Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Stressed and depressed be the low-class lass

In response to GSS data showing a positive correlation between marriage and mental health, commenter Marlborough County writes:
To use Charles Murray's parlance people in Belmont get married, people in Fishtown do not. Look at the CLASS variable. Big difference. Isn't marriage just a proxy for class here?
That's quite reasonable, and he's correct about the link between social class and marriage and thus also between social class and mental health. To the contrary, mo' money does not appear to lead to mo' problems, at least not emotional ones.

But the marriage gap exists independently of social class. The percentages of non-Hispanic white women, by marital status and social class, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 3,209):

Rules, structure, and convention benefit those at the bottom of society most. The expansion of bohemian and bacchanalian mores from cosmopolitan elites into the wider popular culture has been devastating for those at the bottom. This, of course, fits perfectly within Murray's framework in Coming Apart.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), SEX(2), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), MARITAL(1)(3,5), CLASS

Sunday, October 15, 2017


Women murdering men is close to three times as common as women murdering other women is:

I stumbled across this while looking for cross-referenced offender and victim data from the latest iteration of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. The latest year the figures on sex are cross-referenced (that I could find--the report is not intuitively organized so I may be missing it) is 2013 so that's where the data in the preceding table comes from.

I'm mildly surprised by this though I guess I shouldn't be. A lot of these murders are presumably gang-related and the way of men is the way of the gang. When it's a gangsteress taking the shots, most of the targets are men. Whoever is doing the killing, the object of their homicidal intent tends to be a man. Male privilege!

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Childless women have poorest self-reported mental health

The percentages of people, by sex and number of biological children, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are considered. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 6,961):

Whatever the cause and effect may be, if there is one at all, what these results suggest is that having children probably doesn't turn people into nervous, anxious wrecks. By providing purpose, and satisfying the biological imperative, it may even ameliorate mental health issues rather than accentuating them.

Living in accordance with one's nature may in fact be a better formula for human flourishing than trying to perpetually reconfigure, redefine, recalibrate, and even flat out remake that nature. There's a philosophical tradition in the West stretching back to antiquity that suspects as much.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), SEX, CHILDS(0)(1)(2)(3-8), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)

Friday, October 13, 2017

Feminism wins

The percentages of people, by sex and marital status, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are considered. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 6,521):

Eat, anxiety meds, pray, anxiety meds, love.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), MARITAL(1)(3,5), SEX, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The well is full of virtue

Vox Day, falsely accused of asserting that "intelligence determines virtue", denies it. Jordan Peterson recently denied the same in a podcast with Stefan Molyneux.

Assuming we're talking about the contemporary conception of virtue as ethical behavior (as opposed to the latin virtus, which is closer to what we'd refer to today valor or courage) are they correct?

The GSS includes three questions serving as reasonable first approximations of the contemporary concept of virtue. The following graph shows how respondents, by intelligence buckets as measured through Wordsum scores, fare on these measures. To avoid language fluency issues, only those born outside the US are excluded. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are included:

No apparent relationship emerges. Each intelligence grouping looks best on one measure, worst on another, and in between on a third. The differences are modest. 

Intelligence is as useful for rationalizing as it is for ratiocination.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), ARREST, TAXCHEAT(1-2), WORDSUM(0-5)(6-7)(8-10), ETHNIC(8,10,11,14,15,18,19,21,24,26), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), BORN(1)

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

White Privilege: Psychological Edition

Percentages, by race and sex, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 9,342):

Contrary to the Narrative about putative low black self-esteem and the emotional burden that comes from doing "X while black", black bodies--especially male ones--tend to suffer less from psychological afflictions than non-whites do. 
Stereotype of blacks as non-neurotic,
carefree isn't a new one (via TWCS)
One might be forgiven for thinking that being weighed down by systemic oppression would be stressful, depressing, and emotionally taxing. Apparently it is not.

To the contrary, gentile white men fare marginally worse than all the groups of oppressed men do. I guess every form of refuge has its price!

Then again, that oppression takes a toll on members of the fairer sex among one particularly oppressed group, Jews (though the Jewish sample is only 170, so it should be viewed cautiously). It seems their intelligence has not come without a cost

No word, parenthetically, on whether or not Amy Alkon has managed to shake that which many a Jewess is unable to avoid:

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Speculating on data is the spice of the quant life

The previous post generated a lot of "correlation does not equal causation" responses on the ping pong ball forum. Jayman is fond of the mantra, and for good reason, but most of the people chanting it are tedious to deal with.

