Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Most Americans know God exists, but most journalists do not

Twitter user tcjfs, who I am reliably informed is someone with enormous potential:

Never one to pass up on an opportunity to share from one of the most underutilized social science tools at our disposal, allow me to report what the GSS has to say on tcjfs' observation. The theistic orientation of journalists (and authors, as they share an ISCO classification) and that of the rest of the American population:

The sample size for journalists is only 101 (and 21,090 for the rest of the population). Tcjfs presumably had in mind prominent journalists on the national stage, not the local guy writing stories for the Morris county paper. The point is well taken.

GSS variables used: GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6), ISCO88(1-2450,2452-9999)(2451)

Monday, July 24, 2017

In discordance to Nature and towards a secular theocracy

Heartiste, rhetorically fleshing out the unnaturalness of "the totalitarian impulse of your garden variety social scientist femme", in the context of a recent study showing that putatively liberal, open-minded college students tend to react to interracial couples with disgust:
Why do people have to be taught/whipped/lobotomized to stop feeling disgust for interracial couples? Why is that the immediate assumption, instead of the saner and more humane reaction that we shouldn’t force people to deny their true feelings which have been a part of the human emotional template since time immemorial?

Disgust obviously serves a useful purpose if evolution has seen fit to keep us equipped with its powerful instinctual leverage over our real world mating decisions. Just spitballing here, but maybe we feel disgust at the sight of interracial couples because we crave aesthetic continuity, cultural familiarity, and social connectedness, and all these things which bring us closer to the heart have as their provenance the pairing of similar genes, which we perceive through the proxy of race?
To assert that the aversion to miscegenation is some sort of social construct rather than an innate biological reaction is to be, as the the cultMarx left has increasingly become, "anti-science".

The following graph shows the percentages of Americans, by generational cohort, who favor a legal ban on interracial marriage:

Advocating the legal prohibition of a thing goes beyond having a personal predilection against it, but the generational sea change in professed opinion is undeniable.

We see the same thing with regards to the celebration of Diversity!. Most people avoid it like the plague, those who sing paeans to it nearly as much as those who do not. Without perpetual religious mantras favoring and legal coercion forcing Diversity!, segregation rather naturally and easily occurs.

Our grandparents were the ones who lived in accordance to Nature. We're the religious ones, well on our way to a secular theocracy.

As Pax Dickinson recently put it:
I view leftism as mainline Puritanism, mainline Protestantism. It's a holiness spiral to the point where they start saying they are holier than God, so then they get rid of God. It's still a religion, it just doesn't have God anymore.
GSS variables used: RACMAR, COHORT(1900-1924)(1925-1945)(1946-1964)(1965-1976)(1977-1995)

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Stalin is the new Hitler?

Sid, detecting a switch from Hitler to Stalin as the Most Evil Person in History:
In 2015, the worst thing you could call someone was a Nazi, but that's started to change. The blue-check idiots on Twitter tend to associate Trump with the USSR and Russia far more than with Nazism. Sure, he was Literally Hitler in 2015, but Germany taking in so many refugees means that Nazi is no longer such a sharp insult.
That would be one hell of a rhetorical contortion for the zeitgeist to undergo if Stalin becomes the new Hitler. If it comes to pass I'll have to shelve one of my favorite normie-triggering Steve Sailer quotes: "Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality".

Last week my wife had Gilmore Girls on while she was folding clothes (she was nine when it came out so cut her some nostalgic slack) and I caught this bit of dialogue:
LORELAI: Well, I consider what my mother would do in a given situation, then I dial it back, and I have what Mussolini would do, then I dial it back, and I have what Stalin would do, and then I dial that back and then it starts approaching what a sane person would do.


LORELAI: You’re right. Let’s find a topic happier than my relationship with my mother. Basically that would be anything short of famine. [Sandra laughs.] Okay. I will tell you one story about my mother on a family vacation. Jimmy Carter was there. And he had a bigger room.
Stalin's not as bad as Mussolini, let alone Hitler!

More contemporarily, Google Trends search results for the phrases "trump is hitler", "trump is a nazi", "trump is a soviet", and "trump is stalin" are as follows:

Returns for the latter two do not even register over the more than two year period since Trump announced his candidacy.

The four "trump is hitler" spikes are on account of his call for a temporary ban on immigration from Muslim countries, his string of strong Super Tuesday I and II victories that solidified the GOP nomination as his to lose, his victory in the general election, and his inauguration, respectively.

My assumption is that we will see historical pretense dispensed with altogether. The SJWs will opt instead for more timeless attacks like "white supremacist" and "racist".

SJWs, as a rule, know vanishingly little history so it'll be a natural move for them to make. Consider how ignorant it was to get the Trump-as-literally-Hitler ball rolling in response to the proposed Muslim ban. Trump goes after the Nazi's erstwhile allies rather their victims; his ban proposes keeping people out rather than locking them in, etc.

While I'm skeptical of Sid's analysis, it does appear we've passed Peak Hitler. Having blown their name-calling load more than three years before Trump's up for re-election, I suspect the main line of attack will be incompetence (can't control leaks, can't keep people within on the same page, etc) with imprecise insinuations of corruption (the Russia nothingness will still linger) thrown in.

Sid responds here.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

San Fran's Sabine women

The percentages of San Franciscan adults who favor the place continuing to be a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, by sex and by race (n = 500):

The SurveyUSA poll doesn't provide cross tabs for both race and sex (or data on marriage at all), but given that white marriage rates are higher than non-white marriage rates are and that both married men and especially married women are more restrictionist than are their unmarried counterparts, it's highly likely that single white women are the most emphatic supporters of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy.

Alternative post title: Single White Women Are A Civilizational-Scale Shit Test, part XLI.

Parenthetically, sometimes gangrenous limbs need to be amputated if the body (politic) is to survive. Calexit, don't die on us.

