Sunday, December 17, 2017

Big Daddy Gibs

Supporting Lott’s research that found female suffrage immediately shifted American politics to the Left and enlarged the State, a recent study likewise concluded that female enfranchisement accelerated the same Leftward lurch well into the late 20th-early 21st Century, and it continues moving the country to the Left today (tradcon white knights hit hardest). Furthermore, the female compulsion to vote into existence larger and more intrusive government crosses party identification lines.
Let's recruit the GSS to pile on. The survey has a question that gets right at the heart of the growth of the state. Unfortunately it was only asked in a single year (1996) but the sample is large enough and the trend stark enough to serve our pedagogical purposes here.

It reads "If the government had a choice between reducing taxes or spending more on social programs like health care, social security, and unemployment benefits, which do you think it should do?" The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by sex and by political orientation, who favor reducing taxes (N = 1,018):

This corroborates the results of the other research Heartiste pointed to. Women are more supportive of government spending on social programs across the political spectrum.

In fidelity to the meta-theme that everything is downstream of immigration, a few other comparisons by selected demographic characteristics:

White middle- and upper-class men are the only group the founders had in mind when they were hammering out the republic's constitutional framework. It was not designed to accommodate the political input of "the rest" and is now--rather unsurprisingly, at least in hindsight--on the brink of collapse.

GSS variables used: TAXSPEND, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), SEX, RACE(1)(2-3), BORN, CLASS(3-4)

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Immigration is the golden snitch

I read the first entries in the Harry Potter series in the span of a couple of weeks in the mid-2000s. My younger brother was enthralled by the books but hadn't seen any of the movies released up to that point. I thought it a nice big brother gesture to watch them with him and wanted to know the score before doing so.

Something I remember with distinct annoyance were the risibly stupid rules of the in-universe game of Quidditch. Six players per side get smashed to hell as they scramble after a big ball--the "quaffle"--that earns a team that scores with it 10 points. Each team also has a seventh player called a "seeker". The seeker exclusively chases a smaller ball--the "golden snitch"--that, once captured, gives his team 150 points and ends the game.

There is no time limit. The match concludes when the small ball is captured, and because it's worth so much, the team that captures the golden snitch virtually always wins. Infogalactic informs us that one game in the series ends with the team capturing the golden snitch losing, but in this exceptional instance it was done intentionally.

So the matches consist of six players on each side getting pounded by flying iron balls for no purpose other than the entertainment of the spectators while the outcome is decided solely by which seeker manages to capture the golden snitch.

I bring this up in the context of Ann Coulter's great column on Roy Moore's loss in Alabama last week:
Everyone who screwed the pooch on this one better realize fast: All that matters is immigration. It’s all that matters to the country, and it’s all that matters for winning elections.

“Anti-establishment” is not a winning issue. Without immigration as the GOP’s lodestar, every election will be a rerun of the Tea Party from 2010 to 2012, when Republicans lost Senate seat after Senate seat, entirely in unforced errors.

We’ll have to watch helplessly as “establishment Republicans” fight “anti-establishment Republicans” over the right to milk a he-goat. Both sides will lose, and Democrats will sweep Congress and destroy our country.

Immigration was never a top issue for Moore, though, when pressed, he gave the right answers. That’s not a good way to prioritize.

Republicans who treat immigration as a backburner issue should be required to run on the issues they consider more important—in California. See how your arguments fare in a state that’s already been transformed by immigration. That’s your new country.

How stupid do you have to be to carry on about taxes, defense spending, ISIS, abortion or the Ten Commandments while intentionally losing on the one issue that will determine the outcome of all these other issues? Too stupid to be of any real help.
Metaphorical moratorium
Taxes? Quaffle. Defense spending? Quaffle. ISIS? Quaffle. Abortion? Quaffle. Ten commandments? Quaffle.

Immigration is the golden snitch. It doesn't matter what happens with the other issues. If we don't capture the National Question, any quaffle points we accumulate will turn out to be nothing more than distractions for fans on our side to cheer about momentarily before we lose the game.

As fans, we must insist on our front office start putting everything into recruiting the best seekers (the single player on the pitch who pursues the golden snitch) and stop wasting so much time and energy on quaffle showmen. Derb essentially concludes as much in this week's broadcast, so take it's importance from him.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Bittersweet home Alabama

Paul Kersey nailed it:

This is predictably being spun as a big loss for Trump.

Indeed, Trump could not have played the state any worse than he did--endorsing the loser in the primary, withholding an endorsement and staying mum on the GOPe's not mere abandonment but opposition to Moore until the 11th hour, endorsing Moore at said 11th hour, and then seeing Moore lose in a state that gave Trump one of his largest margins last November. Sad!

These are tactical errors largely attributable to Trump playing nice with the GOPe, however. The exit polling shows that the long game looks promising for MAGA Republicanism. Among those who voted yesterday, 48% approve of Trump. By comparison, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Republican party and just 16% (!) have a favorable opinion of Mitch McConnell.

Trump is more popular than the GOP brand. Consequently, said brand is being dragged, kicking and screaming, away from both the 'bible-thumping' religiosity of Roy Moore and the Chamber of Commerce cuckery of Ed Gillespie. The two recent high-profile Republican defeats were not of populist MAGA men but of, separately, values voters and big business, two factions of the Republican coalition whose glory days are in the past and for whom the future looks grim.

Additionally, Trump's last-minute endorsement probably helped Moore. It wasn't enough to close the gap (that Fox News, to its credit, appeared to have identified), but it likely did the judge more good than harm:

Those sitting on the fence until the end broke decisively for Moore, and those who said Trump factored into their voting decisions favored Moore over Jones by a 3-to-2 margin.

Takeaway for Team Trump? Get behind MAGA men (and women) in the 2018 mid-terms.

