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

Get Z Trump supporters were far more 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):


StateAdult%Z%Z%+/(-)
Colorado477124
Oregon446724
Pennsylvania517423
Missouri608121
Minnesota496920
Maryland365418
Maine486618
Montana617817
Illinois415817
Iowa557117
Nebraska637916
Kansas617615
Wyoming759015
Georgia536715
Idaho698112
Kentucky667812
Virginia475912
Oklahoma698011
Vermont344511
Ohio546410
West Virginia738210
Indiana60699
Arizona52608
Wisconsin51598
Massachusetts35427
North Carolina52586
Tennessee64696
Texas55605
Michigan51554
Washington41454
District of Columbia473
New York39412
South Dakota66671
North Dakota70711
Alabama65650
Louisiana6059(1)
Arkansas6463(2)
Mississippi5955(4)
New Mexico4540(5)
Connecticut4337(6)
Florida5044(6)
California3422(12)
South Carolina5745(12)
Delaware4425(19)
Nevada4924(25)
Utah6335(28)

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.

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

High school hypothetical electoral maps, 2016

Last November lots of people in my social media network were consoling themselves with an electoral map showing how badly Trump would've been smashed by Clinton if the election had been restricted to millennial voters. Even if the present is out of reach, the future is theirs!

2016 presidential election results (millennials only)

The rather tepid response to those unwelcoming of such a future ran along the lines of people tending to move to the right as they age. 

If the huge Hispanic Heritage Foundation poll of high school students across the country in the Fall of 2016 is any indication, generation Z may offer a far more devastating rejoinder to the SJW-dreams of neotenous, basement-dwelling emo-llennials. With the latter we may have reached Peak Madness.

In the spirit of the hypothetical electoral map presented above, here are three from the Gen Z poll. First, results among students of all races, nearly half of whom are non-white:


No data was collected in Alaska, Hawaii, or New Hampshire.

In Vermont, "a write-in candidate"--presumably Bernie Sanders, though it's not specified--beat both Trump and Clinton. In Utah, "a write-in candidate"--presumably McMuffin--tied with Clinton in the top spot, so mentally turn that state gold like Vermont if you'd like. I'll cut those Utahan kids a little slack--there's something laudable about being proud of someone with whom you share an identity, and McMuffin offered many of these striplings a chance to express some Mormon pride.

How do we end up with an electoral victory for Trump more decisive than the one that actually occurred? By way of whites voting even more strongly for Trump (78%-22% in a two-way race) than non-whites voted for Clinton (69%-31% in a two-way race), that's how. If adolescent whites grow up voting like white adults in Texas or Alabama do today, the non-white vote in national elections will be irrelevant for decades to come.

The results, this time restricted only to whites:


Delaware split evenly among whites and Vermont again went with a write-in. Clinton wins outright in Utah because girls primarily broke between her and McMuffin, while boys did so between Trump and the cuck.

Most encouragingly for those of us on the Alt Right, the results for white male high school students:


A massacre. Even California joins in. Only the Cloud Children of the Imperial Capital throw in with the wicked empress.

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

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Generation Z's white guys favored Trump over Clinton by a 6-to-1 margin

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's poll conducted on over 80,000 high school students in the fall of 2016 found non-Hispanic whites overwhelmingly favored Trump over Clinton. The poll also found white Gen Zers to be substantially more pro-Trump than any other co-racial generational cohort. While I have plenty of anecdotes to place alongside some major cultural events that lend credence to the result, it still struck me as almost literally incredible.

The methodology as described is vague, though the sample is huge--nearly 30,000 whites were polled at the time the results were publicly released, and by the time the numbers were finalized in mid-November, 45,954 white students had been surveyed across the 48 contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii were not included). And the results for non-whites pass the smell test:


Tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics were surveyed, as were thousands of Asians.

Hillary Clinton, scolding, sexless schoolmarm, probably doesn't appeal much to high school guys. Grabbing HBs by the pussy, in contrast, likely does, so it's conceivable that these results stem in large part from the personalities of Trump and Clinton more than they do the wider worldviews associated with each side of the political divide. Cynically, Trump's antics appeal to adolescence while Hillary's cerebral affectations do not.

Those potential wet blanket qualifiers out of the way, this is tremendously encouraging news. Jjbees calls the generational distribution the world's second most important graph. Time will tell how apt that description turns out to be. He may be right.