Friday, July 21, 2017

That all these troubles weighing down on you may rise

The Derb cringes in response to Trump's ebullient praise for China's president:
Did you have to lay it on so thick, Mr. President? Couldn't we get the results we want — and perhaps a little more respect, by keeping Xi Jinping and his leg-breakers at a polite distance?

Xi Jinping "loves China"? He "wants to do what's right for China"? Liu Xiaobo loved China, too. He also wanted to do what's right for China; and his notion of what's right is a lot, a lot, closer to our own nation's ideals than is Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.
China can be China as far as I'm concerned. There's no country more advantageous for the US to be in the relative good graces of, and if it takes an extra application of verbal lather to get there, so be it.

I certainly prefer effusive praise of the Chinese president over the same for a nation-wrecking, middle American-killing, war-mongering, bosom-buddy of the late Ted Kennedy, one John McCain.

Here's Trump's blase reaction to the news that McCain has glioblastoma:

Compare that to Obama's mellifluous response:

Obama's words are probably uncharacteristically sincere here. In 2008, McCain folded while holding a flush. He is the archetypal cuckservative Republican--always losing, but always losing with dignity!

Parenthetically, I characterize Trump's response as blase on account of that seeming to be the consensus. My first reaction was that it was one hell of a troll--the prognosis for McCain's aggressive brain cancer is poor. It's highly improbable he will "get well soon". He'll likely die soon, within the next couple of years.

I differ with some of our compatriots on the Alt Right in that I don't want McCain to suffer. As someone of proud English ancestry, I can genuinely assert that's "not who we are".

I do, however, want him to die, or at any rate become incapable of serving for another day in congress. For far too long he has acted as pressure relief valve on the right on account of the (R) next to his name. The ultimate quisling when it comes to the National Question, he partnered with the aforementioned Kennedy (who died of the same brain cancer) in the senate in attempt to push a bipartisan immigration amnesty on the country in 2005. He's sent thousands of American soldiers to early graves fighting ruinously expensive, pointless and stupid wars in tribalistic third-world hellholes.

Ask me to choose between decorum and my children's future and I'll pick, without hesitation, the latter every single time.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Net personal wealth by generation

Twice since the turn of the century, in 2006 and 2014, the GSS has asked respondents about personal net wealth (assets minus debt). The following graph shows wealth distributions by generational cohorts in roughly 2010, understanding that the "great recession" occurred in between the two survey years (n = 2,150):

Rather than confidently divining disaster in this, as it's beyond my understanding to say with certainty what, if anything, it presages, allow me to share a few reactions.

There aren't that many geriatrics living off of Social Security benefits. Fifteen percent of Silents are millionaires. The figure is half that among Boomers, less than one-third that half among Xers, and then there's Mark Zuckerberg and his waifu.

Half of millennials aren't worth anything.

Big deal. A look at the general situation of boomers in the mid-seventies, comparable to the life stage of millennials here, wouldn't have looked any better. In fact, it would've been worse! That's what a Boomer will tell you, anyway.

I grew up in a comfortably middle class household. My siblings and I were regaled every Christmas with the story of how my parents married after college with nothing but my dad's old pickup and $500 to their name, the entirety of which was subsequently spent on a month-long road trip through the central, mountain, and pacific time zones.

The story doesn't sound that quaint, at least through the point of the great American honeymoon, but when it was over they both were spoiled for choice when it came to finding work, work that easily accommodated home ownership and family formation. Born smack dab in the middle of the Boomer cohort, they got in on the ground floor of the dual income household, before large scale entry of women into the workforce put severe downward pressure on wages and employment.

Told today, we'd expect to hear that upon returning from the extended road trip, the new couple moved in with one of their parents, with part-time jobs as baristas working off their five-figure student loan debts.

Millennials put a premium on experiences over material goods (or having a house or kids or a career). People don't spend five decades working for the same company, steadily increasing their earnings through tenure before comfortably retiring on a company pension, anymore. Peak labor force participation is in the rear view mirror. So is Peak Marriage.

It's easy to assume that this will not end well. It may not.

GSS variables used: WEALTH, COHORT(1925-1945)(1946-1964)(1965-1976)(1977-1995)

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Forbid face time for fake news

Agnostic suggests breaking the major media companies up:
Destroying the media enemy requires a cold hard look at how they operate, what their source of power is, and what our power is that can counteract that. This will downplay the importance of launching another meme war against CNN (or MSNBC or whoever), and instead shift the focus toward the need to break up the monopolies that control the media.
If it can be done then by all means do so.

A less herculean task, and one that would prove more popular in the nearer-term, is for Trump and his team to simply bar them from press conferences--including Sean Spicer's daily briefings--and grant members of select organizations no more access than the White House allows private citizens visiting the capital as tourists. Make it administration policy not to grant interviews or otherwise talk to anyone from any of those on the figurative proscription list.

If you're part of a fake news outlet, you get no access, period. If you misrepresent yourself in an attempt to get information, you'll be subject to prosecution for fraud, trespassing, etc. If you get in an official's face in public, you'll be charged with assault.

Media figures are not high priests. They're the middle men of information conveyance in a world that increasingly has no need for middle men conveying information. Communications now come from the whole seller directly to the consumer.

The utter collapse in confidence in the major media--both print and television--is staggering. The following graphs show the percentages of people who answered that they have "a great deal of confidence" and "hardly any confidence at all" in each media platform, by year. The third possible response, "only some confidence", is not shown, but is the difference between 100 and the other two percentages shown in any given year:

We are to a point now where a majority of Americans have "hardly any confidence at all" in the press, and most of the balance are themselves wary. Sentiment towards TV isn't far behind.

The latest year we have data for is 2016. Response gathering was scattered throughout that year. Some respondents were answering prior to the Iowa caucuses occurring. Rest assured the figures will be markedly worse still when the 2018 iteration of the survey is released.

