supporting the amnesty already having thrown in with their donors and against their voters will find it difficult to reject the inclusion of such an amendment that promises to "keep families together". Some will vote it down anyway, but it won't matter because the combination of Democrats and immigration patriots voting to include it will be enough to override them.

A veteran of over ten years in these amnesty fights, I'm cautiously optimistic that the DACA amnesty will be snuffed out as is. More than double the numbers eligible for it and that optimism becomes totally unguarded.

Contact your House member here and your senators here. Tell them you oppose DACA amnesty.

Parenthetically, the word "amnesty" is one of the few incantations the right has at its disposal that strikes fear into the hearts of congress critters, especially those with Rs next to their names. Cast it freely in the coming months.

To provide some motivation to get your asses in gear, here's Republican speaker of the House Paul Ryantifa's twitter cover photo:

We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. No DACA amnesty.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Only you can prevent DACA amnesties

Agnostic wonders if a DACA amnesty is suicide for Republicans... or if it is actually suicide for Democrats. He is one of the most original and perspicacious thinkers out there. It would be folly not to take him seriously here.

That said, there are some questionable assumptions in the argument he makes:
Most immigrants, legal or illegal, are heavily concentrated in safe states -- mostly deep blue ones like California and New York, but also deep red ones like Texas and Utah. Millions more newly legalized citizens with voting rights in California will be no big loss to the GOP there, as the party effectively no longer exists in that state.
Of the 30 states Trump won in 2016, his margin of victory was wider in 21 of them than it was in Texas. It was narrower in just eight. Texas is still reliably Republican for now, but it is hardly a "deep red" state.

It can't be dismissed as a one off instance, either, the consequence of a socially moderate, non-traditional Republican candidate. Iowa, too, is a tradcon state--and generally considered a toss-up in 21st century presidential elections--and Trump won it more decisively than he won Texas.

Romney's Texas margin of victory of 16 points was larger than Trump's 9 points, but it too was among the more narrow of red state wins. In 2008, McCain's Texas margin was 12 points.

Compare California, which a generation ago was a reliably red state, too. As demographics have turned it reliably blue, its remaining whites have not jointed together to form a Republican bloc. On the contrary, they have become more supportive of Democrats over time.

The more that demographics change toward non-white, the more whites will vote as a bloc.

Who are the most reliable non-white Democrat voters? Blacks. Where are blacks the largest share of the population? In the South. What region is completely off the table for Democrats? Also the South, because whites said "fair is fair" and began voting as a bloc like the blacks.

Texas would do the same thing if Hispanic immigrants poured in enough to make them a near-majority.
Putting aside that the cavaliers and highlanders in the South are not the Puritans, Quakers, and Teutons out West, Texas' whites already strongly vote Republican, at about 75%-25%. That's far and away the most Republican-skewed white population among states with large Hispanic populations in the country.

It's possible white Texans will move towards an Alabama or Mississippi levels of white electoral solidarity, but as the Austinization--Hillary won Travis county by a margin of more than 2-to-1 even though non-Hispanic whites make up half the population--of the state continues, that may not be the way to bet.

Agnostic again:
Now that the DACA people are going to be amnestied, the next move by globalists will be to broaden it to other groups who are slightly lower on the sympathy scale, potentially including all 20 million illegals by the final round.
Immigration hardliners argue that mass amnesty is suicide for the GOP, since immigrants lean so heavily Democrat. They are trying to argue to Republican party leaders that, even if they despise their voters, they should at least back off of amnesty in order to ensure their own survival as a major party.

This is a naive argument, which explains why it is never listened to by the GOP.
Every legislative amnesty that has been attempted in the last couple of decades has been stopped by Republican congressmen. Things go the way they do until they don't, but why should we expect this time around to be different?

In 2007, Democrats controlled both houses of congress--and amnesty got crushed. In 2013, Republicans controlled both houses of congress--and amnesty got crushed.

Throughout 2015 the GOPe thought the idea Trump had any chance at the nomination, let alone the presidency, was--to put it very mildly--naive. It's called the stupid party for a reason.

There is no 4D chess being played here. Republican congressmen are pushed by their donors to support amnesty and pulled by their voters to oppose it. The donors are proactive, the voters reactive. The donors make the marionette congressmen dance a furious jig in favor of amnesty. Seeing this, the congressmen's voters go for the scissors and cut the strings before the amnesty dance can work its magic.

This has been the case since 1986. At some point it will cease to be the case, but America's demographics in 2017 are not that different from 2013 or even 2007, and we have a president who--whatever the exact nature of his true feelings--is less receptive to amnesty than Bush or Obama were.

