Tuesday, June 27, 2017

The African century

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 25, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Color matters, contra Shapiro

Here's Ben Shapiro's silly assertion again:

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

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

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

Among pro-life voters:

Those opposed to same-sex marriage:

Those opposed to income redistribution:

Those against drug legalization:

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

Among self-identified political conservatives:

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

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

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

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Prescribing proscriptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beware the Ire of Deplorables.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Are atheists addicted to socialism?

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

High IQ Jews are extremely pro-choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

At it again?

Reuters-Ipsos presidential approval polling results from last week:

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

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

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

Compare that to the 2016 exit poll results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Silly Shapiro

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

"Color doesn't matter. Ideology does."

Hmm, let's evaluate that.

How pro-life blacks and whites voted in 2012:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Oy vey, Jews are abortion aficionados

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, June 16, 2017

Kids and human nature

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Facebook unpersons James Hodgkinson; continues to proudly promote Jeremy Christian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

No more stupid bear baiting

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

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

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


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

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

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



For God and country

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 11, 2017

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia200%
United Arab Emirates11%
Western Sahara0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Strap on the greaves and ignore the ankle biters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, June 09, 2017

Gaucho glomming Gringos

In addition to asking respondents to racially self-identify from among 16 categories, including "White", "Hispanic", and "Other", the GSS separately asks respondents if they are "Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/Latina".

The following graph shows the percentages of those who racially identified as "White" (rather than as "Hispanic" or "Other") who, when asked whether or not they were "Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/Latina" responded that they were (in white) and the percentage of the total population that chose to racially identify as "Hispanic" or "Other" (in brown), by year:

Parenthetically, adding those two lines together gets us to the total Hispanic share of the country's entire population.

This admittedly is not what I'd expected to find when running the numbers. I'd expected to see a flight from White, but the survey shows the opposite, with more than twice the proportion of racial whites identifying as ethnically Hispanic today compared to a couple of decades ago.

Pew likely has part of the explanation:
When it comes to describing their identity, most Hispanics prefer their family’s country of origin over pan-ethnic terms. Half (51%) say that most .often they use their family’s country of origin to describe their identity. That includes such terms as "Mexican" or "Cuban" or "Dominican," for example. Just one-quarter (24%) say they use the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" to most often to describe their identity. And 21% say they use the term "American" most often.
It looks like, then, that most Hispanics prefer racially identifying as "White" instead of "Hispanic" or "Other", and this predilection hasn't shifted much in the last couple of decades. The increases we see in both the racially white, ethnically Hispanic and the racially Hispanic, ethnically Hispanic are in part a function of the overall browning of the country [which must stop--they have to go back].

Still, it is surprising to see that the racially white, ethnically Hispanic contingent has grown faster than the racially Hispanic, ethnically Hispanic contingent has.

"Hispanic" as a racial identifier is problematic given that it's not a race per se. "Amerindian" would be better, but in the US there is a perceived racial difference between the Spanish-speaking descendants of Aztecs working on roofs and the English-speaking descendants of the Navajo working in reservation casinos. This perceived difference is, dare I say, largely a social construct.

Brown (left). Red (right).

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(15-16), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), YEAR

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Celestial purge

Mean number of president Trump tweets per day, by month (through the 6th of June):

After a couple months of executive order flurries, Trump got bogged down in the swamp. Instead of drowning the murk dwellers, he started cozying up to them. Predictably, they stabbed him in the front, sides, and back every time he got within arm's reach.

Trump's much attuned to what is directly in front of his face at the moment. It's better for us (and Western civilization) if that consists of memelords on twitter than if it's the murk dwellers hanging out in the cabal coffers of the Imperial Capital.

The murk dwellers know this, so they feign embarrassment and frustration over how Trump isn't acting "presidential" when he takes to social media. A lot of naive cucks foolishly believe this and they, too, urge Trump to put his phone away. Never take freely offered advice from your enemies.

Every single word out of their mendacious mouths is intended to contribute to Trump's downfall.

The god-emperor is onto them:

The man learns from his mistakes.

Monday, June 05, 2017

Global population growth is African population growth

In the comments to the previous post, RC writes:
Are you implying an increased anthropogenic carbon emission from a growing population? If so, it makes more sense to show growth by total population, not by percent change.