Shutting out fake news organizations won't create any significant blow back. Nobody watches these cable news shows. The few who do are geriatric white leftists. The average CNN viewer is in his sixties and getting older by the day. The #resistance that rallies to the defense of the hated and distrusted media will comprise a small contingent of the Coalition of the Fringes, a contingent the rest of the coalition is most eager to push out anyway.

Even the thoroughly converged corporate world is moving away. There are several podcasts I've listened to for years that have recently begun taking on ads that are indistinguishable from the ones that run during NFL games. The advertising used to only be for niche goods and services. Now there are ads for cars on The Art of Manliness and The History of Byzantium.

Trump should grab some easy populism points by helping send the fake news organizations to their graves.

GSS variables used: CONTV(1)(3), CONPRESS(1)(3), YEAR

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Like oil and water despite half a century of being forced to share a container

In 2006, the GSS asked respondents about the racial proportions "among all acquaintances" of theirs. The following percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who answered either "mostly a different race than you" or "almost all a different race than you":

Fresher data is always preferable, but it's not as though this was queried during the civil rights ructions of the sixties. It was gathered after nearly five decades of trying to force diversity onto the public through relentless legal, cultural, and moral coercion.

How improbable these results appear given a null hypothesis that people assort randomly depends on how exactly we define "all acquaintances". Is it Dunbar's number? Facebook friends?

The chance that most of the acquaintances of a black man who has just three of them are non-black is 95%. That is, if acquaintances were made randomly then 19-in-20 black men would report two or three of his total acquaintances being non-black in this absurdly pro-Diversity! assumption of what "among all acquaintances" means. The reported result is one-tenth of that.

Scale it up to 30 acquaintances or 300 acquaintances and the chances rapidly approach zero. In other words, no matter how we look at it these results are wildly divergent from what we'd expect if segregation wasn't an overwhelmingly strong natural impulse for people of all racial backgrounds. Differences in socioeconomic status, education, and the like come nowhere close to explaining it. Middle and upper class blacks report even higher levels of self-segregation than lower and working class blacks do!

To say the American experiment has mostly worked and that in 21st century America the idea that inherent preferences to be around members of one's own race is a relic of the past is absurd.

This is blatantly obvious not just to those who Notice but to nearly everyone. The NYT's "mapping segregation" is one of the most handy graphical representations of as much.

Liberal whites who live in urban areas that are majority-non-white don't acquaint much with non-whites.

A more direct way of putting it is that liberal whites seek out other whites in their own personal lives, their paeans to Diversity! notwithstanding. Only 25% of white liberals choose "about evenly split", so even when we give them this ideologically comfortable weasel option, the overwhelming majority (73%) still admit they acquaint mostly or almost exclusively with whites.

If Diversity! was a self-evident good, there would be no need to coerce and browbeat people into it. Even it's most vociferous proponents refuse to practice what they preach. We're not in the realm of ancient virtue here, the kind that was practiced because it improved one's existence in there here and now. We're in the realm of supernatural grace, of hair shirts and self-flagellation, of enduring self-abnegating suffering now for the promise of paradise in the future.

Our job is to call those who promote Diversity! out on their hypocrisy. It needs to be done publicly and relentlessly whenever the opportunity presents itself.

GSS variables used: ACQMYRAC, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), POLVIEWS(1-2)(3-5)(6-7), RELIG(3)

++Addition++Z-Man, who is trying his hand at podcasting--and doing an excellent job of it thus far--weighs in.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

The left's oriental express

Legate of Judea pointed to an exit poll conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund that found Hillary Clinton's margin of victory among the country's "fastest growing minority" to be wider than the 'official' Edison poll commissioned by several major media companies. By reverse engineering results from Reuters-Ipsos' ongoing presidential approval poll, we can get a third Asian result there. The following table shows the results from each of the three polls in a two-way race:

PollClintonTrumpn =

In addition to a greater sample size, AALDEF asserts another reason its poll shows Democrats doing better than others do:
While Edison Research conducted polling in English and Spanish, AALDEF used questionnaires written in English and 11 Asian languages including Chinese, Bengali, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, plus volunteers who could speak 23 Asian languages and dialects.
Reuters-Ipsos doesn't indicate what languages, if any, beyond English are used in its polling.

More from AALDEF:
One of three (32%) Asian American voters surveyed said they were limited English proficient ("LEP"), which is defined as reading English less than "very well." ... Seven percent (7%) of voters said they had difficulty voting because no assistance was available in their native language, while 15% said they either used the interpreters or translated materials provided at the site or brought their own.
This suggests, unsurprisingly, that Asians who speak little to no English are even more inclined to vote Democrat than Asians who speak English are. The Tower of Babel could replace Washington DC as the country's most impenetrable Democrat stronghold.

Most Asian voters in the US were not born here:
Seventy-six percent (76%) of all respondents were foreign-born, naturalized citizens [were they?].
The following table from the AALDEF report shows how various Asian groups voted. Off to the left I've added the percentage growth in the number of migrants to the US from each of the countries listed from 1990 to 2015. The correlation between growth in the size of each particular Asian population over the last 25 years and voting for Clinton is .59 (p = .12):

It's almost as though the left is intentionally importing a new people, with special preference given to those most likely to vote for it.

Friday, July 07, 2017

The White death

++Addition++I made a couple of sloppy transposition errors in the composition of the initial post. They have since been corrected and the figures presented are now accurate. Interactive feedback is a great thing in the pursuit of the truth. I always welcome it.


Using the UN's most recent population projection figures, the rate of population increase (decrease) by major geographic area from 2015 to 2100:

In 1950, Europeans comprised 20% of the world's populationAfricans made up 9%. A century and a half later, those figures are projected to be 6% and 40%, respectively. Over a period of 150 years that means for every one European the world has added 17 Africans. 

How does such a disparate rate of population growth come to be? African fertility is high and European fertility is low, but surely not that high and that low?! Differences in maternal ages at the time of childbirth in addition to differences in total fertility rates, that's how (here's an app that illustrates). 