Friday, August 04, 2017

Most black men hold O. J. Simpson in high regard

More evidence supporting Ben Shapiro's assertion that skin color doesn't matter--it's ideology that does! Opinions of O.J. Simpson (n = 2,988):


That black support for Simpson is more than three greater than white support for him has nothing to do with skin color per se. It's the consequence of an unfortunate belief--ideology, if you will--in the acceptability of killing white women that just happens to afflict blacks more than it does whites, you see!

The poll portal is accompanied by text describing the sex differences in favorability. It notes that men have a more favorable opinion of Simpson than women do.

The black-white gap is 2.5x the sex gap. Simpson is obviously bad news, though, so pointing out that blacks are fonder of him than whites are would be poor form. Better to portray women as the ones with good sense and men as the troglodytes.

While 2 out of 3 black women view Simpson unfavorably, a majority of black men like him. Pointing out that most black guys approve of a Big Man who pounds a mudshark before murdering her is doubleplus poor form. As such, I sure as hell won't mention it here!

Thursday, August 03, 2017

Lies about Lazarus rise

Is Jim Acosta ignorant, mendacious, or both? This is embarrassing:



The Lazarus poem was drawn up among a hodgepodge of other efforts to raise money to complete the construction of the statue a decade after it began. The poem was the brainchild of a wealthy Jewess putatively inspired by the statue to pen it. The statue wasn't inspired or influenced by the poem. It's housed inside the base of the statue and is not observable from the outside.

The statue commemorates America's freedom from foreign domination. The tablet in lady liberty's arm bears an inscription that, unlike the Lazarus poem, was actually part of the statue's design. It reads (in Roman numerals) "July 4, 1776".

The statue isn't a celebration of immigration, it's a celebration of this:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Did the men who signed that declaration of independence conceive of America as a "nation of immigrants"?

No. That phrase first appears in the 1920s, a century after the last of the founding fathers had gone to the grave.

To see what the founders thought about the composition of the country, we need to look at the law they actually passed regarding it.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited immigration to "free white persons of good character". It explicitly noted that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

CNN isn't just fake news, it's fake history (or "fake olds", if you like).

The RAISE Act will face an uphill battle in congress. There's bipartisan opposition to it, helpfully described by USA Today thus:
Critics, including many members of Congress, said the plan calls for allowing immigration based on ratios of applicants and a points-based system of approvals, not hard numbers.

That means it will wind up reducing legal immigration, whether applicants are skilled or not.

"The Perdue-Cotton bill does exactly what President Trump has indicated he does not want to do, and that is massively restrict legal immigration," said political consultant Liz Mair, who describes herself as a Republican immigration advocate.

Mair disputed Perdue's comparisons of his plan with those of Canada and Australia, saying, "both of those countries admit massively more legal immigrants relative to their population than the U.S. ever could if this bill became law."
But there's a lot of bipartisan populist support for it. This is one where we have to do more than offer our moral support in the silent comfort of our own homes. Contact your congress critters and tell them to support the thing. Find your house representative here and your senators here.

Something as simple as "Please support the RAISE Act put forward by Senators Cotton and Perdue. It is time we have an immigration system that puts Americans first!" will do perfectly fine. The aids just tally the "for"s and "against"s they receive.

Tuesday, August 01, 2017

Gen Z is the West's last great hope!

In a post discussing the potential generation Z holds, a poll of said generational cohort by the Hispanic Heritage Foundation, a non-profit DC outfit "that works to increase the number of Latina and Latino leaders in society", found Trump crushing Clinton among white high school students (n = 16,275*). The poll was conducted in October of 2016, a month before the election, and nearly all the participants were too young to actually vote.

The following graph shows the results alongside those derived from Reuters-Ipsos polling for other generational cohorts in a two-way race. The R-I figures are from those aged 18-34 (n = 9,740), aged 35-49 (n = 9,087), aged 50-64 (n = 10,137), and aged 65+ (n = 6,600), roughly corresponding to millennials, Xers, baby boomers, and silents, respectively. The age ranges don't match the generational cohorts exactly but it's as close as R-I allows us to get. The results for Gen Z show how they reported they would've voted rather than how they actually voted, as most were too young to do so:


This is incredible, almost literally so. It does however mesh with what I saw last weekend and other observations made of late. Z-Man points out that while there were lots of event attendees who could barely pass as legal adults, the protesters were largely comprised of "extremely ugly old women, wearing shirts with feminist slogans." He continues:
I was standing in front of the big glass windows watching the Antifa loonies, when I turned and looked at the young AmRen guys taking pics and selfies, laughing and enjoying themselves. On one side of the glass were grotesquely out of shape people in grubby clothes, smoking and gesticulating. On the other were young men in suits, well groomed and composed. It was one of those times when you can stand on the timeline of your life and see the past and the future at the same time.
Maybe meme warfare and the radioactive lameness of the wicked witch explains some of this away, and it won't be replicable in the future. Gen Z whites were mixed on approval of Obama (37% disapproved, 31% approved, 32% had no opinion). Even if Trump's advantage over Clinton is half of what's shown above, though, it portends a seismic shift in the orientation of the next generation of whites.