Also, the regional breakdown should consider per capita carbon emissions, which certainly varies from continent to continent (Africa being the lowest per capita). From an emissions and pop growth perspective, Asia seems to be far more a concern. Though, as Africa develops, their per capita emissions will grow.

If your point is more generally about overpopulation and consequent environmental pressures, that's been a discussion on the left since The Population Bomb in the late 1960's, though not always a popular one.
There's little difference between talking about the growth of the African population and the growth of the global population--Africa is projected to account for a staggering 83% of the nearly 4 billion net additional humans that will be added to the world in the next 85 years.

As noted previously, my guess is that actual population growth on the dark continent will be higher than those predictions (barring Malthusian catastrophe or game-changing technological breakthrough), as they're based on the assumption that Africa will become comparable to the rest of the developed world in a century. That's how the UN gets TFR figures for Africa that are almost indistinguishable from anywhere else in the world by 2100.

If my higher estimate comes to pass, we'd also expect the per capita emissions of the (even) larger African population to be lower, since population growth will occur in place of the formally anticipated but unrealized development.

On the other hand, we'll likely have experienced The Camp of the Saints squared by the end of the century. It's hard to predict how that will play out, but a lot of Africa's burgeoning population will find its way out of Africa and into more developed places, specifically Europe and North America (because Asia will largely refuse to allow them in). The carbon footprint of those migrants will correspondingly be higher than the per capita footprint of people still in Africa.

To speak of "overpopulation" in a generic sense is to avoid the African elephant (Boo! Hiss!) in the room. The left used to talk about overpopulation. As it has become politically incorrect to do so it's not something that's done so much anymore:

It's said that the 20th century was the American Century and that the 21st century will be the Chinese Century. It may yet, though, be the African Century:

Sunday, June 04, 2017

No stopping climate change without stopping demographic change

My recently assembled method of screening out people who are putatively angry and frustrated by Trump's intention to withdrawal the US from the Paris "climate justice" Agreement follows.


Firstly, explain how the following factors into your concern about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and what remedial steps should be taken to address it:

Secondly, do you oppose research for and development of nuclear power generation?


If a thoughtful response is proffered to the first request and an unequivocal "no" is given in answer to the subsequent question, it's time to engage in serious conversation.

If not, it's time to move on--the person I was talking to had likely already fled by this point anyway.

Parenthetically, the UN's estimate of Africa's population growing from 1.2 billion today to 4.4 billion in 85 years is predicated on the assumption that by the turn of the century African fertility will have fallen to replacement level. The TFR projection in the year 2100 is 2.27 for Nigeria (from 5.74 today), 1.79 for Ethiopia (from 4.59 today), 2.13 for the Congo (from 6.15 today), etc.

Excepting a Malthusian catastrophe or a revolutionary technological breakthrough on the order of scalable nuclear fusion or accessible health- and intelligence-enhancing genetic engineering, that magnitude of fertility depression should be viewed skeptically, to put it mildly.

Finally, from the agreement:
Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.
Why yes, of course!

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Peak leftism among atheists?

It may be that militant atheism has turned conservatives away from secularism. It may also be that as conservatism has increasingly come to be associated with religiosity, secularists have found there are vanishingly few spiritually like-minded people in their ranks who are on the political right. Figures like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have, as a consequence, have naturally risen up to speak for a lot of atheists.

The following graph shows the percentages of atheists and agnostics, by decade of birth, who politically self-identify as "extremely liberal" or "liberal" (blue) and "extremely conservative" or "conservative" (red):

Milo Yiannopolous, who knows teenage boys well (boo, hiss!), has asserted on multiple occasions that generation Z (those born in the mid-nineties on) are pushing back against SJWism. Many of them are not believers, however. The alt right--leading figures like Vox Day excepted--is not particularly religious, either. It is also largely made up of men under the age of forty. 

We see evidence here, then, that secularism as a thing of the political left and piety a thing of the right may have peaked with late Xers and early millennials and is now moving in a more Nietzschean direction.

GSS variables used: POLVIEWS(1-2)(5-6), COHORT(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1998), GOD(1-2)

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Bill Nye can't deny Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats

++Addition2++See Emil Kirkegaard's post on the problems with asserting greater scientific literacy based on a crude, simple count.