Put in another way, Europe's population from 1950 to 2100 will have gone from 550 million to 653 million, an increase of 18.7% over a century and a half (0.11% per year). During the same period of time, Africa will have gone from 229 million to 4,468 million, an increase of 1,851.1% (2.0% per year).

Thursday, July 06, 2017

Occidental avenger

There was too much bear-baiting, muh freedom, and muh values, sure, but if those are the rhetorical compromises that must be made in return for the following, so be it.

This excerpt is gold (just hit play, it's queued up):

So is this one:

As Heartiste puts it:
Trump knows what he’s doing, and he knows the sides in this battle for the soul of America. His promos, visuals, and speeches are an extended play love letter to Heritage America. To White America, before it became a Dirt World Depot. If you doubt Trump’s loyalty to the cause, dispel your doubt. His heart is in it. He fights for you.
Throw those black pills away. The fight isn't over. It's only just beginning.

Peak Russia

The Fraudulent News Network gets caught admitting the putative Putin-Trump connection is "bullshit" and a "witch hunt" that mendaciously garners big ratings:

This is the same fake news outlet that ran with the risibly fictitious dossier. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us 1,441 times, shame on us.

The New York Times' "conservative" house pet David Brooks, who harbors the predictable (((visceral disdain))) for Trump, concludes there is nothing to the Russian dog and pony show.

Reuters-Ipsos had been running a daily tracking poll on whether or not Trump was obstructing the Russian investigation for several weeks as the charges of collusion--affirmed by 17 US intelligence agencies!--and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate were bandied about in the news. R-I quietly decommissioned the poll on June 26, an exceedingly unusual move for the organization given that the issue isn't officially settled. The discontinued poll is now effectively archived.

Speaking of the 17 US intelligence agencies, that turned out to be, well, more bullshit.

In mid-May, at the height of the Russian scare, markets showed the chance of Trump's impeachment by the end of 2017 rising as high as 33%. Those odds have steadily declined since then and are now bumping along at 8%. The true likelihood would be even lower than that were it not for the sunken cost fallacy working its destructive magic.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Best. Tweet. Ever.

Or at least runner-up for the award:

Trump's top tweet on election night has, as of today, more likes than the CNN take down:

It is so far as I am able to tell the only one out of the more than 35,000 over an eight year period that has garnered more. The take down, however, has more retweets.

The take down has been shared more than any announcing his candidacy, accepting the Republican nomination, or being inaugurated into office have.

This despite it being delivered on a holiday weekend during a time of the year when engagement with the virtual world is at an annual low and having had only a few days for the numbers to accrete.

In case the significance isn't readily apparent, see here.

As has been argued extensively here, Trump's tweets and facebook posts are not bugs but are instead features of his appeal.

The major media and the useless, cuckservative controlled opposition that has done nothing but lose reliably and respectably on everything for decades--they can't even conserve women's restrooms for God's sake--largely doesn't understand it. Those among them who do delusionally hope it will be a flash in the pan despite two years and counting of incomparable success after success.

The only people advising Trump to stop utilizing social media are the ones who want him to fail or, at best, reluctantly voted for him in the general election after backing anyone other than him during the primaries.

Taking advice from your enemies is often foolish. The stupid party has done that for decades and what has it gotten them? When the New York Times tells core America to Hispander for its own good, core America needs to tell Carlos Slim the wall is getting ten feet higher and that if we find him stateside he'll be swiftly sent to the other side of it.

They didn't understand how he won, they don't understand the significance of his social media feed dwarfing the combined subscription base of the nation's 50 largest newspapers and the prime time viewership of the major cable news networks.

They don't understand his continued pugilism even as CNN fires multiple people for especially egregious mendacity, among them one who has worked for USA Today and another who worked for the New York Times.

They're in denial about how fitting a descriptor "fake news" is for the propaganda they push, and they're in denial about how much anger there is for the lies they tell.

Parenthetically, the choreographed take down isn't bad for a guy in his sixties. Must be the gene thing!

Saturday, July 01, 2017

Black tears stain the cheeks that once were so admired

Last year Reuters-Ipsos ran a poll asking participants to choose a term that best described themselves from a list of twelve responses. One of those is "Feminist". The following graph shows the percentages of female respondents, by age, who chose it over the other eleven possible answers (n = 6,269):

The other options are Democrat, Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Environmentalist, Socialist, Libertarian, Nationalist, Anarchist, Populist, and Communist, so this isn't the consequence of something like "Mother" or "Wife" confounding the results.

The term is hardly novel. It's not as though the figures are higher for younger women because it's a new thing the old fogies haven't ever heard of. To the contrary, the blue hairs have known feminism the longest--and it's central to the identity of very few of them.

For women under 30, the Yolo/Eat, Pray, Love lifestyle is enticing. The world bends its knee--for a few years.

Petals begin falling through the twenties. The attention that came as easily as a summer's breeze before now requires effort. With each passing day it takes a little more effort than it did the day before.

By the mid-thirties wilting is well underway. Diet, working out, sleeping better--at best these merely slow the decline. Despite the best efforts, the hourglass transforms into a pear and then into a box. Gravity relentlessly renders all things saggier, looser.

Reaching that point without a family is realizing the chances of ever having one to be in free fall. Partner options are limited and uniformly less appealing than any who excited stirred the passions a decade ago.

Upon turning forty the spinster becomes invisible to the world (the human world anyway--there are always cats). Family functions are painful. Being the cool aunt is bittersweet. Mostly bitter.

The prospect of several decades of lonely, slow decay is immiserating, suffocating, and... unavoidable.

There won't be any visits in the retirement or nursing home. There are no visitors to do the visiting.