Parenthetically, blacks were clearly a lot more enthused than whites, especially rural whites. Sparsely populated Winston county, to the northwest of Birmingham, saw turnout cut nearly in half from 2016 to 2017 (with the latter year bringing out just 55% of what last November did). In contrast, Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham, saw turnout this time around that was 76% of 2016's. I've only eyeballed figures from county to county, but this appears to be a pretty consistent pattern across the state.

Finally, to end on a positive note, we keep hearing (and hoping!) that Gen Z, the generation with its back against the wall, may just be the one that delivers us all. In that vein, then, some encouragement:

Those under 25 (the oldest Zs are currently 22) went more heavily for Moore than those in their later twenties and those in their thirties did. Keep in mind that the younger the cohort, the less white the cohort, so this suggests that the front wave of white Zs went 10+ points stronger for Moore than white millennials did, and about as strongly for him as white Xers did. And this not for a god-emperor shitlord but for a stodgy old tradcon who wore a cowboy hat and rode a horse to vote!

Monday, December 11, 2017

Clean up

A few things I committed to getting done without having gone through the formality of doing (until now!):

- With regards to the apparently heavy Jewish overrepresentation among the recently exposed high-profile harassers and perverts, GSS results from five questions measuring attitudes and behaviors towards sexual permissiveness for males exclusively, since that's who we're after here:

With the obvious exception of having paid for sex, the sex differences among both Jews and Gentiles are minor. The graph above looks similar to the one presented here. The percentage of white Gentile men who've paid for sex is 12.3%, meaning Jewish men are over 40% more likely to have rented fleshpots than white Gentiles are. By comparison, 19.9% of black men say they've paid for sex.

This may have some explanatory power.

- While it struck me as tedious and unlikely to reveal anything of interest, respected regular commenter DissidentRight wondered about the racial distributions of independents who lean left and lean right. Because of the way the GSS tracks race and ethnicity it's difficult to be precise when it comes racial distributions of particular traits unless Hispanics are grouped together with whites, but it is easy to look at trait distributions among particular demographic groups.

While I'm not sure if this is what DR had in mind, I'm glad I looked at it because it's more slanted than I'd have expected. The following table shows the partisan lean--Democrat, Republican, or neither--among self-identified political independents, by race (N = 8,970):


The subsequent table expresses this in a different way by showing how much more likely independents are to lean Democrat than they are to lean Republican:

When it comes to partisan affiliation, white independents can fairly be described as, well, independent. Non-whites not so much. That Trump beat Hillary among independents really is no mean feat.

- The idea that Twitter is a social media platform intended to freely facilitate the exchange of ideas has been a risible one for well over a year now. Despite the virtual proscription lists filled with names of those on the dissident right--December 18th is rumored to be the virtual night of the long knives--the platform still tends to function as such at present.

The following graph shows the unexciting percentages of respondents who support the right for various controversial speakers to share their views in public by whether or not they use Twitter:

According to Pew, 19% of the US population was on Twitter in 2016, a virtually identical result to the 18.9% found in the GSS for the same year.

Twitter users are modestly more supportive of free speech than non-users are.

The one exception is for anti-religionists.

Twitter users are more likely to be atheists and agnostics and less likely to say they "know God exists" than non-users are, yet they're less supportive of anti-religionist speech!

If it seems strange that the secular, progressive blue checkmarks would be marginally less supportive of free speech than non-users are for anti-religionists of all people, it's because you're not reading anti-religious in the same way they are. They are interpreting it as a reference to Islam.

Notice, too, that the largest variance* between Twitter users and non-users is the relatively strong support the former give to Muslims preaching hatred of the US compared to the tepid support non-users give the same.

* In terms of the gap as a percentage of total support, not in terms of the absolute size of the gap, for which free speech for militarists is the widest.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMSLM, SPKMIL, SPKATH, TWITTER, GOD(1-2)(6), PARTYID(2-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX(1), XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Stomp on sanctuary cities

The percentages of bay area respondents familiar with the case who say the verdict in the Steinle case was "wrong", by race (N = 457):

In total, more than two-in-three residents (69.1%) don't like the decision.

Keep in mind this poll was taken among residents of San Francisco, where the economic and educational disparities among racial groups are larger but the political disparities narrower than in nearly all the rest of the country.

The left can gloat as much as it wants about the Steinle verdict, but trashing it is a populist issue. Trump has a knack for identifying things that are simultaneously 'controversial' and popular--very often more popular than he is:

Even in a deep blue urban SWPL stronghold like San Francisco, sanctuary accomplice city status gets mixed reviews. Nearly half of denizens don't favor subverting national sovereignty in this way ("unsure" responses are excluded; N = 650):

Soy boys and buggers though they be, San Francisco's white men still tend to be the city's least treasonous group.

If only half the population in accomplice cities support their cities being an accomplices, there's a huge vulnerability to be exploited. Hell, even Bugman (R, VA) grasped as much.

Bringing accomplice cities to heel is something the Trump administration needs to be pursuing intensely. Puttering around with half-percentage reductions in federal funding is the first step in a miles-long chase.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Muhammad Mohamed Mohammed Mohammad

A few more graphics bequeathed to the historians of the future who will write The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire:

Those results are for the US. Baby Naming Wizard includes a list of Western countries where Muhammad--peace be upon him--is among the top 100 most popular names for baby boys:

There are several variants of the given name's spelling and they're counted separately in the tallies. In England and Wales, as of 2013--so the ascent has surely continued since then--"Muhammad" came in at #15, "Mohammed" at #23, and "Mohammad"at #57.