We also now have a vastly interconnected virtual network with tens of thousands of nodes that reach hundreds of millions of people in aggregate. If we can get guys like Stefan Molyneux and Mike Cernovich imploring people to light up the congressional switchboards, we can stop a DACA amnesty.

Agnostic's fatalism is irritating because we need not be passive observers as this plays out. Trump is positioning himself well politically no matter how things turn out--he's rescinded DACA as promised and now has kicked it to the 'people's elected representatives'. The people will decide, you see, and that's democracy in action!

If we, the voters who have gently rested the tips of our spears on the backs of our congressmen so they have no choice but to face forward, let our guard down here, our front lines will break and we'll be routed by the forces of amnesty.

It's not hard to see why Trump isn't eager to die on this hill alone. If we don't join him to storm it, he'll wave the other side by instead of engaging them.

Contact your house member here and your senators here. Feel free to cut and paste this message to send to them:
DACA is an unconstitutional executive action enacted against the will of the American public and without the consent of our elected representatives. It should never have taken effect and should never go back into effect again.

Illegal aliens must not be rewarded for violating the laws of the land, whether they're sixteen or sixty years old. We have our own problems to deal with. We do not need to be creating more. America first!
Call, write, email, fax, whatever. Keep it even simpler if you'd prefer--"No DACA amnesty. It's time we stopped forgetting about our own children. America first!"

Agnostic on why the chances for this amnesty are better than the full-blown amnesty attempts of the past:
Amnesty this time is more likely b/c it's not comprehensive but just for the DACA people -- say 1 million max, vs. the 10-20 million total -- and they're chosen to be the most sympathetic cases, vs. any illegal no matter how awful.
The more I think about it, the more the conclusion becomes unavoidable that this battle is huge, the most monumental one of the Trump presidency thus far. If a DACA amnesty is stopped, the least objectionable variation of amnesty will have been stopeed by the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.

If it passes in congress, the judicial and executive stops are negated and reversed, respectively. A new precedent will be set, one that hasn't existed in a generation. The thin end of the wedge will be in and attempts at more expansive amnesties will trail close behind.

Saturday, September 09, 2017

No longer living the lie or surviving themselves

Since 2008 the GSS has explicitly asked respondents about their sexual orientations. About one-in-seven homosexual men (13.8%) report having at least one biological child (among men over thirty years old to allow the chance for procreation to have occurred).

Homosexuality is a Darwinian death sentence. About the only thing worse from a reproductive standpoint is failing to make it out of adolescence at all (something Agnostic has anyway argued gay men don't do):

n = 7,603
Female sexuality is more 'fluid' than male sexuality is. Some women allegedly experience changes in sexual orientation over their lifetimes. Men rarely do. It is not therefore suprising to see that lesbians have higher fertility than gay men do.

The gay male mean presented above is lower than historical estimates of homosexual male reproductive fitness by about one-third. The normalization and then salient celebration of homosexuality has reduced the social pressure that used to keep queers in the closet. They aren't on just on Castro street at night anymore--they're out there in broad daylight now, too.

One consequence of gays becoming who they are is that they spawn less than the fruitcakes who came before them did. Were he living today, Oscar Wilde wouldn't shackle up with a woman for the sake of keeping up appearances, and so Milo were he living today, he wouldn't be producing any direct descendants, either.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1)(2)(3), AGE(30-89), CHILDS, SEX

Thursday, September 07, 2017

In Trump approval polling, Clinton's popular vote edge more than twice the size of her edge in actual votes cast

It's previously been pointed out here that Reuters-Ipsos--among other polling organizations--has a history of oversampling self-identified Democrats at the expense of independents and sometimes Republicans.

In the case of presidential approval polling, the 'trick' is to poll the adult population rather than "likely voters". Likely voters skew more Republican than the adult population does, in part because of non-white electoral inertia and also because adults in the US who are ineligible to vote skew much more heavily Democrat than the population of eligible voters does. While Kate Steinle's killer can't vote against Trump (we hope!), he can drag down Trump's approval rating.

R-I's interactive polling explorer site allows for various filters to be used to analyze the data it releases. Since June of this year, the presidential approval poll (n = 23,055) has sampled a two-way distribution of respondents that breaks 52.6% voted for Clinton, 47.4% voted for Trump. The poll asks respondents who they voted for in 2016, not who they would vote for now.

The official popular vote distribution in a two-way contest was 51.1% for Clinton, 48.9% for Trump.

So among actual votes cast in 2016, Clinton won by 2.2 points. Among the current R-I presidential approval poll, however, Clinton won by 5.3 points.

The discrepancy is only 3 points, so it can't explain away Trump's current -18 net disapproval rating in the poll. On the other hand, the polling gap is more than twice the size of the actual voter gap, so its severity is in the eye of the beholder.