At expiration, scarcely a soul notices. It's as though she never was:

Friday, June 30, 2017

Proud of my president

This week we get the US supreme court reinstating most of the travel ban with the rest to be reinstated a few months down the road, the House passing Kate's Law and a bill defunding sanctuary cities, the vice chair of the presidential advisory committee on electoral integrity requesting state-level voter registration data for federal elections going back to 2000, an aesthetically pleasant and thus maddeningly triggering video production from the administration, and Trump reaffirming his commitment to a wall along the southern border (okay, technically that was late last week but we'll take as many eight-day stretches like these as we can get!):

Sure, it's easy to get discouraged. None of these things happen under a president Rubio or ¡Jabe!, let alone the wicked witch, though. Not one.

This is what Trump was talking about when he pledged to take the country back:


Spit that black pill out--the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

The African century

Another couple years, another 80 million people added onto the latest UN estimates of Africa's population at the turn of the century and another 80 million removed from the European figure (amounting to a 13% decline in the estimated total population of Europe in 2100 compared to the estimate for 2100 that was made just two years ago--that's the entire population of Germany erased from the 2015 estimate in the most recent revision).

Consequently, an updated graph showing shares of global population by major geographical areas as they were in 2015 and as they are projected to be in 2100 follows:

Another upward revision or two in the African expectations and we'll be looking at a world where Africans outnumber Asians before some of those reading this bite the dust.

In 1950, Europeans made up 20% of the world's population. In 150 years--the time between Augustus and Antoninus Pius, when the Roman empire went from strength to more strength--it will have dropped to a mere 5%. And in 1950, the vast majority of those Europeans were, well, ancestrally European. In 2100, a significant number of those counted as "European" here will have roots on the continent that extend back just a few generations at most.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

General Social Survey shows 5% of non-citizens residing in the US illegally vote in presidential elections

Commenter Random Dude on the Internet turns a light bulb on in my head:
Looks like millions of illegal immigrants likely voted in the 2008 and 2012 elections. While the numbers for 2016 still aren't out yet, you have to imagine that for 2016, when amnesty is on the line, let alone the wall, there would be a surge of non-citizen voting for that election as well.

If up to 5.7 million non-citizens voted in 2016 like they did in 2008, Trump wins the popular vote and likely could flip a couple of states like Virginia, Nevada, and Minnesota. Maybe more states but definitely those could have flipped if it was only citizens who voted.

Here's hoping that Kobach is aggressive in his investigations and that his inevitable suggestions get implemented. 2020 could be horrendous for Democrats if voting was limited to US citizens only.
While I spend an inordinate amount of time mining the GSS, I still miss things. Big things, sometimes, and this is one of them.

In three iterations the survey has asked respondents if they are citizens or not. Across these three years, the survey has interviewed 188 non-citizen respondents. Nine of those 188 report having voted in a presidential election. That suggests that 5% of non-citizens residing in the US illegally vote in presidential elections.

Yes, the usual disclaimers about self-reported data and modest sample sizes apply, but presumably there are other non-citizens who have surreptitiously voted without being so upfront about it.

With non-citizen residents in the US comprising around 8% of the population, a 5% turnout rate up against a total turnout rate of 57% for the 2016 election gets us under 1% of all votes cast and so not enough to give the popular vote to Trump, but plausibly enough to flip New Hampshire and possibly even Somali-saturated Minnesota.

GSS variables used: PRES92, PRES00, PRES08, PRES12, CITIZEN

Color matters, contra Shapiro

Here's Ben Shapiro's silly assertion again:

In obliterating it as decisively as possible, the insinuation of data cherry-picking was made. That's fair enough. Since Shapiro's statement struck me as so self-evidently false, the intention was to quickly show it as such.

We won't have access to the 2016 presidential election results until the Spring of 2018, but we can look back at the last Christian white male vs Christian white male and bring in browns (sample sizes are too small for yellows, unfortunately) alongside blacks and whites to see if color, while mattering during Obama's presidency, did so rather uniquely or if this is something that has been with us for at least a generation.

The same issues previously considered among whites and blacks for the 2012 presidential election follow, this time for the 2004 presidential election and with the inclusion of Hispanics.

Among pro-life voters:

Those opposed to same-sex marriage:

Those opposed to income redistribution:

Those against drug legalization:

Those who think the government is too big and does too much:

Among self-identified political conservatives:

This methodology doesn't even take into account the fact that whites are more likely than non-whites to hold all of these ideological positions Shapiro is more sympathetic to in the first place. It's not just that while 38% of whites feel the government is too big and does too much only 15% of blacks and 18% of Hispanics feel the same way, it's that members of those relatively smaller proportions of the black and Hispanic populations who feel the same are less likely to vote for the party for whom that ideological position is included in its platform and thus foundational.

Color matters. It matters more now than before because the US--and the Western world in general--is less European now than it was before. Unless the demographic transformation is halted, it will continue to matter more and more as each day passes, until we get to the point Lee Kuan Yew would've predicted, a point where ideology is completely irrelevant because color is the only thing that matters.

GSS variables used: PRES04, HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RACECEN1(1)(2), POLVIEWS(5-6), MARHOMO(4-5), ABANY(2), EQWLTH(5-7), GRASS(2), HELPNOT(4-5)

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Prescribing proscriptions

I didn't initially comment on the gay play in the park because, while I have nothing but admiration for Laura Loomer jumping on stage and stating the obvious, I've an aversion to the Hitlery Hitlery Hitlery approach that made the world aware of what happened. The DemsRRealRacists approach has been tried for decades, has failed for decades, and will continue to fail for as long as it is tried.

Additionally, I've little to add that hadn't or wouldn't soon be written or spoken by people of greater talent. A week on, though, there are a few remarks I've yet to see made.

Even more obvious than the veracity of Loomer's assertions is how this production would be treated if the conspirators were all white men murdering a big-eared mulatto or a frumpy dyke in a pantsuit--stage burned, actors assailed, boycotts of corporate sponsors, justice department prosecutions, grovelling apologies, etc.