The only state in the US so far where the name has cracked the top 100 is Minnesota, but it will not be the last.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Unintelligent snowflakes are the ones suppressing free speech

Dan echoes a question brought up by others with regards to the GSS showing a strong correlation between high IQ and support for free speech:
It is most interesting that support for Free Speech is tightly correlated with IQ.

But then, I wonder if that is just a relic of high IQ people knowing that free speech is the 'right answer'.

Every time a high profile conservative tries to speak at a university now, they face an attempted shutdown, which is successful a high percentage of the time. Universities are not condemning the students but siding with them. Police are the ones upholding free speech rights.
My suspicion is that the students who are making the biggest ruckus are not the sharpest ones on campus. The administrators are intimidated. The professors leading the charge are doofuses like this and the ones who provide fodder for Z-Man's weekly XirlScience segments, not top engineering or chemistry professorial talent.

The following graph shows the percentages of college graduates born in the US, by IQ as measured from Wordsum scores, who support the right for racists, communists, homosexuals, militarists, and atheists to all speak publicly. For contemporary relevance responses are from 2000 onward (N = 1,263):

Educational attainment does appear to associated with tolerance of free speech independent of intelligence, but a strong relationship remains even among the well-educated.

The braying rabble on display here are nowhere near the top of their class:

Is it implausible to suspect that a majority of them are at Yale on account of some sort of academic affirmative action favoritism?

The seeming ever-increasing calls for censorship on college campuses is surely not unrelated to this:

Graduated inIQ

Idiocracy beckons.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), SPKATH, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMIL, SPKCOM, DEGREE(3-4), BORN(1), YEAR(2000-2016)

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Eager Ashkenazi, coy Goy

They're thinking about it:
A lot of sexual harassment stuff in the news of late. I couldn't help but notice a very disturbing pattern emerging, which is that many of the predators--not all, but many of them--are Jews.
So Vox Day is justified in doing the same:
What a surprise that someone named (((Israel Horowitz))) should turn out to be a sex criminal. I am, of course, absolutely shocked that yet another illustrious member of the (((immigrant community))) that created America practically from nothing and has lots and lots of Nobel Prizes and is selflessly devoted to healing the world should turn out to be yet another pervy freakshow.
The GSS has (at least) five questions that potentially provide some insight into why Jews appear to be heavily overrepresented among the sexually overambitious. The questions don't get into the sort of criminal harassment and abuse that some of the "predators" are alleged to have engaged in--people are understandably reluctant to legally indict themselves in surveys!--but they are suggestive.

The following graph shows attitudes in sexual permissiveness (and in the case of purchased sex, behavior) among Jews and Gentiles. Sample sizes for Gentiles are in the tens of thousands and for Jews in the several hundreds except for the question on premarital sex, which was only asked in four iterations of the survey. For it, the Jewish sample is just 89:

As Steve Sailer notes, it's important to keep supply and demand in mind. In industries where there are a lot of women around--especially young, nubile ones--they are easier to sexually exploit because there's always plenty more where that came from.

Movie and television actresses are famous mostly because at one point they were given the vanishingly rare opportunity to become famous. Pass on that rare opportunity, and there are thousands of others eager to take advantage of what the one passed up.

High-end female computer programmers, on the other hand, are hard to find, so when an organization is able to snap one up, it doesn't want to let her go because it will be hell to find someone to replace her.

GSS variables used: XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

Saturday, December 02, 2017

Jerks fornicate (but don't necessarily procreate)

++Addition++Heartiste has a lot to add.


In response to GSS data showing that criminals get more tail than those who follow the law do, Jig Bohnson wonders if it is merely a consequence of people at the bottom of society in general both rutting more and ending up in the slammer more:
There is no controlling for income or socioeconomic status here. Are we just seeing the effect of lower socioeconomic classes being more promiscuous? The prison population, white or otherwise, is drawn overwhelmingly from the lower strata of society.
The question was only asked in 2012, so the sample size is in the hundreds instead of the thousands or tens of thousands. Consequently there's a limit to how much drilling down can be done.

Generally speaking, there is virtually no difference in lifetime sexual partners by social class. From 2000 onward lower, working, middle, and upper class men all report a median number of lifetime sexual partners of five.

It's not clear, then, that lower classes are more promiscuous, especially given that they are less likely than middle and upper classes to be married and so correspondingly less likely to be putatively committed to fidelity to a single partner.

Looking at partner counts among men of the same social class provides further evidence that the answer to Jig's reasonable question is probably "no". The following graph shows the median number of lifetime female sexual partners among men who have and have not spent time behind bars, by social class. The sample sizes for lower and upper class respondents are small, but the trend is present across the social spectrum:

This does not, of course, speak to the quality of the women, only to the quantity.

Before the progressive enlightenment brought us women's liberation and the castration of the patriarchy, society had ways of keeping criminals and low-lifes away from nubile women at risk of spreading their legs for said criminals and low-lifes. With those ways having been crippled, criminals and low-lifes are free to prowl.

Interestingly, the deleterious effects of the sexual revolution may be neutralized by the salubrious effects--at least in this particular context--of modern contraception. While criminals and low-lifes do more fornicating, they do not appear to do more procreating. Among men aged 30 or older, those who have done time average 1.94 children while those who have not average 2.08 children.

GSS variables used: LOCKEDUP, SEX(1), NUMWOMEN(0-989), CLASS, AGE(30-89), CHILDS

To AE instead of JB?

Taking donations is not something I've done or will ever do. It's a zero-sum game and there are people trying to scrape a living together doing dissident right media who are infinitely more deserving.

However, if you're buying something from a vessel on that big river in South America and you'd prefer kicking a few dimes from that purchase my way instead of into Jeff Bezos' pocket, there is now a discrete link at the top of the permalink section of the blog that allows you to do that. Enter through that portal and then navigate and purchase as usual.