It could be a consequence of some respondents being apprehensive to say they voted for Trump when they actually did so. Or it may be another instance of a thumb being placed on the anti-Trump side of the scale.

I can't know for certain, but those are what the numbers show.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Destroying DACA

This is causing a lot of grumbling among immigration patriots:

It shouldn't. Congress is an amnesty killing field. The bipartisan swamp attempted it in 2007. Middle America grabbed the pitchforks, surrounded the palaces of their congressional Cloud People, and demanded the McCain-Kennedy be destroyed. It was. 

The bipartisan swamp made another major attempt in 2013, when Marco Rubio partnered with bosom buddies McCain (viva la brain cancer), Graham (viva la physiognomy), and Jeff Flake (viva la Kelli Ward) and four Democrats to bring amnesty back to life. Middle America went for the pitchforks again, and the resurrection attempt was snuffed out.

There have been other congressional amnesty attempts over the last couple of decades that have garnered less attention--because they didn't make it as far--while meeting similar fates.

Trump is taunting his bipartisan congressional opposition here. He's daring them to express their true intentions with the 2018 mid-terms looming. And he's framing the issue in a way that puts the concerns and well-being of American citizens first:

He's setting a trap for the swamp dwellers to walk into. It's not 4D chess, it's checkers. He's playing it well. 

This is our cue to act. Ping your congress critters. Find your house member here and your senators here. It only takes a couple minutes. Their aids tally the "fors" and "againsts". Make your opposition known. Don't overthink it. Feel free to cut and paste the following that I sent to my trio:
DACA is an unconstitutional executive action enacted against the will of the American public and without the consent of our elected representatives. It should never have taken effect and should never go back into effect again.

Illegal aliens must not be rewarded for violating the laws of the land, whether they're sixteen or sixty years old. We have our own problems to deal with. We do not need to be creating more. America first!
The only thing necessary for the triumph of demographic replacement to prevail is for good people to do nothing. Act!

Sunday, September 03, 2017

The real Rainbow Coalition

In 2016, non-Hispanic whites continued to comprise a majority of all Democrat presidential candidate votes, albeit narrowly so:

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's poll shows that will not be the case for much longer, maybe another election cycle or two:

The Democrat party's elite whites are ancient. Non-whites are the party's future at the bottom, the top, and everywhere in between. The state of PredictIt's 2020 Democrat presidential nominee market is illustrative: 

In the coming years SWPLs will be presented with a stark choice: Either learn to sit down and shut up or come back home with hope that the good people you've spent so much time spitting on will welcome you back into the fold. 

Saturday, September 02, 2017

Contra Pat Buchanan, northern and southern Republicans united in opposition to Confederate statue removal

Pat Buchanan on the perceived impending dissolution of the Republican party:
The coming clash over statues of Confederate soldiers and statesmen is likely to split Northern and Southern Republicans.
As is always the case with Pat, the column is full of evidence supporting a dissolution, but this excerpt isn't an instance of as much. At least it needn't be.

The Cloud People do not understand how overwhelming public opposition to the removal of these statues is. Blacks and a vociferous minority of Antifa-type white leftists do. Nobody else does. Moderates don't. Even white Democrats, in general, don't.

Parenthetically, some may object that they do understand it and that said understanding pushes their disdain for the Dirt People to new heights. Could be.

Anyway, the sentiments of Republicans from New England, the mid-Atlantic, and the South on whether Confederate statues should remain or be removed follow. "Don't know" responses are excluded (n = 812):

Opposition to removal is even stronger in the confederacy than in the union, but support for keeping historical monuments in place is unquestionably the dominant position among Republicans everywhere. Well, among Dirt People who vote for Republicans, anyway--I suspect there is bipartisan support for statue removal among our political overlords. Different moral universes, you see.

Friday, September 01, 2017

Gen Z distrusts the political class

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's 2016 presidential primary survey asked participants about their "attitude[s] towards politicians". Other than the no opinion/don't know answers, there were five possible responses.

Three fit into one bucket. The remaining two fit into another. They've been separated accordingly below.

The distribution of high school student responses on attitudes towards politicians in general, by race, follow. They are treated as exhaustive here:

Zs' expressed lack of trust in politicians shows that loss of faith in America's institutions is unlikely to reverse as the next generational cohort comes of age. To the contrary, it looks to be accelerating. While non-whites are modestly more trusting of the political class than whites are, lack of trust is the rule across the board.

While the newly elected people are a bit more favorably inclined towards the political class, that's probably neutralized on account of electing said new people accentuates the distrust legacy Americans feel towards the political class.

The distribution of high school student responses on the trustworthiness of local politicians relative to national ones, by race, follow. They are treated as exhaustive:

The political dissolution of the US is a question of "when?" and of "how?", not of "if?".