As it were, the senators who assassinate Trump are all black. Naturally so. After all, who isn't aware of a majority black population that has ever maintained, let alone built, a level of civilization on par with that of first century BC Rome?

Free speech by the right is interpreted as violence while violence by the left is interpreted as free speech.

This goes beyond cultural and political theater (heh). What happened following Caesar's assassination potentially has serious implications today. Those implications are lost on the vast majority of virtue-signalling charlatans who went to, celebrated, and sponsored the play, vanishingly few of whom have any historical knowledge beyond Lincoln freeing the slaves and Hitler killing the Jews.

- Within a couple years of the murder, many of the assassins were dead--the most famous ones at Philippi, others at the hands of fellow Romans complying with official orders.

- Trump, a controversial populist with fervent supporters but also legions of implacable enemies, was replaced by an actual authoritarian who politically neutered every opponent he didn't force feed an extra helping of iron to.

- The authoritarian who stepped in after Trump came from a background in which becoming princeps would've been unthinkable to the power structure of the day were it not for Trump's extrajudicial killing.

- The authoritarian who followed Trump came from a family with little power at the time. Trump's successor put into place a new ruling structure that lasted for a century.

- The pre-assassination establishment--those involved directly in the murder, those complicit in it, and those who merely cheered it on--had sat atop the political and cultural orders for centuries. After Trump expired under Pompey's statue, they lost their power forever. From that point on, all the way through the fall of the western empire nearly 500 years later, they would never regain it.

- The slain man's approval ratings were mediocre. His successor's were stellar.

- Trump was a libertine of his day, a serial philanderer who enjoyed grabbing the pussies of other men's wives. His successor, in contrast, decreed marriage laws that would make Ned Flanders blush.

- Trump was the first Roman ever to be deified. Do you really still need to ask where the "god-emperor" identifier comes from?

Beware the Ire of Deplorables.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Are atheists addicted to socialism?

In a great discussion between two leading libertarian minds who forthrightly deal with immigration and the National Question--that is, they don't ignore HBD--Stefan Molyneux asserts a strong association between atheism and socialism:

Sure, we know about the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, China, and North Korea, but how descriptive is it of the US today?

The GSS has, since its inception, asked respondents to rate on a 7-point scale whether or not "the government ought to reduce income differences" or "not concern itself with reducing income differences". The following graph shows the average response by theistic orientation (inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension). The higher the score the more socialistically inclined the group. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are considered and for contemporary relevance all responses are from the year 2000 onward (n = 6,428):

One standard deviation is two full points, so while the relationship clearly exists, it's a relatively modest one. By comparison, the gap between atheists and firm believers is only one-fourth as wide as the chasm between self-described liberals and conservatives is.

GSS variables used: GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), EQWLTH, YEAR(2000-2016), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), POLVIEWS(1-2)(5-6)

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

High IQ Jews are extremely pro-choice

Continuing on the subject of Jewish opinions on abortion, the level of support among Jews scoring 9 or 10 on the GSS 10-question Wordsum vocabulary test, indicating an IQ of over 120, ratchets my surprise up another level.

The percentage of high IQ Jews who say a woman should be able to obtain an abortion "if she wants it for any reason", relative to the rest of the native-born Jewish population and to comparable groups of goyim:

While pro-choice positions are correlated positively with IQ, that alone does not explain the strong Jewish tolerance for abortion. Jews with IQs under 120 are significantly more supportive of abortion than are non-Jews with IQs over 120.

Recall that this is the most permissive type of abortion the survey asks about. It is abortion on demand, anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Cold feet 35 weeks in, against the visceral protestations of the would-be father? That appears at least permissible in the eyes of an overwhelming number of high IQ Jews. 

For a thoughtful list of reasons why this is the case from a Jew who is among that overwhelming majority, see here.

GSS variables used: BORN(1), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), WORDSUM(0-8)(9-10), ABANY

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

At it again?

Reuters-Ipsos presidential approval polling results from last week:

Yikes, looks bad. They all do, excepting Rasmussen--the outfit that nailed the popular vote margin perfectly in 2016--which is mediocre rather than just plain bad for Trump.

R-I's sample raises suspicions, though. The partisan breakdown among those surveyed:

Democrat -- 45%
Republican -- 33%
Independent/other -- 21%

Compare that to the 2016 exit poll results:

Exit polls showed Democrats with a +3 advantage in November, but R-I's approval poll shows a +12 Democrat advantage, just as it's inaccurate pre-election polls regularly did. In fairness, the approval rating poll is of the general public, not of registered or even likely voters (though the latter was the case during 2016 when R-I was similarly overstating Democrat numbers).

I imagine Reuters' tech guys going about their work honestly, making the data--complete with fully customizable cross-tabs--fed to them by the organization's pollsters publicly accessible. The more ideological mass of the news service's managers and executives, meanwhile, are unaware of how exposed this leaves them.

Don't they know transparency is their achilles' heel? Here's how CBS, which gives Trump a net disapproval rating of 21, explains its methodology:
The poll employed a random digit dial methodology. For the landline sample, a respondent was randomly selected from all adults in the household. For the cell sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone.

Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish using live interviewers. The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables.
Nothing on the respective samples sizes by partisan affiliation. Reveal it and any fudging is easily detectable. Keep it under wraps, though, and...

Wait a minute. Random dialing methodology. Interviews conducted in Spanish. Data weighted to census figures. Are respondents even asked about citizenship status?

I wonder how many of these approval rating results--not just from CBS, but in general--include illegal immigrant and other non-citizen responses.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Silly Shapiro

When it comes to Israel the US, Ben Shapiro is color-blind. He explains:

"Color doesn't matter. Ideology does."

Hmm, let's evaluate that.