I understand as much. The assertion is tongue-in-cheek. When it comes to multivariate analyses of disparate data sets, I'm playing checkers in a game of chess. Without downloading the full data set I'm not even sure how I'd do that, nor do I plan to try. I'm just looking at wins and losses on individual questions without looking at passer ratings, penalty yards, or even point spreads.

The intention of this post is primarily polemic in nature. The takeaway: Democrats are not "pro-science" and Republicans "anti-science", whatever those identifiers mean. It's more, ahem, nuanced than that.

++Addition++Jon Claerbout pointed out that I misread the question on the greenhouse effect.

I was interpreting it as getting after the earth's surface becoming hotter due to depletion in the ozone layer and how solar radiation passes through the upper atmosphere. That majorities answered inline with that incorrect reading is probably why I lazily assumed it was right. On closer inspection, it's clear that he's correct and I'd inverted the correct answer rates in the table.

I've corrected the error and adjusted the partisan 'score' accordingly. I apologize for the sloppiness and appreciate the correction.


Several years ago I looked at a battery of questions from the GSS concerning scientific literacy and found that Republicans to be more scientifically knowledgeable than Democrats, whites more scientifically knowledgeable than non-whites (including Asians), and men more scientifically knowledgeable than women.

Pointing out that Republicans, whites, and men are the most scientifically well-informed demographic groups was fun a decade ago. It's even more fun in The Current Year, filled as it is with Marches For Science and self-proclaimed Science Guys using anthropomorphic ice cream cones to engage in decidedly unscientific make-believe.

So I'm going to update the tables using additional questions and subsequent years of collected data. Scouring the survey turns up 26 questions, most of which were asked five times from 2006 to 2016, though there are some exceptions as noted below. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from the turn of the millennium onward.

This post will look at partisan affiliation since that deals with the left's putative trump (heh) card. Most people know science is and has historically been a white man's wheelhouse. Like so much else SWPLs love the idea of loving, that white men do it best has the tendency to make things a little... awkward.

To avoid any attention being paid to that awkwardness, a group of putatively ignorant and/or evil group of people must be identified and ridiculed, in this case as official Science Deniers. As they so often do, Republicans stand in as that ignorant and/or evil group of people. And most Republicans are white men, don't you know?

Some of the questions in the table are inverted for viewer ease so that in all cases presented here, the higher the percentage, the more knowledgeable the group is. That is not the case in the survey, however, so some sort of positivity bias isn't confounding the results.

The items are presented alphabetically by variable for the 14 questions that have been asked every iteration of the survey since 2006 and then alphabetically by variable for the remaining 12 questions that have been asked in one or some number of years from 2000 onward, with included years in parentheses following the item description. Bolded red figures indicate greater knowledge among Republicans; bolded blue figures greater knowledge among Democrats:

Astrology is not scientific72.761.3
Father, not mother, determines a child's sex76.269.4
Continental drift has and continues to occur86.590.2
The earth revolves around the sun81.176.4
Electrons are smaller than atoms70.768.7
Humans evolved from other animals39.957.8
Understands the need for control groups in testing82.380.3
The earth's core is very hot95.393.3
Lasers are not made by condensing sound waves73.261.1
Demonstrates a basic understanding of probability92.586.1
Demonstrates a modestly more advanced understanding of probability80.676.0
Not all radioactivity is man-made87.377.0
It takes the earth one year to rotate around the sun78.074.1
Antibiotics do not kill viruses65.051.2
Respondent does not refuse to eat genetically modified foods (2006)72.661.4
Genetics play a substantial role in determining personality (2004)25.126.0
Not all radioactivity is fatal to humans (2000)76.067.2
The greenhouse effect is not caused by a hole in the earth's atmosphere (2000)38.742.7
The use of coal and oil contributes to the greenhouse effect (2000)68.574.8
Polar ice caps have shrunk over the last 25 years (2006, 2010)93.491.8
The north pole is on a sheet of ice (2006, 2010)57.667.7
Demonstrates a basic understanding of nanotechnology (2006, 2008, 2010)86.588.4
Demonstrates a modestly more advanced understanding of nanotechnology (2006, 2008, 2010)77.479.3
It is not perpetually dark at the south pole (2006, 2010)89.086.2
Not all artificial chemicals cause cancer (2000)53.951.5
Understands that non-GMO tomatoes still have genetic material (2010)73.464.6

Final score: Republicans 18, Democrats 8.