Thanks for the consideration.

Friday, December 01, 2017

Chicks dig jerks

++Addition++Heartiste has a lot to add.


Previously unbeknownst to me, in 2012 the GSS asked respondents if they "have ever spent any time in prison or jail".

Among men, the mean and median numbers of lifetime female sexual partners by whether or not they've done time (N = 642):

Okay, but there's obviously a potential racial confound in play here since blacks both do more lawbreaking and more rutting than non-blacks do.

The same, this time restricted to non-Hispanic white men (N = 435):

Maxim #70: Civilized, coddled chicks dig jerks. NAWALT, of course, but most are.

When I first began visiting the chateau, it was with the intention of discrediting what the great magnate wrote because I didn't want it to be true.

Over time, the scales fell from my eyes. Instead of cucking at windmills as had been my wont, I began incorporating the hard truths laid bare there. My life--and my marriage--are better for it.

The god of biomechanics laughs at your four pedestals. Game isn't inherently 'good' or 'evil'. It's a tool--or set of tools, really--that can be used to further a wide array of objectives. We win by playing better than our opponents, not by taking our ball and going home.

GSS variables used: NUMWOMEN(0-989), SEX(1), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), LOCKEDUP

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Free speech absolutism

I've previously created indices based on GSS responses to questions about whether various 'controversial' speakers should or should not be permitted to speak publicly.

The selection of five types of speakers does a pretty good job running the political gamut (atheists, communists, and homosexuals on the left; militarists and racists on the right). That means there are leftists who are fine with nihilistic commi faggots speaking but who don't want to extend the same courtesy to aspiring fuhrers, and vice versa, however, and that muddies things up.

Further, there are wide variances in general perceptions of what should be publicly permissible. At 86% support among the total population, homosexuals are given the green light. Only 61% say racists should be given first amendment protections, in contrast.

In attempt to deal with this, the following graphs show the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who are free speech absolutists. That is, they say members of all five 'controversial' groups should be permitted to speak publicly.

For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Because IQ ranges are based on wordsum scores, only those born in the US are considered for the five intelligence categories. White, black, and Asian racial categories are all restricted to non-Hispanics (N = 12,370):

Free speech is a high-IQ white and Jewish male thing. The double-digit IQ browning of America--the one Ben Shapiro doesn't care about--is creating a society increasingly characterized by restrictions on free expression with the likely eventual criminalization of speech deemed insufficiently woke.

Parenthetically, libertarianism is also a high-IQ white and Jewish male thing. Open borders are a disaster for libertarianism, which is why it has become an ideological pipeline from mainstream cuckery to the dissident right. Some libertarians like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux, Jeff Deist, and Lew Rockwell get this, but most of them do not. The last of the clueless libertarians (hi, Bryan Caplan!) who do not get it will be beaten to death by a copy of Human Action a vibrant New American, unencumbered by the NAP, just stole from him.

GSS variables used: SPKATH, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMIL, SPKCOM, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), COHORT(1920-1944)(1945-1964)(1965-1980)(1981-1994), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), BORN, SEX, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

B and D on Z

I want the cord cut. My wife pleads for baseball and NatGeo. So we've settled on Sling, a service that bills itself as "a la carte TV". It's $25 a month for our selections. Last night, through the course of a half-hour show, this ad played three times (at every break):

Trannies, miscegenation, fake americans, no white men--this one has it all.

The retro tube isn't one I watch much--every time I do, a post manifests--but while this commercial is loaded from beginning to end, it doesn't seem extraordinary or atypical in terms of what is acceptable in contemporary popular culture.

It was on my mind as I enjoyed Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire taking reader questions and chatting about issues that matter to ourselves and our posterity. My petty vanity aside, said ad is particularly relevant to this exchange (it's queued up so just click the center of the frame):

How can young whites with a shred of dignity be expected to do anything other than turn away from this new cultural revolution? The anti-white hate they marinate in is probably not fully appreciated by even the most based boomers like our two champions above. I still find myself surprised by it.

Making up barely half of their generational cohort, non-Hispanic whites face an uncertain future, one in which they can expect to be the recipients of nothing but disdain and disgust from the powers that be. Their backs are against the wall. They're halfway between 1950s America and 2010s South Africa. The former is in the rear view mirror. The latter is cresting the horizon.

Brimelow understandably disapproves of my casual reference to members of Gen Z as "zyklons" (Tim Wise isn't so judicious). He's running an invaluable but besieged organization on a shoestring budget. The last thing he needs--or immigration patriots in general need--is to be perceived as embracing Nazi aesthetics.

Zyklon* is intentionally provocative, but it's also intentionally ambiguous. In a way, it's perfectly suitable for Gen Z. Zyklon was originally used as a pesticide beginning in the 1880s. It wasn't modified for use as a weapon against humans until WWI, and then most infamously by Germany in WWII.

Gen Z may lead the way to an occidental renaissance, or it may be the generation that sees the West finally burned to the ground in a civilizational bloodletting that puts the wars of the 20th century to shame. The Derb and Brimelow respectively gesture towards each potential extreme.

* Parenthetically, I can't take credit for coining the term, which I saw floating around (though I forget precisely where) before ever making use of it myself.

Monday, November 27, 2017

O Israel

Via Steve Sailer, Israel's prime minister Netanyahu recently announced the country's intention to deport 40,000 "illegal infiltrators ... without their consent".

Israel has a population of a little over 8 million. The US has a population of nearly 330 million. Adjusting for population size, that'd be the equivalent of president Trump announcing an "accelerated removal" to send 1,500,000 infiltrators squatting in the US back to the countries they came from.

Israel already has a wall, of course. The colloquialism about them leaving us in the dust understates the reality. The dust they've kicked up will have long ago settled by the time we come shambling by it.