How pro-life blacks and whites voted in 2012:

Oops. Let's try among blacks and whites opposed to same-sex marriage:

Well darn. How about blacks and whites opposed to income redistribution:

Ben's not licked yet. There's still drug legalization. Blacks and whites who are against it:

This is getting embarrassing. Maybe when the ideology is more abstract, like the idea that government does too much and is too large. Surely blacks and whites in agreement on that vote similarly:

Oh boy. We've yet to look at those who explicitly self-identify as politically conservative, however! That's an indisputable ideological marker. Black and white conservatives certainly must be on the same page:

Zero-for-six. We could do this all day long.

Turns out color does matter. It matters more than ideology, in fact. And the more racially diverse the country becomes, the more color will matter and the less ideology will. As the late Lee Kuan Yew put it:
In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
The alt right understands this. Cuckservatives like Shapiro do not. Or if they do, they don't care because the people they care about are not the people they'd have you or I believe they care about.

GSS variables used: PRES12(1-3), HISPANIC(1), RACECEN1(1)(2), POLVIEWS(5-6), MARHOMO(4-5), ABANY(2), EQWLTH(5-7), GRASS(2), HELPNOT(4-5)

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Oy vey, Jews are abortion aficionados

In the comments at the Chateau, Days of Broken Arrows writes:
My ex is Jewish and went back to her synagogue when we split (since I’m Catholic, we were “areligious” when we were together, but I digress). She’s always been conservative and she was unpleasantly surprised to find her temple was no longer really about religion. It was about “social justice” (her words) and getting behind leftist political causes. She felt this was completely inappropriate. She got disgusted with everything being put through a political filter — with an aggressively anti-conservative, anti-Christian/Catholic tone to it.

She especially took issue with the obsession with abortion rights [my emphasis] and women’s issues. She felt like she was attending Berkeley lectures, not going to a religious service.

So, she searched around for other places of worship online but found to her dismay that every synagogue was this political, if not more.
Jews tend to be on the left, (though nowhere near as overwhelmingly as blacks--who voted 65% and 86%, respectively, for Hillary in the two-way presidential election), so it's not surprising that they're pro-choice.

The degree to which they are, however, is surprising. The following graph shows the percentages, by religious affiliation, who say a woman should be able to obtain an abortion if she "wants it for any reason". This is as pure a pro-choice position as it comes. Abortions anytime, anywhere, for any reason. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from the year 2000 onward (n = 12,658; Jewish n = 226):

There are no other major demographic categories that come close to this level of abortion fanaticism:

And this modestly understates the full tribe's orientation towards the abortion issue. The methodology misses the especially irreligious ethnic Jews who identify as having no religion rather than as religiously Jewish. By identifying as irreligious rather than as Jewish, these secular ethnic Jews are depressing the Jewish figure of 75.7% and inflating the "no religion" figure of 63.9%.

Jews are eugenicists, even though few would ever identify as such given the current pejorative nature of the term. Their pro-choice bona fides aside, I suspect Jewish women actually obtain few abortions in practice. That's the sort of messy, chaotic thing that proles lacking Jewish privilege do.

I respect everything in the preceding paragraph. I wish the group it applies to wasn't so effectively hostile towards myself and my posterity, though.

GSS variables used: ABANY, RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(5-13), RACECEN1(1)(2), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX(2), AGE(18-39), CHILDS(0), MARITAL(5), POLVIEWS(1-2), PARTYID(0-1)

Friday, June 16, 2017

Kids and human nature

To the dichotomous question of whether "genes" or "experience" play a larger role in determining personality, there is virtually no difference by intelligence, level of education, or political orientation. Non-whites are modestly more likely than whites to attribute differences to genes.

Sex and number of children are among the best major demographic predictors:

A rhetorically effective layman's way of getting communicating the take home message from twin studies is to point out to parents that their children are quite different from one another even though the parents treated them the same and provided them with the same home environment.

Charles Murray used to take this approach fairly regularly. There are more technical approaches available to him now, I suppose, though as genetic research progresses, it's formalizing and validating a lot of what we already knew by way of old proverbs (ie "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", "birds of a feather flock together", etc).

It's worth keeping these modest differences in perspective. Overall, "experience" beats "genes" by a 3-to-1 margin. Even among mothers of multiple children, it wins by a 2-to-1 margin.

Blank slatism has been baked into the social cake for several decades now. It's not going to be extracted easily.


Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Facebook unpersons James Hodgkinson; continues to proudly promote Jeremy Christian

James Hodgkinson's facebook page is hastily taken down (though not before a celeritous Cernovich captured and archived several of his posts).

Jeremy Christian's page--he's the man who stabbed two people to death in Portland a month ago--is still up.

From the New York Times:
Mr. Christian has a history of making extremist statements on social media, said Zakir Khan, a member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who is working to set up a chapter of the organization in Oregon. “From reviewing the suspect’s Facebook page, it seems like he was very enthralled with the alt-right and Nazi movements.”
Hodgkinson shared and quoted Rachel Maddow. Christian shared and quoted Liberty Memes. That's explanation enough!

Christian's page has become a mini-forum where SJWs and Trump supporters morally condemn and mock each other, respectively. Given that the backdrop is a putative kinda-sorta-maybe-unenthusiastic-Trump-supporter-before-but-not-during-the-Oregon-primaries who killed a couple Muslim apologists, the Cathedral--of which facebook is a prominent spire--is elated by it. That shrine isn't going anywhere!

If Hodgkinson's page were to become a similar mini-forum with a murder-attempting, Sanders-supporting leftist as the backdrop, well, the optics would be... inconvenient. And so it vanishes.

We're are well aware of the Cathedral's intentions and biases--which extend far beyond conventional major media outlets, as facebook's swift reaction here illustrates--but for each especially blatant, egregious instance of bias we collectively take note of, there are countless others like this that go largely unnoticed.

Parenthetically, the title alludes to the fact that not only is Christian's page still up, the Jeremy Christian we're interested in here is the first result facebook returns even though there are pages and pages of facebook user accounts with the exact same name.