I understand as much, and that all traits are heritable. I could've as easily written that women experiencing "stress, depression, and problems with emotions" are at high-risk for riding the cock carousel instead of the other way around as I actually did write it.

One may influence the other, they could be mutually reinforcing, or they could have nothing to do with one another. It could conceivably even be the case that, in isolation, sleeping around is beneficial for women but it's something the mentally unstable do more of than balanced women do and so the benefit gets buried under the other problems they suffer.

The color commentary here is my best guess punditry. Its mileage will accordingly vary. This is primarily a quant blog. Data is the focus. That data is suggestive, not conclusive. I'm not interested in posting something fit for scientific journal publication. For one, they contain their share of bullshit. Hell, while there are clear patches, much of the fields of sociology and psychology are covered in bullshit.

It's easy to use selective controls to produce intended results. It's why I prefer to look at simple relationships. If I control for other variables, it's limited to those presenting the most obvious potential confounds, like sex and race.

Steve Sailer has mentioned on multiple occasions that he likes using data not gathered for the purpose of answering the question he's asking because it generally avoids the problem of stacking the deck in favor of a preferred outcome. The GSS is perfect for that. There are several hundreds variables to cross-tab.

For sake of argument, assume all traits are perfectly heritable. No voluntary or even involuntary behaviors are capable of modifying underlying traits and tendencies. Extract philosophy entirely. We're still left with subjective experience, and that's where the punditry comes in. If, every day after work, a man comes home and stares at the wall for six hours before going to bed, he will have the same quantifiable outcomes--lifespan, income, personality, health, etc--of other men who do things regular men do.

I guess we could refrain from evaluating wall man in relation to the others, but it feels anti-human to do so. Life is for living. I go "exploring" in the woods with my son not because it's going to make him more resourceful later in life but because it's fun for him and for me and it creates memories we'll treasure as long as we live.

Go a step further and take free will out of the equation. We may not have any. The corollary of that, of course, is that it shouldn't be expected that people assuming correlation and causation are the same will be swayed by arguments about correlation not equaling causation. The world is simply doing what it's going to do and that is that. There is no agency, but there is no way to convince people who think there is agency that we are devoid of it, so stop wasting your time--if that's what your destined to do, or don't, if it's not. Whatever.

That said, the example of smoking seems a devastating relatively recent illustration of how social pressure can strongly modify behavior. The genetic predisposition to smoking in the US population presumably hasn't changed much in the last 50 years, but smoking rates have declined drastically. Religiosity has reliably correlated with fertility for generations, yet religiosity continues to decline in societies where the religious consistently out-breed the irreligious.

Finally, some interaction with the archetype Heartiste has warned will be the downfall of the Western world. I was unaware of her until today, but she's a blue check mark so I assume she's not a troll (her tweets unrelated to celebrating barrenness and the joys of prostituting for free, she seems pretty sensible):

Totally irrelevant!

Sustainable for exactly one generation!

Income opporunity
She could get more no-strings-attached in her prime than I could. Game, set, match!
The world revolves around more than a woman's immediate personal preferences

Saturday, October 07, 2017

Sluts are nuts

The following graph shows percentages of respondents who reported having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. Results are broken down by sex and by total number of opposite-sex partners (non-heterosexuals are excluded; all responses are from 2002 onward, when the GSS began querying about mental health; and N = 3,782 for women and 3,475 for men):

Unsurprisingly, being repulsive or invisible to the opposite sex is suboptimal. The ground floor girl is gold. As rides on the cock carousel increase from there, things go downhill. The more men who have ridden her, the worse her neurosis will be. Women who've had over 15 partners are at more than 50% greater risk of poor mental health than women who steadfastly remain tethered to 'the one'.

I mention women in the preceding paragraph because while the trends are technically the same for men and women, the degree of differentiation by partner count is negligible in the case of men while it's staggering in the case of women.