Julian Langness thinks millennials will have to save the West. My money is on the next generation, the one with its back against the wall.

Parenthetically, the poll found the expected strong advantage for Clinton among non-whites. She beat Trump 7-to-1 among blacks, 3-to-1 among Hispanics, and 3-to-2 among Asians. The battle lines are being drawn.

Thanks to Sid for pointing to the Hispanic Heritage poll.

* The methodology is tough to nail down with confidence. The major report findings show a sample of 50,000 for all races. The link to details on methodology lead to an interactive map with a reported total sample of 83,298, of which 45,954 are white. To arrive at 16,275 I took the percentage of non-Hispanic whites from 83,298/45,954 figures and multiplied it by the percentage, 59%, of high school white students voting for either Trump or Clinton.

Monday, July 31, 2017

A weekend to remember

This weekend I had the honor of meeting John Derbyshire. He is every bit the gracious class act I expected him to be. The only person who may have influenced my thinking more is Steve Sailer. I use "may" earnestly here, as I'm genuinely unsure. Those two men are the consuls of my intellectual republic. He gave me a gift I will treasure to the end of my days:


I spent a fair amount of time orbiting around Richard Spencer. He is a rock star among the under-30 set. Some may disagree with his media strategy, as Vox Day emphatically does. When two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled, so while this dispute rages on I'll cleave that patch of empirical underbrush way over there in the shade if you don't mind.

That being what it is, Spencer is an impressive figure. This is not a nine-to-five gig for him. It's who he is. I watched as he engaged anyone on any topic, always thoughtfully, always intelligently, never haughtily. When I had the opportunity to talk to him for a few minutes, I came away with the firm sense he understands the gravity of the position he now holds. With great influence comes great responsibility. He gets that.

As the alt right goes from cultural insurgency to bona fide cultural force in its own right, many of the leaders of the insurgency will be unwilling or unable to transition accordingly. Spencer has already done so. The sky is his limit.

It's easy to fall into the trap of rolling our eyes when someone talks about political correctness for the umpteenth time. Do not fall into that trap. It's hard to overstate how liberating it is to be able to discuss things candidly in a social setting with a group of erstwhile strangers. This is unadulterated free expression, and it's an incredible experience.

As I repeatedly remarked, it felt strange speaking about the topics I spend so much time reading and writing about. We shouldn't have to compartmentalize these things. As Z-Man says, life is for living. Talking openly to smart people about interesting things is living.

Like fish in the ocean, we're so accustomed to the water we forget we're swimming until we're thrown onto land. Z kept looking over his shoulder out of habit, accustomed to having to do so whenever speaking honestly about anything--and he lives in the Baltimore ghettos! We got a chuckle from it every time, but it's a powerful indicator of the oppressive intellectual environment in which we currently live.

Speaking of Z, the man is a polymath. I assume there is a topic he has yet to study and does not have a thoughtful perspective on. That assumption is based entirely on another assumption--that no man is omniscient. I’m lacking any empirical evidence to back up my first assumption, though. He’s even more accessible in person than he is in written form. I thought that impossible, but there it is. His podcast is now on iTunes. It's great. He's also shared his remarks on the weekend here and here.

I recounted to Jared Taylor how I'd shared his recent interview with CNN with friends and family, confident that there was no way they could come away from it without admiring him and respecting the ideas he presented. He glowed, responding emphatically, "It's because they're true". Like the Derb, Taylor was every bit the man of integrity and sincerity I expected him to be.

Additionally I met Gregory Hood (a charismatic man of boundless energy), James Fulford (who apparently has the ability to run google searches in his head as well as being one hell of a prestidigitation artist), Counter-Currents president Gregory Johnson, Sam Dickson (who patiently entertained my dissenting opinion to his assertion that the US is closer to the cold civil war turning hot than Europe is) and moldylocks slayer Nathan Damiago (a man who I imagine would remain unshaken if he found himself alone in the woods surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves).

I also met several readers of this blog who wish to remain known only in the virtual world, and while I won't say anything else publicly about those encounters, they were no less memorable.