Q: What do you call someone who wants an ethnostate, a wall, and the mass deportation of illegal aliens living in the country?

A: An Israeli.

No hatred here. To the contrary, a begrudging admiration. We just want what (((you))) want. Is that too much to ask for?

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Because black y'all

Did not dindu nuffin
From a SurveyUSA poll conducted in the San Diego metro area on Trump intervening in China to pull the pampered thieves from UCLA out of the hot water they jumped into, we see an uncharacteristically strong level of support from a demographic group not generally favorable to him.

The percentages, by race, who say Trump did the right thing in intervening ("not sure" responses are omitted; N = 500):

But remember folks--color doesn't matter, ideology does!

Saturday, November 25, 2017

The Diversity Squad

The indispensable team that allows the Office of Diversity and Equity to do the invaluable work it does fighting the oppressive intolerance of intolerant oppression:

Cisgendered white men need not apply--to the contrary, what they need to do is die

The following is pulled from the calendar of upcoming events the irreplaceable office maintains.

Tuesday, November 28th:
- 1/2 past 10b: Trans and non-binary identities, feminism, and social justice movements
- Freeing the body: A vision

Wednesday, November 29th:
- Feminist parenting

Thursday, November 30th:
- Disabilities studies seminar
- Queer people of color mixer (refreshments provided)
- Global film festival

Tuesday, December 5th:
- Film: Dark girls

Wednesday, December 6th:
- Queer women's coffee klatsch

Thursday, December 7th:
- Gender seminar: Speaker Cecile Accilien, professor of African and African-American Studies on the topic of "Gender Identity in Haitian Hollywood"
- Queer students of color gathering


The above is my modest gift of additional material for future historians to use as they write The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire.

Friday, November 24, 2017

KU's Tunnel of Oppression

Following are excerpts from a letter entitled "A new accountability: We can, and will, be better" sent out to all students and faculty at the University of Kansas. Yes, it was sent out to all students, some of who forwarded it to me. KU's current enrollment is 28,447.

For readers whose last contact with academia took place a decade ago or longer, things have deteriorated more than you can possibly imagine. If so masochistically inclined, read the thing in its entirety:
Earlier this month, over a thousand students, faculty members, staff persons, and administrators toured the Tunnel of Oppression. Presented by the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the Tunnel is an annual immersive experience of interactive exhibits. Participants engage with different forms of oppression associated with disabilities, economic class, body image, gender, gender expression, sexuality immigration, race and ethnicity. 
Presumably there should be a comma between "sexuality" and "immigration", but I have to confess I'm not entirely sure it's an error in punctuation. Maybe it's intended to be read as written.
We left the tour with decisions to make as individuals and as KU leaders – do we stand idle and tolerate people being treated in a discriminatory manner? Or do we assert our leadership and purposefully act to create greater justice in our part of the world and beyond? We choose the latter and we need you to join us.
Do you accept Colin Kaepernick as Lord and Savior, or are you cast into the outer darkness?
What the Tunnel makes clear is that oppression is violence...and violence takes many forms.
We call opinions we don't like "oppression". Then we call oppression "violence". And then we respond accordingly--all in the name of social justice.
In this tour, for example, we experienced brutality visited upon children by police officers
Hands up, don't shoot.
... inadequate governmental responses to natural disasters in places such as Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico. While these multiple visual scenes of cruelty and subjugation were disturbing, equally difficult was the collective debriefing discussion that followed.
If the phrase "government inefficiency" isn't perfectly synonymous with "cruelty and subjugation", I don't know what is!

Yes, the victims suffered, but we are able to share equally in their suffering now. We are practically being whipped by cruel slave masters as we do this important work fighting oppression.
You see, even University administrators struggle with how to understand and do justice work. 
You see, even we high priestesses struggle with Sin. Last week, gays were oppressed. By resisting the creation of intersectional space to share with transpersons, some gays are tragically morphing into today's oppressors. We must help them learn.
As a global nation ...
... we see killings in a Walmart parking lot, a Texas church, Las Vegas concert, New York bikeway, Topeka, downtown Lawrence, and even at sea.
No mention of killings at a Tennessee church, in Dallas, in Kansas City, in San Bernardino, in (big apple) Manhattan, in Boston, etc. Who? Whom?
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center
The $PLC has a larger endowment than we do. They would know.
Like universities everywhere, KU is not immune. We have seen languages of terror scribbled on classroom walls, heard menacing words left on office voicemails, anonymous signage meant to incite our campus climate, and encountered unacceptable campus conduct.
Okay, we don't technically have any hard evidence of who the perpetrators in these incidents are. Rest assured, though, that our Haters--unlike those losers down the road in Manhattan--are cisgendered white gentiles. With blond hair and blue eyes. Named Haven Monahan.
What you can do today:

Use the newly created Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Calendar to find workshops, speakers, and other ways of becoming informed and engaged on campus. You can also enroll in courses that broaden your knowledge such as the many classes offered through the departments of African and African American Studies, American Studies, Indigenous Studies, and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
Worth every penny of the more than $1,400,000,000,000 in outstanding student loan debt currently loaded on the backs of America's baristas and Twitch players.
Let’s hold ourselves accountable for what we do and what we tolerate.
Sometimes to "tolerate" we must accept. Other times to "tolerate" we must reject. Remember, tolerance is about Who? Whom?
Oppression’s harmful words and cruelty occur and persist because political leaders, executives, board members, administrators and managers, supervisors, school superintendents, directors, teachers, students and others make everyday decisions to stay silent, maintain ignorance, disbelieve, foster it and/or leave it to others to address.
I had pop-tarts for breakfast so I'm having word salad for lunch.
Oppression is part of the US system of higher education. It is embedded in the unfairness of financial need.
Surely you did not think I was merely a cultural Marxist, did you? My Marxism needs no qualification.
Engage with any of our offices, such as the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Center for Sexuality and Gender Diversity, and the Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity.
If you are a cisgendered white male, ensure your chains are securely fastened before shuffling in on your knees to prostrate yourself at the feet of those you oppress.
Faculty and staff can join the ranks of Social Justice Fellows.
Sounds pretty sexist.
It also negates the lived KU experiences for those minoritized and marginalized student, faculty, and staff populations that are persistently and disproportionately subject to varied forms of oppression and its harmful effects.
There is nothing more minoritized than a six-figured ($173,730 last year) black lesbian female professor of American Studies and African Studies and African-American Studies like myself. Despite the harmful effects of varied forms of oppression, I have three majors. I should earn seven-figures. That I do not shows how much work we still have to do.
Oppression hurts us all, some more than others.
Orwell spins in his grave.
Sometimes the weight of hardship makes it hard for us to get past the obstacles, but that is not a reason to stall progress. We can, and will, be better.
Si, se puede.
We are enhancing resources for KU’s queer, trans and non-conforming gender community; undocumented students; students with disabilities; and those who are confronting food insecurity.
So we are enhancing resources for the mentally ill, foreign invaders, affirmative action babies, and land whales (no one on an American college campus has food insecurity brought on by a lack of food; it's the insecurity regarding the maximum weight load of the elevator that is at issue here). Got it?
Jennifer Hamer 
Vice Provost for Diversity and Equity; Professor, American Studies and African and African American Studies
Vice Provost with a triple major and I can't even make a million dollars a year? Only in the oppressive states of America is this sort of exploitation be tolerated.

We can be better, we must be better, we will be better!

++Addition++Steve Sailer notes it's the middle-tier State U.s on down that go for this Hall of Oppression dreck. The top-tier schools don't touch it.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Color trumps ideology

In the post on millennials, I overlooked perhaps the most important data set included in the primary source. It wasn't fully fleshed out in the report the GenForward released, but the complete results are there in the topline survey (thanks to commenter milan for the heads-up).

Respondents were asked to select their "top three most important" identities from a list of eight. The full results are on page 17 of the topline, but there are three of the eight I find especially remarkable. These are race/ethnicity, ideology, and American nationality.

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by race, who included each one among their top three from the list of eight. Keep in mind these are responses from those aged 18-34--millennials and the leading edge of zyklons:

Ben color-doesn't-matter-ideology-does Shapiro wept. And civic nationalism died.

They're not African-Americans or Asian-Americans, they're Africans in America and Asians in America.

When the boomers finally combust into oblivion, civic nationalism will flame out with them. The future will be the one the late Lee Kuan Yew described. It will then be able to burn out in the open, in all its babylonic glory:
In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
None of this had to happen. Fielding a reader's question, the Z-Man dropped four words of unadulterated profundity:
Q: If you were to travel through time to visit Madison at the convention and inform him of the result of his experiment, what advice would you offer him?

A: Pick your own cotton.
Through 1965, things were stable enough. One-tenth of the population was as well assimilated to Anglo mores and values as could reasonably be expected, and subsidization from the white supermajority appeared viable into the indefinite future.

The country's fate was truly sealed over the last five decades. The left chose to bring in foreign ringers to put them in positions of power instead of allowing the natives to pick who their leaders would be. The right decided it'd be better for The Economy to have brown peons pick their crops.

Not the racial consciousness we're after
The country is still shambling along, but the internal bleeding is so severe that collapse is a question of "when?" rather than of "if?".

Though America as a unified political entity will go extinct, heritage Americans need not do the same. Millennials are the nadir. Plenty of indicators suggest Gen Z is going to be an improvement, possibly a drastic one. Yet even among white millennials, 40% are racially conscious. That's not nothing.

On the other hand, many of those 40% could be conscious in an ethnomasochistic way, but the intention is to wrap up with something positive, so enough dwelling on that!

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Nicholas Kristof strikes out

He is seriously misleading at best:

Charitably, "often" isn't intended to be synonymous with "tend to", "usually", or any other word or phrase that indicates liberals are more likely to live 'family values' than conservatives do. Instead, Kristof is taken to be merely stating the bland and obvious fact that there are some liberals who often family value better than some conservatives do, just as there are some women who are taller than some men.

To continue with the undeserved grant of magnanimity, it must also be assumed that the evidence offered--that these indicators tend to look better in blue states than in red states--is incidental to the assertion rather than serving as evidence for it.

One obvious reason for the blue state-red state disparities is that red states are 26% blacker than blue states are. The larger black populations in red states make all of the indicators Kristof mentions worse than the smaller black populations in blue states do, but the black populations in those red states--like blacks everywhere--overwhelmingly vote for the left.

Another reason is laid out in Andrew Gelman's book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State which, using data from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, shows that while across the country Republicans tend to be wealthier than Democrats, that trend is more pronounced in red states than it is in blue states.

That is, in blue states there isn't much difference in class and status between Democrat and Republican voters. In red states, however, Republicans tend to be of higher status and social class than Democrats.

Given the positive relationship between wealth and desirable outcomes on the indicators Kristof includes, this means that--especially in red states--it is those on the left who are disproportionately having the teen births, getting divorced, cheating on spouses, and renting hookers. Kristof is attributing the poor outcomes largely caused by these mostly Democrat voters in red states--where leftists tend to congregate at the bottom of the social order--on conservatives in general.