A recent post at the chateau spurred me to take a look at relevant data in the first place. Heartiste nailed what is merely being quantitatively corroborated here:
Every added cock scours a woman’s soul while every added pussy gilds a man’s soul. Bad relationship experiences accumulating over the years can potentially embitter both men and women, but men in my observation, when they bounce back, are more seamlessly able to reconstitute a loving relationship with a new woman minus the emotional baggage of past women who left them with foul memories. In contrast, women who have run through failed relationships tend to dump increasingly heavy loads of baggage on their new men.
Giving away the vadge is akin to giving away citizenship--it feels good in the moment but it creates all kinds of problems down the road. Slut-shame her not only for her own good but also for the good of Western civilization.

GSS variables used: NUMMEN(0)(1)(2-5)(6-15)(16-989), NUMWOMEN(0)(1)(2-5)(6-15)(16-989), SEX(1)(2), MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30)

Thursday, October 05, 2017

Unapologetically rise from the ashes

What if it were possible for both sides of the gun control debate to get what they want?

What if it were possible for some places to restrict the movement of firearms and allow the free movement of undocumented migrants while other places allow for the free movement of firearms and restrict the movement of illegal aliens?

What if it were possible for places where people think diversity is a strength to become more diverse while places where people desire homogeneity to become more homogeneous?

What if it were possible for something other than a uniform set of rules, restrictions, and regulations to apply to 330 million people--people who are disunited linguistically, culturally, ethnically, politically, financially, geographically, morally, racially, and religiously?

It is possible. It's happening across the globe--from Spain to Sudan, from Britain to Kurdistan, from East Timor to, say, some day in the not-so-indefinite future, Texas.

The members of these formerly United States are like a married couple well past the point at which they should've divorced.

The husband leaves the gate open, the dog runs off and before long the couple is yelling back and forth about how stupid it was to get the house in this neighborhood. A psychopath shoots up concertgoers and we're simultaneously screaming about the evils, and apologizing for the merits, of guns, white men, parenting strategies, media sensationalism.

The wife forgets to turn a light off in the closet and before long their yelling back and forth about how she doesn't care about saving for retirement and he doesn't care about anything but money. A subset of athletes refuse to stand for the anthem and we're simultaneously screaming about the evils of and apologizing for the freedom to do so without consequence, of popular entertainment, on what constitutes patriotism.
Resonates with wistful boomers;
stuff of legend for younger Americans

Every incident escalates with such rapidity that it should probably be described as immediacy into something much larger than the incident itself.

Who do Hillary Clinton voters hate more--Donald Trump or Nigel Farage? Who pisses red-staters off more--the Democrat party or the Labour party? Trump and Democrats, the ones with control over their lives, of course.

This nation no longer makes sense. Inertia, economic convenience, and a large enough tax base to run a global empire are the only things holding this carcass of a country together.

How the political dissolution will occur is anyone's guess--probably along currently existing state boundaries, though that needn't necessarily be the case. What seems clear, though, is that it's time--past time--for secession.


Parenthetically, when I had the opportunity to host a certain polymath for a few hours over the summer, I asked if he thought the political dissolution of the US in our lifetimes was a real possibility. A decade ago his answer would have been "no way", but now he thinks it is conceivable (though not necessarily desirable).

The likely mechanism? Another severe economic downturn, exacerbated by the potential of a resultant dollar crisis. There are obvious ways a crash could precipitate dissolution.

There are also less obvious ones. To get out from under the risibly unpayable national debt, for example, a state like Texas could secede, declare the federal debt accumulated under the union it used to be a part of both unconstitutional by the standards of that union and an unjust burden on the republic of Texas, and wash its hands of any obligation on the $20 trillion.

The Cloud People would never allow it! The secession would be brutally suppressed! The optics of Spain's reaction to the Catalon referendum were terrible, even though Catalonia's actions were clearly illegal (while Texas' would not be).

Think the people of Oklahoma would go for the feds marching on Texas? More likely, they'd petition the governor to join their southern neighbor. Hell, think people in Massachusetts would? Nope. Good riddance, they'd say.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Mean Wordsum score by highest degree attained across groups

The following table shows the mean Wordsum score by demographics and by highest completed degree (n = 21,502):

Education will never 'close the gap' because the width of said gap is pretty consistent across differing levels of educational attainment.