I encourage readers to consider attending next year. There were an enormous range of viewpoints present, running the gamut from people who are HBD-aware and realize something is deeply wrong in the West today to unapologetic white separatists, and everything in between. The atmosphere was one of spirited engagement from every corner. Conversations weren't about status signalling, they were about seeking real understanding.

Parenthetically, if there were any white supremacists--people advocating second-class status for non-whites or a system where whites are given explicit political authority to rule over non-whites--present, I didn't meet a single one among the over 300 people in attendance (150 more had to be turned away as the conference center was standing room only during the presentations).

I have to confess going in I was prepared to see at least a handful of jack-booted skinheads saluting the fuhrer, but there wasn't anything like that at all. The blood libel against Taylor's organization by extortionist groups like the $PLC and the ADL is truly despicable. Shame on me for entertaining the idea that there might be a sliver of truth to the accusations they make (and make a very good living from).

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Israeli public among the most supportive of the Trump Wall

Via Pew (with a heads-up from Anatoly Karlin), the following table shows the percentage of each country's population that approves of Trump's US-Mexico border wall as a percentage of the percentage that disapproves it (not a typo!). Unsure/don't know responses are excluded. There isn't a single country where more say they approve than disapprove, but it breaks almost evenly in a couple countries.

The higher the percentage, then, the greater the public approval for the Trump Wall is:

CountryA/D
Jordan95.7%
Israel95.5%
India86.2%
Nigeria76.0%
Russia74.5%
Hungary71.4%
Vietnam71.4%
South Africa60.0%
Kenya54.1%
Tanzania52.5%
Ghana48.4%
Philippines45.9%
Senegal37.7%
Indonesia33.3%
Tunisia33.3%
Poland28.6%
Australia24.4%
Italy23.3%
Greece23.1%
Lebanon21.2%
Brazil19.7%
Japan19.2%
Turkey19.0%
Venezuela17.7%
Canada15.5%
Peru15.4%
United Kingdom14.5%
South Korea14.5%
Argentina13.3%
Chile11.6%
France11.2%
Netherlands10.2%
Germany9.0%
Colombia9.0%
Spain7.6%
Sweden5.3%
Mexico5.3%

The goyim neighbors of the Palestinians know.

(((Americans))) who put Israel's interests ahead of everything else have objectives orthogonal to our own at best and fatally hostile at worst. They're not our allies. Israeli nationalists, on the other hand, are. Credit where credit is due.
As a continent, Europe is the least supportive of the wall. Even Latin America (including Mexico!) is modestly more supportive than Europeans are. Alaric is at the gate but Honorius is preoccupied with one-upping Stilicho. The Occident's internecine squabbling is going to be painful for future students of history to read about.

The question of whether or not the West has the will to survive is especially applicable to the Old Continent. I have more confidence in the diaspora--the US and Australia, anyway--than Europe proper, but our backs have been up against the wall for longer, so it's conceivable Europe could turn it around. Sweden, however, is lost. Utterly lost.

On a mildly happier note, only 3 of the 10 surveyed countries are in central Europe, and two of the three are the two most supportive (Hungary and Poland, respectively).

As for the finding that in every country disapproval exceeds approval, let that dissuade Trump as much as the global pressure to stay member to the Paris Agreement did. It's not their business.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Gen Z is the West's last great hope?

At an in-law family function a month ago, four of my wife's cousins--the oldest about to be a freshman in college, the youngest a freshman in high school--were talking about how oppressive the intellectual atmosphere in their schools are. All four of them mocked political correctness and made clear their support for Trump (albeit they were too young to have voted). I know for certain none of their parents feel the same way.

Yesterday I saw a kid, about 12 years old, wearing a shirt that read "CNN is fake news".

I know a 17 year-old via a professional acquaintance who is going to the AmRen conference this weekend.

I have an employee who reads Heartiste religiously and another who follows Richard Spencer and watches Red Ice. They both volunteered these things to me after I made it clear over time that I'm a candor absolutist.

These are merely anecdotes, of course. But I suspect I was less surprised than most by the rapturous reception Trump received at the Boy Scouts jamboree, an event that occurs every four years. The entire speech is here. A sample:



The headline from a BBC article on the event is perfectly germane: "Trump boy scout Jamboree speech angers parents". Do the scouts themselves look angered to you?

The Alt Lite is the new counterculture gateway, the Alt Right the new counterculture.

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.

SANDRA: Ouch.

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 =
AALDEF81%19%13,846
Edison71%29%~982
R-I65%35%1,161

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.