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Black suspected serial killer caught after fifth white victim brazenly gunned down in Kansas City

++Addition++New information on the killer's history:
"A city citation for harassment quoted Scott as stating: “I want to shoot the school up, Columbine-style.”

He also said he wanted to kill himself and “kill all white people,” according to the report.

He was sentenced to 180 days in jail but the sentence was suspended and he was given probation. Scott was ordered to stay away from the school. 'Intense' supervision was ordered."
My insinuation of likely racial motivation for the murders is strengthened. My doubt that the killer will end up being charged with hate crimes is correspondingly weakened.


It's unlikely you've heard about this. If not for living in the Kansas City metro area, I wouldn't have either.

If the races were reversed, you would've heard about it, of course. Everyone would have.

Fredrick Demond Scott, aged 22, allegedly killed five middle-aged white men. Four were killed while they were using an asphalt bike trail that runs along a creek flowing from west-to-east on the south side of the metro, the fifth--which led to killer's capture--was committed in broad daylight on a city street.

I regularly walk my dog or pull my kids in a wagon along the same trail, albeit 15 miles away from where they happened. I've biked that stretch several times though. I took these pictures in the area that the first murder occurred less than a month after it happened:

Parenthetically, "dindu nuffin" isn't a baseless assumption. He claimed as much by confessing to one of the murders. Taking Scott at his word, then, he literally did not do nothing when it comes to the murders--to the contrary, it looks like he did quite a bit!

None of the victims appear to have known the killer prior to being fatally ambushed by him. They could all reasonably be assumed to be Trump supporters based on their demographic profiles.

Alas, we may never know the true intent, as the killer's expressed motive seems entirely disconnected from his victims:
While the motive in the killings remains unclear, Scott “repeatedly” told investigators that he was angry about the 2015 shooting death of his brother, Gerrod H. Woods, 23.
Here's a picture of said brother's killer:

He was presumably gwan to go to college! before gang involvement derailed him.

What one young black man killing the brother of another young black man has to do with the latter black man killing random older white guys in a different area of the city isn't obvious to me. It probably has something to do with systemic racism against black bodies. My white privilege probably precludes me from understanding it. If whites are the cause of and solution to all of life's problems, it makes sense I suppose.

It's unlikely that hate crime charges will be brought against this alleged serial killer no matter what he ends up saying. While blacks are 27 times more likely to murder whites than vice-ver-sa, they are only 1.6 times as likely as whites to be convicted of hate crimes.

It's easy to excoriate Fake News for their sins of commission, and it's right and good to do so, but their calculated sins of omission are even more damnable.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Blacks want Confederate statues removed; everyone else not so much

Gadfly commenter Corvinus scoffing at a poll showing overwhelming public opposition to the removal of Confederate statues:
"After a week of torture-chamber gas-lighting, it turns out that Americans, even in a Democrat-skewed poll, OVERWHELMINGLY support keeping southern monuments in place."

Out of 1,125 adults surveyed.

Most normies abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.
It was the only poll on the question at the time but Reuters-Ipsos has subsequently released its own and it confirms what the aforementioned Marist poll reported. Parenthetically, 1-in-5 respondents answered "don't know". Those responses are excluded in the following graphs.

The sentiments of the general population (n = 4,088) and by sex:

Interestingly--to me, anyway--is that women are more strongly opposed to statue removal than men are. This holds across racial and political lines. I suppose destroying things appeals more to men than it does to women.

By partisan affiliation:

Trump's instincts on this are good. They also happen to be politically expedient. Excepting the worthless #NeverTrump crowd, Republicans are uniformly with him.

Most independents are as well. By a 3-to-1 margin, they oppose statue removal.

Even white Democrats are mixed, leaning modestly in favor of preservation.

There's a wide gap between the sentiments of blacks and white Democrats on the issue. Drive a wedge into that Coalition of the Fringes, Mr. president!

By race:

Cutting right to the chase, blacks want Confederate statues removed. No one else really does. There you have it--that's why we can't have nice things anymore!

Sunday, August 27, 2017

C'Ville, another Fake News fail

From Reuters-Ipsos polling we see that just 28.3% of respondents (n = 2,532), when asked to "Describe your understanding of the events at the 'Unite the Right' rally in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia prompted by the city’s plan to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee", described it as "rioting and intimidation" from the Alt Right against "mostly peaceful left-wing counter protests".

What I'm referring to as the Alt Right in the preceding paragraph is referred to as "white supremacists and neo-Nazis" in the poll. The response placing the blame on the Alt Right concludes with the weaselly aforementioned "mostly peaceful left-wing counter protests", allowing those sympathetic to the left but who know about the inherent violence of the its shock troops to minimize it without too much dissonance. Antifa and BLM are sanitized in the poll as merely "left-wing counter protest[er]s".