We see, for example, that whites have about a full point advantage on blacks at every level of degree completion with the exception of post-graduate degrees, where the advantage is even larger (because a lot of black post-graduates pursue subjects that provide the relatively easily attained credentials they need to do the blackety-blackety-black?)

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that there is no ceiling on the percentage of blacks who can earn graduate degrees without pulling the mean Wordsum score for black graduate degree holders down (a dubious assumption), the only conceivable way to narrow the gap would be to push differential rates of educational attainment so that more blacks and fewer whites pursued higher levels of education.

Alternatively, we could focus our collective energies on improving outcomes for everyone, even if those improvements benefit members of different races at similar rates, instead of quixotically trying to bridge the unbridgeable. But that's the sort of strategy only an extremist would advocate.

And don't dare notice that Jews without any college experience have more expansive vocabularies than blacks with post-graduate degrees do!

A few technical notes:

I'll often convert Wordsum scores to IQ estimates but elected not to in this case to emphasize the intractability of The Gap. Even if spending a decade in college doesn't increase the g-factor, shouldn't it at least reliably increase a person's vocabulary? Given the conventional wisdom, shouldn't we expect a black doctorate to have a more expansive vocabulary than a white high school graduate does? Doesn't post-graduate education require a lot more reading than getting a high school diploma does?

Additionally, I've traditionally used the GSS variable EDUC for educational attainment, but DEGREE is better so I'll be using that from now on. Despite having tapped the database on and off for a decade now, I'm still discovering new things contained within it.

There is a fifth degree category, "junior college", not included above because the sample sizes were prohibitively small for Jews and Asians (only 7.8% of all respondents fall into the category), but results are predictably between "high school graduate" and "bachelor degree".

To avoid language fluency issues, results were restricted to respondents born in the US. For contemporary relevance, all results are from the year 2000 onward.

GSS variables used: DEGREE(0)(1)(3)(4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-99), RELIG(3), BORN(1), YEAR(2000-2016)

Sunday, October 01, 2017

A black is more likely to commit an anti-white hate crime than vice versa

A decade ago I did a series of posts showing, in short, that the "hate crime" designation is a way to get to bizarro world validate The Narrative, with designated victim classes actually looking like victims and designated oppressor classes actually looking like oppressors.

The FBI hasn't yet released data on hate crimes for 2016, so we're looking at 2015 figures here.

Hate crimes made up just 0.07% of all crime in 2015. Like the major media highlighting the 1-in-1,000 story that fits while passing over without comment the hundreds that do not, the hate crime designation allows for a portrayal to be crafted in which Hate appears to be the purview of heterosexual white men even though actual crime is overwhelmingly the purview of Sun People, especially young black men.

Despite the enormous latitude provided, in 2015 a black was still more likely to perpetrate a hate crime of anti-white bias than a white (including Hispanics!) was to perpetrate a hate crimes of anti-black bias*. While 1-in-203,000 whites committed an anti-black hate crime, 1-in-127,000 blacks committed an anti-white hate crime.

When it comes to hate crimes against sexual deviants, the black overrepresentation is even more pronounced. Blacks were 417% as likely to commit an anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/gender-non-conforming hate crime as whites were.

That's a lot of punching down on my part, so let's take a swing at the clouds. The following graph shows the percentages of anti-X hate crimes that are hoaxes in which the alleged perpetrator is unidentified:

* Emphasizing as much without pointing out that blacks are correspondingly also more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are--something that will always characterize a smaller group vis-a-vis a larger group in a tit-for-tat scenario--is to commit a rhetorical sin of omission of my own. I don't deny it, because the whole hate crime category is bullshit. It exists as a means of running interference on the actual nature of interracial crime in the US, so I don't care.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

White collar crime is a black thing

A few observations while picking through the 2016 FBI crime statistics follow. AmRen has written most everything there is to be written about past iterations of these reports. Additionally, I'm hesitant to delve too deeply because of the infinitely frustrating fact that non-Hispanic whites are not broken down into separate offender categories.

It's infinitely frustrating because the FBI has the data--it presents arrest rates by race and by Hispanic ethnicity or lack thereof, but it separates the two. The bureau could easily combine them together and present the categories as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian etc as the census often does, but the bureau chooses not to. It is of course not done because doing so would reveal the true white-black arrest rate gap to be even wider than it appears as presented here.