The Republicans-are-scientifically-illiterate trope is primarily predicated on two issues--human evolution and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The former is clearly evinced here, the latter not so much.

The GSS treats warming as a theory and consequently only asks questions about what groups or types of people are informed on the debate, etc. To get direct questions on climate change (which was referred to as "global warming" at the time) we have to go back to 2000 when the phrase "greenhouse effect" was bandied about. My how things--climate included--change over time!

Every bit as Diverse as the Democrat electorate!
White Democrats know the politically correct and scientifically incorrect response when it comes to genetics and personality, but large numbers of non-whites either do not or simply don't care about the politically correct answer.

We will make the types of leftists who show up at the Marches For Science feel better about themselves in a subsequent post. I'm sure you can guess how.


Sunday, May 28, 2017

Memorial Day for [redacted]

[Redacted]'s Date with Diversity

Season 8, episode 7--the golden age.

This post has been updated to comply with the hosting company's demand that violence not be advocated by any of its users. I'm of the opinion that was never the case, but Blogger has given me countless hours of entertainment for free, so what could it possibly owe me? If anything, I owe it!

GSS suggests conservative men are taller than liberals, moderates

Also about the strength issue: Jews do verbal combat. Jews often have paranoid fantasies/nightmares about burly goys ganging up on them. So even though Jews clearly have a status advantage in most times and places, this is rarely based on an intimidating physique. The inability of Jews to have literally greater stature than gentiles feeds into their nerdy Marxist tendencies which belie the actual privilege of Jews.

Regardless of a particular demo's political inclinations, one would expect that within that demo, the smaller someone is in literal and figurative stature, the more averse they will be to real conservatism.
In 2014 the GSS asked respondents how tall they were. Mean height for Jewish and Goy men (n = 15 and 555, respectively):


Mean height for liberal, moderate, and conservative men (n = 108, 215, and 111):


The sample sizes and differences are both small--exceedingly so in the case of Jews and non-Jews--so take this with a grain of salt. Since the numbers have been run, though, they may as well be shared.

For whatever it's worth, the 1.3 inch mean difference between liberal and conservative men is about 0.4 standard deviations, the equivalent of about 6 IQ points. Racial differences explain half the difference. Conservative white men have 0.7 inches on liberal white men.

And since we're looking at small sample sizes and modest differences, let's throw in average number of children by how GSS interviewers rated the attractiveness of female respondents in 2016 (n = 1,474):

Women's looksChildren

Plain janes are (barely) beating fuglies, so there's that, though there's no evidence from the survey that the country is getting any prettier.

GSS variables used: HEIGHT, SEX, RLOOKS(1-2)(3)(4-5), RELIG(1-2,4-9)(3), POLVIEWS(1-2)(4)(6-7)

Friday, May 26, 2017

Jews are not nihilists

On their most recent podcast, Kevins Grace and Steel asserted, in the context of a long discussion on George Soros, that Jews are particularly nihilistic.

If so, they sure are diligent, deliberate, and effortful in attaining meaningless worldly success. Come to think of it, Kefka's character was based in large part on Soros!

The percentage who "strongly disagree" with the statement "In my opinion, life does not serve any purpose", by religious identification (n = 3,756):

It may be argued that they'll sell purposelessness to the goyim, but it's not something members of the tribe fall for themselves. Purpose for me but not for thee, just like it is when it comes to eugenics.

Parenthetically, in anticipation of the objection that irreligious Jews are actually being represented in the preceding graph as "None"rather than as "Jewish", that may account for some number of ethnic but non-religious Jews, but not the majority of them. Those who religiously identify as Jewish are a strikingly irreligious bunch. Percentages who firmly believe in God's existence, by religious identification:

GSS variables used: RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(5-13), GOD(6), NIHILISM(5)

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Gays don't see fidelity, monogamy as intrinsic to marriage

Since the GSS began explicitly asking about sexual orientation in 2008, I've been tracking it alongside rates of marriage infidelity. Every other homosexual has cheated on a spouse while just 1-in-7 heterosexuals have. That figure has stayed remarkably consistent over the five iterations of the survey that have been completed from 2008 through 2016.