Despite the loaded terms the poll employs, barely 1-in-4 Americans buy The Narrative.

Excluding the "don't know" and "other" responses, the distribution of perceptions among the general public:

Looks like Trump had his finger on the public pulse with the "on many sides" remark.

The president's response evinced particular fidelity to the sentiments of his supporters. The distribution among those who voted for Trump (n = 791):

Tangentially, Reuters-Ipsos humorously uses the same image of a balaclava-clad Antifa punching a Trump supporter wearing an American flag that AmRen uses for its anti-Trump hate map. While it's probably coincidental, here's to hoping it's intentionally subversive.

Reuters-Ipsos riffing off AmRen?

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Generation Identitaire, American edition

The support distribution of high school students by race among those who voted for Republicans and among those who voted for Democrats according to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's huge presidential primary poll conducted in 2016 follows.

For example, the five columns above "white" in the first graph shows how white Republicans distributed their votes, the next set of five columns above "black" shows how black Republicans distributed their votes, etc. Third-party and "no answer" responses are excluded:

Though it was a wide field, Trump managed to capture just over half of white Republican students. He was unable to get to one-fourth of Republican NAMs, however.

Cruz, a "white Hispanic", bested Rubio, a more authentic Hispanic, among whites and blacks. But among Hispanics, Rubio had the edge.

Identity is primarily racial and ethnic rather than sexual in nature, as Johnnie Cochran knew and Marcia Clark found out. With boys, Sanders beat Clinton 76%-24% among those who supported a Democrat. With girls, he beat her 69%-31%. Not much to see there.

Parenthetically, yes of course Sanders and Clinton are both white. But Clinton's husband was fondly referred to as "the first black president". Her electoral strategy in 2016 was to appeal heavily to non-whites, especially blacks, by making racism, racial inequalities, and perceived racial inequities centerpieces of her campaign. She learned from her defeat by Obama in 2008.

In contrast Sanders focused on a sort of raceless economic populism until he was dragged reluctantly into racial and gender politics. It is this reluctance to wholeheartedly embrace victimization ideology that has made BernieBros relatively ripe for Alt Right picking.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

White Gen Zs choose "none of the above" as most reliable news source

Via Steve Sailer, some cute high school girls went into Howard University, a "historically black university" wearing MAGA gear. They were verbally and (mildly) physically assaulted for the trouble.

No apologies from the Trump girls were forthcoming. Instead, they fired back. Sure, their responses were of the DR3 variety ("[They] are the people who are racist and disrespectful"), but these girls are seventeen. They're parlaying the affair into minor social media celebrity status. Good for them.

With a bit more confidence each time I say it, the generation with its back against the wall may be the one that ends up delivering us all.  

Speaking of, the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's primary poll asked high school students which of eight listed news sources was "the most reliable". Additionally they could answer with "other", "none of the above", or leave the item blank ("no answer").

"None of the above" was the most commonly selected response among white high school students:

Rachel Maddow wept.

Among all Zs, CNN came in first (23%), followed closely by "none of the above" (21%).

Pessimistically, we could look at this glass as being three-quarters empty. 

I do not. One quarter of these kids already don't trust any of the major (television) news organizations, and the neutral wording of the "none of the above" response likely causes it to be under-selected. Were the option "mainstream news sources aren't reliable" or something similarly biting, the figure would be even higher. 

The survey didn't ask about print media, but no one under forty reads newspapers anymore anyway, and people who browse outlets like BuzzFeed don't trust them.

Keep in mind, too, that this survey was conducted several months before Trump launched a meme massacre against CNN, a brutalization to which CNN responded to by publicly threatening the Gen Zer who supplied Trump's material.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Killing instinct

Trump, on more of the same in Afghanistan:
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.
Remember when the Establishment's licentious left and cowardly cucks made a big fuss over candidate Trump questioning the advice of "the generals"? Well, congratulations to them for having committed America to pouring another decade or three's worth--if she lasts that long--of her blood and treasure into that miserable graveyard of empires.

The Establishment nipped the insurgent force on one side in the bud. The other is made of sterner stuff, but it looks like he, too, is being worn down.

If the president fails, it will be post-election Trump who fails, not Trumpism. Trump's failure, to the extent that it occurs, will be due to the Trumpism that got him elected being cast by the wayside. This episode is a particularly stark illustration of exactly that occurring.

Slamming the lid back on the pot isn't going to stop the boiling underneath, though. Gen Z's vote share between establishment and anti-establishment candidates*:

To the Cloud People on high, we say this:

* Anti-Establishment candidates are defined here as Trump, Carson, Sanders, and Cruz. The latter's inclusion is debatable, but that is how he has positioned himself and how he has generally been viewed by his supporters. Establishment candidates include Clinton, O'Malley, Christie, Rubio, and ¡Jabe!.