What a murderer looks like
- Black men aged 20-24 comprised over 14% of all arrests for murders last year*. Black men in that age range make up less than half of one percent of the total population. That means they are over 3,450% as likely to be arrested for murder as the rest of the population is.

Prudent people will have heightened awareness in the presence of men, in the presence of blacks, and in the presence of those aged 20-24--and they will be especially wary when all three characteristics come together in a single person or group of people.

- Blacks are 163% and 237% more likely than whites to be arrested for fraud and embezzlement, respectively.

All crime skews significantly black, including "white collar" crimes. They don't skew as heavily black as violent crimes do because for one thing in the case of embezzlement they require being in a position of some authority in the first place, and secondly because white collar crimes require more forward planning and deferred gratification than violent crimes do.

And by "all crime skews" black, it is meant that indeed every type of crime skews black. Of the 28 different categories of crime the FBI statistics track, blacks make up a larger percentage of arrestees in all 28 of them than they comprise as a share of the total population.

"Model minority" gets a new meaning
- There are two categories of crime where Asians pull their criminal weight. With gambling, they are exactly as likely as non-Asians to be arrested. With prostitution, they are 6% more likely to be.

- American Indians (feather, not dot) are 53% more likely than the rest of the population to be arrested for crime in general.

The crime they are most disproportionately likely to be arrested for relative to everyone else? Drunkenness, of course (533% more likely than the rest).

The crime they are second-most likely to be arrested for relative to the population at large? Liquor law violations, for which they are 266% more likely to be arrested.

Stereotypes exist because they're generally true.

* A few assumptions were made in the calculation. The age distribution came from the 2010 census, the total population figures from 2016 estimates. The FBI statistics break arrests out by race and by age but not by both race and age together, so it was assumed that the male/female distribution in murder arrests among blacks aged 20-24 was the same as for the total arrestee population.

Finally, murders in which the race of the suspect is unknown were assumed to follow the racial distribution of known suspects. This last assumption almost certainly underestimates the actual number of murders committed by the group in question here--black men aged 20-24--as murders involving blacks have lower clearance rates than those involving non-blacks do

Friday, September 29, 2017

Rest in peace, Melanie

After she died of a heart attack likely brought on from being spooked by a car driven into nearby pedestrians in Charlottesville, Heather Heyer received a nationally televised funeral. The first three youtube results on "Heather Heyer funeral" are videos from PBS, ABC, and Fox News. Donald Trump praised her (for what, exactly, is anybody's guess--what happened to the Trump who insinuated that suffering is not synonymous with heroism?) and virtue-signalers across the country beat their breasts in a week of mourning.

On Thursday, Melanie Smith was laid to rest. She was shot in the back while walking through the parking lot of her church outside Nashville. As she lay wounded, the Sudanese immigrant who pulled the trigger walked over to where she lay bleeding. He stood over her and then shot her again in the face, this time fatally. The mother of a 12 year-old son and 19 year-old daughter was killed in the same way a stray dog might have been in--to name a random country--Sudan.

Neither her funeral nor the vigil preceding it appear to have been covered by the local media, let alone national outlets. The first three youtube results on "Melanie Smith funeral" are of an unrelated family's funeral from four years ago, a three-song playlist uploaded in 2011, and a clip of some woman--definitely not our Melanie Smith--in Mexico City.

To say she has already left the national consciousness would be to pretend that she was ever permitted into it in the first place.

Between the late Heather Heyer and the next Heather Heyer, there'll be countless Melanie Smiths, forsaken victims fed unceremoniously to the god Moloch transPOCgoddess Diversity.

Who? Whom? Answer these questions to discover which one deserved to die

The reactions--or lack thereof--to these incidents are drearily predictable. They are, that is, until suddenly they are not. That time draws nearer by the day.

Never forget how much they hate you:

A quintessentially American photo showing everything that is wrong with America

Julian Langness interview

Early this week I did a written interview with Julian Langness. It's more in a philosophy-of-life vein than what's generally covered on this blog, so check it out if you're interested.

Langness was Obama's youngest delegate in 2008. He has since had a change of heart and he didn't have both feet in to begin with, so don't worry, we're not dealing with a Jason Kessler here.