Using the GSS, the following tables show, by political orientation, the percentages of first births conceived by teenage parents, the percentages of ever-married people who were either divorced or separated at their time of participation in the survey*, the percentages who have cheated on a spouse, and the percentages who have paid for sex. The first table shows total population results. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are large--the smallest N for any of the results presented is 3,946:

The second table shows the same restricted to non-Hispanic whites:

Kristof goes 0-for-4. Self-identified conservatives do a better job embodying the family values they "preach" than self-identified liberals do.

* This method counts those who've remarried as "married" rather than as "divorced" or "separated". It consequently understates the number of marriages that have ended in divorce or separation but there is no obvious reason why this should systematically 'favor' liberals or conservatives in terms of perceived marital success.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), MARITAL(1,3,4), AGEKDBRN(10-19), EVPAIDSX, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR(2000-2016), POLVIEWS(1-2)(5-6)

Saturday, November 18, 2017

White woes

Via Z-Man, more generational survey data to chew on. This one explicitly and almost exclusively focuses on race among those aged 18-34 (mostly millennials but also the leading edge of Gen Z), so I'll make a tl;dr series of observations on it here.

- Cathy J. Cohen is the founder and principal investigator of the survey, so it's not particularly surprising that "Latinx" is used throughout in lieu of the more conventional "Hispanic" or "Latino". Incidentally, the plural of Latinx is "Latinxs" rather than "Latinxes". I wouldn't have thought! Taking a cue from Jordan Peterson, "Hispanic" will continue to be used as the description of choice here, though.

Nor is it surprising that in the section asking about which ethnic--yes, (((ethnic))), not racial--groups have the most economic power in the country, "Jews" are not included among the list of potential choices. "Whites" are and they come in on top, followed by Asians.

It's also unsurprising that the survey deals with sex differences in the following manner. Sample excerpt, my emphasis:
... signaling an important and consequential divide between Millennials that identify as men and women ...
However, no variation of the pronoun "Xir" appears in the survey, suggesting that at least one of Cohen's grandparents is a gentile.

Speaking of identifying, the string "identi"--not counting a single occurrence in the word "presidential"--shows up 29 times in the survey report. The cucks urging those on the right to reject identity politics are doing a tired Rush Limbaugh redux from the nineties. It was quixotic then and it's suicidal now.

Identitarianism is the future. Find your team now or prepare to be hanged alone in the future.

- A majority--52%--of blacks identify "racism" from a list of 22 possible choices as one of the top three most important problems in the contemporary US, with 29% of blacks identifying it as the single most important problem in the country (health care comes in at a distant second, at 13%).

No matter what happens, this will never end. No amount of prostration to or deification of blacks will mollify them. Transferring trillions more in various welfare programs from non-blacks to blacks won't do it, either. It's with us as long as blacks are with us.

Large numbers of Hispanics and Asians--33% and 32%, respectively--also put racism in the top three. All racial problems in the US will continue to accentuate rather than ameliorate as time goes on.

In contrast, the issue of "women's rights" gets single-digits across the color spectrum, with just 4% of the total survey pool prioritizing it.

"Military strength" is another one that elicits yawns, with only 5% of respondents pointing to it. It's going to be increasingly difficult for an internal empire of squabbling tribes to maintain a functioning external empire outside its own crumbling borders.

- While there's scarcely a more reliable social formula than Diversity + Proximity = War, lots of millennials don't think Diversatopia can come fast enough. Interestingly, whites and blacks--Old Stock Americans--are more wary of increasing Diversity! than the new settlers are:

Pulled directly from the survey--color scheme designed to be unintuitive as Noticing is evil
- While a slight plurality, 23%-19%, of whites think ill of Black Lives Matter, non-whites are supportive. Blacks cheer BLM on 56%-5%. Hispanics and Asians do, too, by respective margins of 27%-10% and 43%-11%. Natural Republicans, those Asians are!

- White support for free speech and non-white opposition to it is a hobby horse of mine, and this survey doesn't disappoint.

The following graph shows free speech index scores derived from responses to the statement that "All groups should be entitled to hold parades and demonstrations, even if they represent causes most Americans oppose, such as communism, Nazis, or white supremacy". The index scores are created by assigning +2 points for "strongly agree" responses, +1 point for "somewhat agree", 0 points for "somewhat disagree", and -1 point for "strongly disagree":

- There's often consternation expressed among media types who report on the rightward shift of white Gen Zers. It's compounded by the fact that on the chic social issues of the day like same-sex marriage and drug legalization, Zyklons aren't "conservative" at all. But on issues of identity, they are (in the generally accepted parlance--as Richard Spencer argues, it's not clear why identitarianism is right or left, it's simply an inevitable necessity brought on by increasing diversity). They are more so than millennials, Gen Xers, and possibly even Boomers.

When America was over 80% white, special privileges for non-whites weren't something that effected--and affected--most whites. Only those on the very bottom of society had much to lose. That America is long gone.

In today's disUnited States of Diversity, white Zyklons are teetering on the edge of minority status. Special privileges for non-whites threatens the prospects of the vast majority of them. They're reacting accordingly.

To the question "Do you agree or disagree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities?", whites split almost evenly with 48% agreeing and 51% disagreeing. These responses are mostly from millennials, with a dash of the front end of Gen Z thrown in. I suspect that whites currently in junior high and high school will push that "agree" figure over 50% in the coming years, probably drastically so.

- Individualism is a(n outbred) white thing. The following table shows an individualism index score, by race, computed by taking percentages of respondents who said they are "not very similar" to other members of their own race and subtracting it from the percentages of respondents who said they are "very similar" to other members of their own race. The higher the score, the more individualistic the group:


If the "Asian" category didn't amalgamate people as disparate as the Japanese and Sri Lankans, the Asian score would likely move down towards NAM levels.

Diversatopia is necessarily collectivist, lolbertarians be damned.

- Relatedly, while 85% of whites think whites and non-whites "share common problems and can be political allies", just 49% of non-whites think the same.