"Other" candidates, who garnered 13% of the high school primary vote, are excluded entirely because the category is not broken down further than that. In the general election survey, 9% voted for third-party candidates, so most of this excluded portion is anti-Establishment but since it's can't be gauged precisely, it's not included here.

"No answer" responses are also excluded.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Even San Fransicko supports freedom of assembly

++Addition++Gibson is part-Japanese. And the rally was in fact shut down and ultimately cancelled.


There's a group on the West Coast called "Patriot Prayer", headed by a guy named Joey Gibson. He could pass as Puerto Rican. His group heavily utilizes traditional patriotic aesthetics--the American flag, the Gadsden flag, etc--and is now prominently signalling the "no nazis, no antifa" thing.

While my knowledge of the organization is admittedly limited to the research I've done in the last hour, it looks to be a mild flavor of Alt Lite, less 'objectionable' than even someone like Mike Cernovich. The group has a free speech rally planned in San Francisco in a week. It may get the Boston treatment.

Here's to hoping it does. The more normies see mobs of bloodthirsty thugs from antifa and BLM clashing with cops, the better.

When there's a sacrificial contingent from the right to target, the optics end up being bad for us. When that sacrificial contingent turns the other cheek, they look like pathetic losers. When they respond tit-for-tat, the public has to dig through alternative media outlets to find the tats while the major media reports on and shows the tits (!) again and again without proper context.

When that contingent is a phantom one, however--as was the case in Boston and Dallas this weekend--the maniacs end up attacking the police and one another:

Those optics are great. The assertion that they are somehow speaking "truth to power" is strained to the breaking point. It starts dawning on normies that the mob is actually speaking power to truth.

There is still a Silent Majority out there who dislikes the stifling intellectual--and increasingly, physical--totalitarianism of the cult Marxists. They're skittish, sheepish, and when confronted, supine. But they're out there, apparently even in California!

A recent SurveyUSA poll germane to this discussion confirms as much. It was conducted days after Charlottesville and a week after the Damore Affair, but prior to Boston and Dallas. The poll was conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area--not exactly fertile ground for the ideas on the dissident right. On the question of whether or not the Bay Area is becoming more or less tolerant of differing opinions ("not sure" responses are excluded, n = 500):

It's worth disclaiming that I'm operating on the assumption that most people polled, even in San Francisco, think intellectual tolerance is a virtue rather than a vice. That may be a naive assumption.

On whether or not Patriot Prayer group should be allowed to hold its scheduled rally:

There's little difference by race. Blacks are modestly less supportive of allowing the rally than non-blacks are, but not by much. The larger gap is by sex. The poll doesn't provide information on marital status, but it's a safe bet that most of that blue bar for women is coming from those without rings on their fingers:

Women are more conforming than men. Win the Chads and the Thots will follow.

As Z-Man lays out in his most recent podcast, we have to be smart in the way we appeal to normies, but now is not the time to let up.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Overwhelming bipartisan support for sanctions on new axis of evil

An understandably exacerbated Dan:
It's all so easy. Populism is a winning concept. Trump can just tell the Republicans what to say and they only have to follow.

But no, they have to have more third world poor, more stupid wars, more deficits, and some tax cuts for the rich.

The sanctions on Russia in Congress were unanimous. Is there anyone who cares a fig about that?

Dear God, I must be living in a simulation. Such desire to lose continuously cannot be possible.
To leftist plaudits, Evil in 2017 includes welcome white face
My sentiments being in general agreement with Dan's, it must be pointed out that sanctions--at least against the new axis of evil--are populist!

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of Americans, by partisan affiliation, who support and who oppose sanctions on North Korea, Russia, and Iran. The balance of respondents said they "don't know" (n = 4,033):

The identical "oppose" figures for Republicans and Democrats isn't a transcription error. There is grassroots bipartisan opposition to, well, opposition to sanctioning countries whose combined annual military spending is 14% that of the US.

Even those aged 18-29 are broadly in favor, with 56% supporting to 17% who oppose.

The physical infrastructure of the American Empire may have to come crumbling down before popular support for maintaining it does.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Reconfiguring the American political landscape

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has occupied the upper chamber for as long as I've been alive. Every six years, Kentucky Republicans dutifully return him to office, and his colleagues have honored him as the ultimate Establishment Republican by awarding him the position of majority leader.