He also has balls of steel. He spent time on the old continent walking through no go zones and locking horns with any invaders who tried to stop him. He chronicles it in his aptly named book, Fistfights with Muslims in Europe.

My first exposure to him was at AmRen this year, when he knocked a packed auditorium off its feet with his speech:

It very obviously will not be my last.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Football memery

Kneeling negroes

We're at Peak "This Has Nothing To Do With Race". Normie Whites are waking up to the anti-White racism that permeates oh, pretty much the entire world, but they're still not brave enough to speak plainly, so they're lashing out at nonwhite ingrates under plausibly deniable symbols like the anthem.
Reuters-Ipsos recently initiated a poll asking respondents if they "support the stance Colin Kaepernick is taking and his decision not to stand during the national anthem". Only 1,630 people have been sampled thus far, so these results are relatively preliminary, but it looks like the silver tongue nailed this one. The following graph shows the distribution of support for and opposition to by selected demographic characteristics:

Single white women were added to convey how remarkably racially contingent these results are. There's a modest tendency for those with more education to be more supportive of the kneeler than those with less, and men are more opposed than women, but only very marginally. The only exception, at least among the filters provided, is by sexual orientation. The racial divide is the most salient--even white Democrats are less supportive than non-whites of all partisan affiliations are.

Civic nationalism is implicitly white. At what point does it become explicitly so? About the time we call it another kind of nationalism, I suppose. Look out.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Emanual Samson, Tennessee church shooter

The Nashville church shooting by a man named Emanuel Samson is obliterating The Narrative from every angle. It is the inverse of everything that the Dylann Roof shooting in Charleston in 2015--that provided cover to launch The Great Erasure against the American confederacy--was.

- A black immigrant fatally shoots churchgoing white natives.

- He is from Sudan, one of the countries included in Trump's initial travel ban. That ban, propitiously enough, expired today, on the very day of the shooting. The new ban added Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela but dropped Sudan. Maybe we put Sudan (both of them) back on the list, Mr. President?

- His Facebook cover photo shows a black man taking a knee. The man turns out to be the shooter himself in the gym, but it was presumably cropped to show support for the kneelers (his feed is full of pictures of himself striking muscular poses, so it's not implausible that steroids or some other enhancers played a role).

- Samson's murder spree is cut short by someone running to his vehicle to grab his gun and then exercise his second amendment right to hold Samson down until police arrive.

- He refers to Africa as "the Mother Land" (imagine if Roof had referred to Germany as "The Fatherland").

- He shared this colorful clip exhorting blacks to raise young warriors to prepare for the coming fight for independence.

- He supports all white-owned land in South Africa being seized reclaimed from whites and given returned to blacks.

You get the idea.

Who? Whom? dictates that--far from spurring any sort of national movement against black-on-white violence--this incident will be flushed down the memory hole by week's end.

++Addition++The Derb takes notice.

Sportsballing with Cameroon on a Sunday afternoon

Scrolling through Nintendo Wii's old game offerings, I see Super Dodge Ball but not Nintendo World Cup. Both were Technos creations and used the same graphics engines. The costs of putting old titles on offer is negligible--sales must be virtually (heh) all margin.

The reason one is for purchase while the other is a no show? Political correctness, I suspect. Unlike revamped versions of old games with added features, the Wii downloads are unchanged from the originals. That way there is no cost for Nintendo associated with the re-releases. In this context, it means the teams a player has to face in each game remain unchanged.

In Super Dodge Ball, the American team faces the following, in ascending level of difficulty:

1) England
2) India
3) Iceland
4) China
5) Kenya
6) Japan

A majority of the teams are non-white. Of those that are white, two are cakewalks. Fittingly, the Soviets are the most formidable opponent, something that felt real enough when the game was released stateside in 1989. Today, though we wish more than anything that it felt real, it doesn't.

Even the pre-match graphic is insulting
The teams faced in Nintendo World Cup, again in ascending level of difficulty:

1) Cameroon
2) Japan
3) France
4) Russia
5) Spain
6) England
7) Mexico
8) Holland
9) Brazil
10) Italy
11) Argentina
The Germans have better huts
12) West Germany

The game throws a bone to Latin America but Africa gets dumped on.