A common objection to the conclusion that homosexuals have different expectations for the institution of marriage than heterosexuals do is that gays being surveyed may have been in Will and Grace-style marriages before same-sex marriage was legalized through judicial fiat. Now that their lifestyles have been normalized, they'll be no more likely to cheat on spouses they're romantically interested in than straight people are.

Having actually interacted with gay men, that strikes me as total nonsense. Open relationships, if not the norm among buggers, are at least quite common. The expectation of an open relationship between man and wife is an unusual exception. That's not at all the case among homosexuals.

Fortunately, the GSS also asks respondents how they feel, morally, about extramarital affairs. The following graph shows the percentages, by sexual orientation, who identify it as "always wrong". All responses are from 2008 onward, after same-sex marriage had been legalized in multiple states and it had become obvious to everyone that it was only a matter of time before leviathan would bless it nationwide:

Homosexuals simply don't view marriage as definitionally monogamous. This was a leading argument against same-sex marriage put forth by badwhites who futilely opposed same-sex marriage in the early- and mid-2000s. They asserted that the lax standards characterizing gay relationships would seep into societal expectations for the institution of marriage itself if gays were permitted to marry one another. Their concerns were snarkily dismissed as homophobic fear-mongering, but they've been proven right and the sodomite apologists proven wrong.

That won't make any difference, of course. The cultural ratchet only turns one direction--always to the left, towards humanity-denying equalism.

With same-sex marriage taken care of, the next major push will either be for the normalization of pedophilia or open marriages. My money is on the latter coming first. The New York Times promotes it fairly frequently, most recently a couple of weeks ago in an article entitled "Is an open marriage a happier marriage?"

When the Muslim population in the US grows large enough, the push for polygamy will get going as well. At the moment, though, its association with Mormonism is keeping it off the table.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, XMARSEX(1)

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Social class and fertility in 21st century America

Several years ago I looked at fertility among whites by sex and intelligence (as measured by Wordsum scores) and found that to the extent that the trend is dysgenic, it is almost exclusively so among women. Among whites, high IQ men have as many children as low IQ men do. That's not the case for women, and education--rather than intelligence per se--looks like the 'culprit'.

A basic understanding of mating market dynamics makes this easy to comprehend. Many men have no problem marrying 'down' in status. It often makes for a happier relationship for both sexes in those situations. Heartiste calls this the Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy (BoSSS).

Women, however, do have a problem marrying down. And by the time women have spent a decade in college climbing the social ladder they're not as attractive as they were when they started, while men who spend a (productive) decade in college are more attractive than they were when they started.

Here's looking at that from another angle, that of social class. It's elegant in its simplicity and utility in that it combines several attributes--intelligence, income, education, etc--into a single variable, albeit a self-reported one. The GSS allows four responses for social class; lower-, working-, middle-, and upper-, with the distribution among non-Hispanic whites at about 5%-40%-50%-5%, respectively.

All data is from 2000 onward among whites aged 45 or older for contemporary relevance, to avoid racial confounding, and to allow family formation to have occurred. Mean number of children among whites, by sex and class:

With social class, too, a 'dysgenic' trend emerges among women but not among men (or a very attenuated one, anyway--there is still the issue of parental age at birth).

I've seen speculation that intelligence, especially among boys, correlates more with that of their mothers than their fathers. Here's to hoping that's not true.

At first blush it seems unlikely that intelligence is primarily determined by the mother. It would make a seemingly evolutionarily important trait, intelligence, an almost random byproduct of other selection forces. Intelligence is not high on the list of what men look for in women. Women value intelligence in mate selection more than men do, so it would be odd if the mother's intelligence was primarily determinative of the child's.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), CHILDS, SEX, AGE(45-89), CLASS

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Let Alex Jones' tears splash all over you

++Addition++The interview debate between Alex Jones and Megyn Kelly made me realize I'd forgotten to include the latter. Big oversight on my part, as that clash pitted the two most searched for pundit names in the country against each other. The table has been updated to show the oversight.


With Vox Day as an impetus, the table below lists the 41 biggest names in news and current events online in the US over the last year (from May 22nd, 2016 to May 20th, 2017) as measured by Google Trends searches.

A brief technical note: Trends allows five terms to be compared at a time and calibrates the search volume values of each term relative to the search volumes of the other four inputted terms. The second column in the table shows each person's search volume scaled against the king of the internet, Alex Jones, whose value is set at 10. Values are rounded to the nearest whole number but are ordered by search volume throughout (ie, both Mark Levin and Don Lemon round to 1, but Levin generated more interest than Lemon and is ranked accordingly; Lemon is then ahead of Van Jones for the same reason, etc).