Never trust. Always verify. We're at war.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

No more stupid bear baiting

The first step toward taking the fight to the enemy is re-framing the Russia probe as a witch hunt designed to over-turn a fair election result. That will get more normies on board, at least remaining neutral rather than getting infected by the witch hunt narrative by osmosis. Any response that treats the witch hunt as a sincere endeavor to figure out facts, form logical arguments, or apply statistical reasoning, is conceding ground to the enemy.
Perspicacious as usual.

Trying to punch at the head of this thing is going to be futile. Better to sow dissension further down the ranks. I sent the following to both my senators and my house representative.

Feel free to cut and paste the same to send to yours. Click here for senators (choose your state and click on the contact links) and here for house members (enter your zip code and click on the email icon link).


Please demand an end to this Russian nonsense. It has become clear the intent of the never-ending stream of allegations of collusion and interference are is to overturn an election outcome the Establishment did not like.

Our televisions, phones, and computers see and hear us. Our intelligence agencies have access to everything we send electronically. If there was anything to any of these allegations, it would have been turned up by now. The FBI has had a year to work on these alleged connections and still there is not a shred of hard evidence of anything.

We are fortunate that this silliness did not cause World War III. It is past time to move on to things that actually matter and allow the president to sink or swim based on the implementation of his agenda.



For God and country

Vox Day passes along an anecdote--for "a non-believing nationalist, the most compelling evidence for Christianity is the globalists' irrational hatred and fear of it."

Nationalism and atheism aren't terms that score high together on word association tests. Nationalism is predicated in large part on the cultural unity of those comprising a nation's population.

The GSS happened to have asked respondents, in 2014 (so sample sizes for non-believers are small), if they agreed or disagreed that "strong patriotic feelings" are needed for America to remain united.

The percentages who disagreed with the proposition--one that was widely agreed with overall (fewer than 9% of all respondents disagreed)--by theistic orientation:

GSS variables used: PATRIOT3(4-5), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6)

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Thrice the number of Saudis living in the US today as lived here on 9/11

The Derb, making a crucial and oft-repeated (by him) observation:
The most astonishing statistic of our age is that our country admitted more Muslims for settlement in the fifteen years after 2001 than we did in the fifteen years prior.

All settlement of Muslims should have been ended on September 12th, 2001, and Muslim non-citizens here should have been told to leave.
The following table shows the percentage change in the number of immigrants to the US from the 27 countries whose populations are more than 85% Muslim from the year 2000 to the year 2015:

Saudi Arabia200%
United Arab Emirates11%
Western Sahara0%

The number of immigrants to the US has increased from nearly all of these places and has not declined from a single one.

The number of Saudis--the country that supplied 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers--living in the US has tripled in just 15 years. That's right--since the worst Muslim terrorist attack in US history, America has nearly quadrupled the number of Somalis, has tripled the number of Saudis, and has doubled the number of Iraqis, Moroccans, Sudanese, Yemenis, and Uzbekistanis living on its soil.

The total population of the US increased 13% from 2000 to 2015. The number of immigrants from these 27 countries to the US increased 60% over the same period of time, from 1.3 million to over 2 million. This truly is astonishing.

Some technical notes: "Immigrant" is defined in this context as someone who has been living in a country other than the one he was born in for at least a year. It only includes first generation migrants, so these increases are entirely a function of more foreign-born Muslims coming here, not from Muslims already living here having children (though Muslims in the US have higher fertility rates than members of any other religious tradition or the irreligious do).

The figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 in most cases (unless there are fewer immigrants than that, in which case they are displayed as "less than 10,000", "1,000", or "less than 1,000").

The countries for which no change is recorded all show fewer than 10,000 immigrants both in 2000 and 2015. My cynical assumption is that the number of immigrants they've sent has grown as well, but from a base too small to show up in these population estimates.

For the United Arab Emirates and Tunisia, Pew reports "less than 10,000" living in the US in 2000 and "10,000" living in the US in 2015. I've conservatively treated "less than 10,000" as "9,000".

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Strap on the greaves and ignore the ankle biters

More on why Trump must use and abuse social media (beyond psychologically nut-tapping cucks and leftists every time he does so):

The cable primetime viewership figure comes from adding together Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC viewers. Throwing in lesser watched networks like C-SPAN and Fox Business still doesn't even get the total close to 10 million.

The newspaper figure comes from the weekend circulation numbers--hard copy and digital subscriptions combined--of the 50 largest newspapers in the US.

Yes, there are some people being double-counted among social media followers, but there are also plenty of circulation figures being double-(and triple- and decuple-)counted in the newspaper circulation number as well (ie, hotels carrying copies of the WSJ, the NYT, USA Today, and the metro area paper).

While Trump is an effortless natural when it comes to utilizing new media communication tools, his perceived power of old media is greatly exaggerated. It is so not only on account of being antiquated (no one under 50 watches TV news or reads newspapers) but also because of Trump's unique personal history. Leveraging old media against entrenched political opposition was vital in allowing him to make his mark on the skylines of cities like Chicago, Las Vegas, and of course New York. His national celebrity was made on old media, and he is allegedly obsessed with collecting old media documents featuring himself.

Putting old media in proper perspective is a job for someone close who came of age after the old media's moribundity had become apparent (Donald Jr. or Stephen Miller).

Political dissolution is coming to the US. It's a question of when, not if. The country is too linguistically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, economically, racially, morally, and geographically divided to function as a single political entity.

There will never again be 80%+ approval ratings for national political figures in the US as currently constituted. Reaching out to the opposition emboldens that opposition and enervates one's own supporters, as Trump has learned the hard way over the last few months.

As Agnostic aptly notes, Trump has his loyal grassroots support and little else. To the extent that he should engage with hostile entities like major media, oppositional congress critters, and deep state quislings inside the Imperial Capital's bureaucracy, it should be to belittle and humiliate them (not make them out to be dangerous or evil). Social media is, of course, the ideal platform to deliver that belittlement and humiliation.