For those who want to see the Stupid Party burned to the ground and replaced by what Trump was groping for during the presidential campaign, the following graph should be heartening. It shows the percentages of Reuters-Ipsos poll respondents, by partisan affiliation, who approve* of president Trump and of senator McConnell (n = 26,772 and 5,127, respectively):

Their overall approval ratings are nearly equal, with Caesar enjoying an edge of less than 3 points on Brutus. Trump gets there on the backs of Republicans. In contrast, while nearly half of McConnell's support comes from non-Republicans, scarcely half of Republicans support him.

Trump is no longer a novelty. He's been in office for eight months and he's been the most talked about person in the world for years now. For all his trials and tribulations, his political vision is replacing that of McConnell and his coterie among the red deme's rabble.

Some of those who called themselves Republicans five years ago no longer do so even though their high opinion of McConnell hasn't wavered. And many of those who couldn't stand McConnell and wouldn't wear a scarlet R five years ago, still can't stand McConnell today but do now consider themselves Republicans on account of their president.

* The Trump poll asks about "approval", the McConnell poll about "favorability". "Mixed feelings" responses are excluded.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Gen Z Trump supporters were far more enthusiastic than Clinton supporters (and slightly more so than Sanders supporters)

As we wrap up with the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's surveys of high school students in 2016 (a sincere thanks again to Sid for pointing it out), we'll look beyond the strong preference for Trump over Clinton among non-Hispanic whites and look at the enthusiasm gap among those expressing a preference.

There's nothing edgy about being a pawn of the power structure, every major branch of which supported Clinton without reservation. The choice is between defiance, self-confidence, and reclamation on the one hand and perpetual, humorless tsk-tsking on the other. How many young people want to devote all their creative energies into finding different ways of saying "that is not okay"?

The primary survey asked students about their voting plans for the 2016 general election. Most chose the option "not eligible" on account of not being eighteen by November 8. There were 14,712, however, who would be of age on election day.

The following graph shows the distribution of votes among whites who either supported Trump or Clinton by how they described their voting plans:

It's worth reiterating how uninspiring Clinton was. The distribution among those who supported either Clinton or Sanders by the same:

Trump still revved the engine even harder than Sanders did. The same among those who supported either Trump or Sanders:

That Sanders wins across the board is a little misleading here, since preferences for Republicans were spread across several candidates while preferences for Democrats were theoretically spread across three but in actuality between just two (O'Malley's support is reported as "0%" at all levels of intention--even Christie and ¡Jabe! do better than that!).

Unfortunately the survey doesn't offer any insight into how Gen Z would've voted if the contest was between Trump and Sanders.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Deus Vult

The Nazism and the swastika have to go. A modest suggestion for a replacement:
- The Nazis mostly killed Europeans. The Crusaders mostly did not. Repelling Saracens is relevant. Conquering Celts is not.

- Many of those who make up the Alt Right's prime recruitment base had grandfathers and great-grandfathers who fought the Nazis. Vanishingly few are descended from those who fought the Crusaders, and those who are have to go back anyway.

- The Crusades were about reclamation. The Nazis were, after a short time, about conquest. Effective ethnostates work. Colonial societies, not so much. The Crusades fit into a framework of white nationalism and the "14", but not one of white supremacy and the "88". The latter fits a Nazi framework, and it's a disaster.

- While the martial aspect of the Alt Right is masturbatory--at least for now--the combative imagery is still important. Warfare in the 12th century lends itself much better to the virile virtues--strength, honor, courage, mastery--men are grasping for today than warfare in the 20th century does. This is awe-inspiring. This is nauseating.

- Christianity is fecund. Vague spirituality or outright atheism is not.

- The Crusades evoke a sort of pan-Europeanism. The Nazis evoke civilization-destroying European civil war.

- The Templars' ultimate undoing was the work of an Establishment power structure--both the Church and the State--that putatively had the same objectives as the Crusaders while in reality had been working to destroy them for decades. There's a sharp resonance in that.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Many young BernieBros defected to Trump

As it turns out, the Hispanic Heritage Foundation also conducted a massive nationwide poll during the primaries in 2016.

Looking at non-Hispanic whites (n = 57,196), Sanders obliterates Clinton among students who support a Democrat,84%-16% in a two-way race. Trump gets three times the support Cruz--who runs a distant second among Republicans--does.

Where this gets interesting is in the transition from the primaries to the general election, specifically with regards to what those Sanders supporters did once he was out. We're doing algebra with two separate variables on each side of the equation, so we have to make an assumption about one of them.
The results of a few of those possible assumptions follow.

If we assume students supporting a non-Trump Republican broke 25% for Clinton, 50% for Trump, and 25% either sitting out or voting third-party and 25% of Sanders supporters sitting out or voting third-party, we get Trump beating Clinton by an astounding 76%-24% among whites who supported Sanders in the primary.