Cameroon, Africa's sole representative, hasn't even developed the pass! All the Cameroon players are capable of doing is trying to dribble from wherever they get the ball all the way to the other goal, even if it's a defender who gets possession and even if he is swarmed by the other team.

Transitioning to sports-related things people actually care about, the NFL is in trouble. This is now the fourth consecutive year of ratings declines for the league, and tussling with Trump--from Ted Cruz to CNN--rarely does anybody any good. He has a talent for ensuring that his opponents always come out worse for the wear:

The NFL won a big battle against Trump's United States Football League in the eighties, but the war isn't over!

Football surpassed baseball as America's pastime decades ago. Consequently, it shows up near the partisan center of the following graph (that I recall seeing years ago in a Steve Sailer post I cannot currently locate) because of the sheer size of its viewership:

Remove blacks from consideration and the NFL bubble shifts to the right. Then, with respect to the 2016 presidential election, nudge it a bit farther to the right to account for blue collar whites who traditionally identify as Democrats but who voted for Trump (and correspondingly move the PGA bubble to the left to account for Republicans who look like Mitt Romney not voting for Trump), and we can see the threat this poses to the NFL.
Deplorable wasting a Sunday afternoon

NPR-listening SWPL-types have no love lost for football. They think its low-class and barbaric, and that its fans are crass and stupid. While they're happy to highlight the riff to hurt Trump, they're simultaneously coming after the league for something that could genuinely present it with an existential crisis if the nearly $765 million CTE settlement turns out to just be the beginning.

Sports are the true opiate of the contemporary American masses. If the upshot of all this is middle Americans frittering away less time--and more importantly, less tribalistic impulse--watching mercenaries smashing into each other so that the time and energy is freed up to do things like, say, make America great again, it'll be a win.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Hillary Clinton puts one-third of her voters in the basket of deplorables

At least that's the implication from Hillary Clinton's new book (via Steve Sailer):
When I said, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” I was talking about well-documented reality. For example, the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago found that in 2016, 55 percent of white Republicans believed that blacks are generally poorer than whites “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty.”
The figure she cites checks out.

What percentage of Democrats belong in that same basket of deplorables, you ask? A mere 35% of them is all. That's barely even one-third of Hillary's putative supporters! Most of her backers are still With Her.

Some Democrats are more deplorable than others. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected characteristics, who accompany half of Trump's voters in Deploraville as of 2016 (n = 1,634):

Half of Hillary's Hispanic supporters--like half of all of Trump's supporters--are deplorable. Who knew?

NAMs, on the whole, are more deplorable than whites are. It is thus imperative we always distinguish between goodwhites and badwhites.

Naturally, the Chosen People are the nation's least deplorable.

GSS variables used: RACDIF4, RACECEN1(1)(2), RELIG, PARTYID(0-1), HISPANIC(1)(2-99), YEAR(2016)

Friday, September 22, 2017

Foreign-born percentage of US electorate by presidential election

The following graph shows the percentage of the American electorate that was foreign-born in each presidential election going back to 1992. Quantity has a quality of its own:

If Pelosi's pals have their way, the percentage will rocket into the double-digits.

We can't make up the margin on volume and we can't make up the volume on margin, so... look at how much I love these kiddos!

In 2016, the Founders' Revenge took the form of the Electoral College:

That defense against the election of a new people will stand about as long as the statues of the founders do, though.

For the sake of ourselves and our posterity, the following three things must be done:

1) A moratorium on all immigration, lasting at least a full generation
2) All non-citizens repatriated (no #DACAmnesty)
3) Rebounding of native fertility to at least replacement level

The hour is getting late.

GSS variables used: BORN(1)(2), PRES92, PRES96, PRES00, PRES04, PRES08, PRES12, [2016]

Thursday, September 21, 2017

How the foreign-born vote in the United States

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

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

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

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

That was a different era.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

It's so PC it's killing me

From Reuters-Ipsos, a poll on the following:

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

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

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

Clever sillies are at work here.

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

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

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

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

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Deplorable Doctor Pol?

The totalitarian instinct on display:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Why the nineteenth was not in the original

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Make Amnesty Die Again! #MADA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

An opportunity for heroism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, September 11, 2017

Only you can prevent DACA amnesties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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