That's right, a slim majority of non-whites think white and non-whites cannot be political allies. Ekow Yankah is speaking on behalf of huge numbers of non-whites.

Political dissolution now or later, then?

Friday, November 17, 2017

Liberalism is a mental disorder?

The apoplectic reaction to the questionable allegations about Roy Moore from nearly four decades ago is something to behold. To the extent they are accurate, they are evidence of a healthy--perhaps too healthy!--male sex drive, the kind of thing normal men fantasize about. This is in stark contrast to the pathological degeneracy of Weinstein and Louis CK, men who engaged in behavior that is repugnant to well-nigh everyone.

Some of the hatred for Moore is so viscerally unhinged as to suggest mental illness in those expressing it. Indeed, liberals have worse mental health than conservatives do. The percentages of whites who report having experienced poor mental health in the previous 30 days, by political orientation (N = 5,530; for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward):

Among those who suffer from especially poor mental health--experiencing it at least 15 of the last 30 days--the differences by political orientation are even more pronounced. Again for whites since 2000:

A sitting senator, Bob Menendez, is alleged to have paid for underage prostitutes while occupying his august position. The current case ended in mistrial, but the evidence against Menendez is stronger than it is against Moore, and Menendez is said to have been engaged in this stuff last year, not last century.

Who? Whom? explains a lot, but the audacity of such blatantly selective outrage still seems remarkable.

Parenthetically, Who? Whom? is not synonymous with partisanship--not even close in this case. Mitch McConnell is calling for Moore to drop out of the Alabama senate race but hasn't called for Menendez to resign the senate seat he currently holds! He hasn't called for Al Franken to, either.

The special election in December is the current active front in the middle American insurgency against the bipartisan Cloud People. We can imagine the extent to which Moore's anti-establishment shitlord instincts are being accentuated through this process. Or we can simply watch the man in action.

If he wins, he'll work to make their lives a living hell. It's why he must win.

GSS variables used: MNLTHLTH(0)(15-30), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), POLVIEWS(1-2)(3-5)(6-7)

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Double-digit increase in anti-White hate crime from 2015 to 2016

From recently released FBI hate crime statistics, we find the number of white hate crime (HC) offenders declined by 3.0% from 2015 to 2016 while the number of black hate crime offenders grew by 15.2% over the same time period.

Similarly, the number of anti-White hate crime incidents increased 14.9% between 2015 and 2016 while the number of anti-Black hate crime incidents marginally decreased by 0.3% over the same time period.

HC offenders who are...Δ'15-'16

Incidents of...Δ'15-'16
Anti-White HC+14.9%
Anti-Black HC-0.3%

Trump is obviously to blame here. All the supporters he brought out to rallies or just around town in their MAGA gear were fostering an oppressive atmosphere of hate. It is poetic justice, then, that these haters turned out to be the victims of the hatred they so hatefully released unto the world!

Parenthetically, in absolute numbers blacks are heavily overrepresented both as perpetrators of and victims of hate crimes. The sliver of crime with the designated "hate" prefix is politically charged, primarily serving as a way of making black criminality and victimology appear much more sympathetic towards blacks than figures on total criminality do.

Comprising far less than 1% of all crime, hate crimes tell us little about the actual nature of criminality in the country. The directional changes are worth noting, however.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Epigonian aesthetics

Commenter Candide III:
Please, Anepigone, please don't do this to graphs. Yes, the numbers are there, but visual impressions count, and your graph, with the bottom at 40%, gives the misleading impression that the Mohammedans' support is only half of even blacks' (never mind that all this is self-reported and not revealed-preference) when really the ratio of the largest to the smallest bar is less than two. It's bad enough that everyone else does this with the small print, but Carlylean veracity is the only way for us.
Here is the graph he's referring to:

The sentiment is well received. The main reason it was presented as such in this particular case is because the questions considered were dichotomous ones without "don't know", "no opinion", etc as possible responses. To have visually expressed this across a fully displayed y-axis would've looked like this:

The numbers are all plainly included so it's not much of a bait-and-switch. If the worry is that it'll leave a skewed impression for those who don't give it more than a glance, well, I'm not writing in a scientific publication and I do have a subjective position on just about everything that is posted on.

Here are a couple of other ways the same data could've been presented. This one possibly would've been more objectionable (it's not uncommon for polling outfits to restrict the upper end of the y-axis):

And this one definitely would have been:

That it's a coin toss as to whether or not a Muslim living in America thinks controversial speakers should be permitted to speak in public and that 1-in-3 NAMs believes they should be precluded from doing so is quite jolting for a lot of people, and my intention is to design the graphic accordingly.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Monday, November 13, 2017

Free speech and the Coalition of the Fringes

The following graph shows free speech index scores by selected demographic characteristics.

The index is a simple average of the percentage of respondents who said that five different categories of controversial advocates should be allowed to speak publicly. The higher the score, the more supportive of free speech the group is. The five categories are pretty well balanced politically with three on the 'far left' (atheists, homosexuals, and communists) and two on the 'far right' (racists and militarists). For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 11,930):

Moderate and conservative whites are grouped together because their scores are so similar (73.6 and 74.8, respectively) that separating them out unnecessarily cluttered up the graph.

The first amendment is the Coalition of the Fringes' thermal exhaust port. That's where it will be blown up.

Blacks shouting down the ACLU with chants of "liberalism is white supremacy"; Bernie Sanders being shut down by a couple of sassy land whales in Seattle; BEANERs DREAMERs humiliating Nancy Pelosi at a televised speaking event; countless numbers of liberal academics being swarmed and interrogated by miscreant mobs of blacks and browns--these incidents and others like them should be mentioned whenever the opportunity presents itself.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)