If we assume students supporting a non-Trump Republican broke 10% for Clinton, 80% for Trump, and 10% either sitting out or voting third-party and 10% of Sanders supporters sitting out or voting third-party, we still get Trump beating Clinton 60%-40% among whites who supported Sanders in the primary.

Even if we assume every single non-Trump Republican backed Trump, we get Sanders supporters splitting almost exactly evenly between Trump and Clinton in the general election assuming corresponding full general election participation among Sanders supporters.

If we take it to a risible extreme and assume that every single non-Trump Republican backed Trump while half the Sanders supporters sat out the general election, we end up with a sizable minority of those former Sanders supporters who do vote in the general backing Trump, with Clinton winning them 70%-30% in this scenario.

No matter what assumptions are made, a staggering percentage of Sanders supporters end up going to Trump. Many of us, myself included, hoped we'd see more of that from the actual electorate but assumed--accurately, as it turned out--that most adults are too stuck in the partisan loyalty trap to crossover to someone with the wrong letter next to his name.

The left-right/Democrat-Republican/liberal-conservative paradigm ("boomer politics") is on the way out. A cosmopolitan-identitarian/globalist-localist paradigm is the best bet to replace it. That transition will occur as the boomers die off and generation Z comes of age.

Alternatively--or more likely, simultaneously--it's hard to overstate just how bad a candidate Hillary Clinton was, especially in the eyes of adolescents.

On one hand, an uncharismatic, scolding lesbian schoolmarm with the most unfashionable sartorial signature imaginable who spends half her time tsk-tsking about the forbidden things Trump has said and done.

On the other, a god-emperor catching nuclear bombs fired at him from the Vatican, the White House, Hollywood, and Brussels, mocking those who deployed them, and then throwing them back to detonate on the places from whence they came, while grabbing HBs by the pussy during his down time.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

How Gen Z 'voted' relative to adults in 2016

There are a couple more miles yet to get out of the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's huge presidential preference survey administered to high school students across the US in the Fall of 2016.

The following map* shows, by state, how much more (less) Trumpish Gen Z 'voters' were than the actual electorate was. The subsequent table shows Trump's share among Zs and adults in a two-way race for those expressing a preference (that is, if Trump's share is 56%, then Clinton's is 44%, etc):

West Virginia738210
North Carolina52586
District of Columbia473
New York39412
South Dakota66671
North Dakota70711
New Mexico4540(5)
South Carolina5745(12)

The correlation between how Zs and adults voted in a two-way race is .75 (p = .00) at the state level. This, again, suggests a broad plausibility to the poll's findings--or at least indicates that if there are flaws, they occur in the same general direction across the board.

Through the Southwest and in much of the South, where the children are a lot Sunnier than the elderly Ice People are, there are reasons to be bearish on the America First's prospects. If the rift between California and Core America feels large now, just wait another a decade or two. Irreconcilable differences are what separate countries are for.

Georgia is a salient outlier. It stems from the poll finding Georgia's whites going 95%-5% for Trump in a two-way race. That looks implausible on the face of it, and it probably is, though the poll sampled 867 white students in the state.

Speaking of Core America, its children are based. If we were feeling nefarious we could almost carve out a future rump state from that map--stretching from the northern mountain states, the great plains, the upper Midwest, and finally through Appalachia--for Core America to call its own.

Minnesota almost got there this time. It's a question of "when", not "if"--unless of course the Vikings fall and the former state becomes the Somaliland of the western hemisphere.

Parenthetically, while McMuffin is a confounder in Utah, there is something else going on there. The poll sampled 528 students in the state. Just under 60% are non-Hispanic white, while over one-quarter are Hispanic. Is Utah undergoing Nevadization that rapidly? If Mormons invite the whole world... well, you know how that story ends.

* No data was collected from Hawaii, Alaska, or New Jersey, and Rhode Island's total student sample is a whopping 55, of which only 26 expressed a desire to vote if able. That figure is far smaller than that of other states. Consequently, it has also been excluded here.

++Addition++From commenter Halvorson, who is skeptical of the findings:
I don't believe these numbers. I've done some homework looking at the results of the Minnesota mock election, which showed a tie, and its sample seems representative. The 70 largest schools in the state have 50.7% of all students and 47.9% of voters in the mock. Trump's rural base is not under sampled.

In Iowa's mock high and middle school election Trump won 45.6-35.6, which closely mirrors the actual result.

Both of these states have rising minority populations, so just to break even Trump has to be doing a little better than white teenagers than their parents. But it's not by a gargantuan amount.
A healthy dose of skepticism is recommended. As he notes, even if these results are overstated, there are signals from every direction that the current crop of high schoolers isn't the same self-loathing, SJW-aping emo cohort that millennials are.