Come and see:

1) Alex Jones10
[2) Megyn Kelly][8]
2) Tomi Lahren6
3) Rush Limbaugh5
4) Ann Coulter5
5) Milo Yiannopolous5
6) Sean Hannity5
7) Bill O'Reilly5
8) Rachel Maddow4
9) Anderson Cooper4
10) Glenn Beck3
11) Michael Savage2
12) Tucker Carlson2
13) Laura Ingraham2
14) Richard Spencer2
15) Mark Levin1
16) Don Lemon1
17) Van Jones1
18) Shepard Smith1
19) Lester Holt1
20) Paul Krugman1
21) Brian Williams1
22) Jake Tapper1
23) Paul Joseph Watson1
24) Neil Cavuto1
25) Dana Perino1
26) David Brooks1
27) Charles Krauthammer1
28) Chris Matthews1
29) David Muir1
30) George Will1
31) Ta-Nehisi Coates1
32) Gavin McInnes1
33) Jorge Ramos1
34) Maureen Dowd0
35) Wolf Blitzer0
36) Lou Dobbs0
37) Erin Burnett0
38) Michelle Malkin0
39) Bill Kristol0
40) Terry Gross0
41) Bret Baier0

Mostly (white) men, around one-quarter Jewish, more blacks than Hispanics, one Asian just making the cut--no big demographic surprises. Jews do tend to constitute higher proportions on lists like these than they do on this one in particular. That this one is based on actual user searches--as opposed to news services or magazine doing the ranking--suggests some circle jerking occurs when the media honors itself. Shocker, I know.

A lot of people on the Alt Right, myself included, were wary about Richard Spencer seemingly walking into a media trap, but the rules of the game have changed--maybe so much that no matter how bad the publicity, if there's something good or interesting underneath, people will find their way to the latter by way of the former. He's out there doing it, not afraid to walk into a den of thieves.

I recall Trump making an appearance on Alex Jones' radio show early on in the campaign, before the primaries had started, and the predictable talk of how doing such a 'fringe' venue would underscore the idea that Trump was an unserious candidate. How wrong they were. In the virtual world, everyone is on the fringe relative to Jones.

I spent an hour or so searching for commentators I was unfamiliar with. The only name on the list totally unbeknownst to me prior to putting this together is Erin Burnett. That may be an indication that I unintentionally screened out some people who should be included (near the bottom of the list, I hope--if not, I really blew it!). I'll update accordingly if and as other names are brought to my attention.

Parenthetically, Stefan Molyneux and Mike Cernovich came in 42nd and 43rd, respectively.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Beyond TFR

The CIA world factbook recently added a field listing of the mean age of women at first birth for several countries. In Chad and Niger, most women are getting pregnant before they turn 18. Sexual relationships that violate laws on statutory rape in the US are commonplace in sub-Saharan Africa, where the age of first birth ranges from the late teens to the early twenties. Most Greek women, in contrast, don't a child until after their 31st birthdays.

The graph Steve Sailer dubs the world's most important:

African fertility rates are much higher than fertility rates in the West, but the population of Deep Darkness would leave Europe's and North America's in the dust even if all three continents had the same total fertility rates.

Here's a (relatively) simple if extreme example to help grasp the magnitude of the difference differential ages of mothers' births have on total population sizes.

We start with a Ebony from Eritrea and Blanca from Belgium. The total fertility rates in both countries are 3.0, and both women and their descendants are representative of their countries in terms of reproduction.

In anticipation of the objection that countries where younger births are the norm are also countries where earlier deaths are the norm, life expectancy in this example is 50 in Eritrea and 100 in Belgium. Both women and their descendants are also representative of their countries in terms of life expectancy.

At age 20, Ebony has her three kids. Twenty years on, Blanca has her three children at age 40 (or Ebony at 19, 20, and 21 and Blanca at 39, 40, and 41 if you insist!), just when Ebony's children are having three children of their own.

Two decades later, the late Ebony is a great-grandmother 27 times over. Blanca is the mother of three adult children.

Another twenty years go by and Ebony, whose children have now passed on, is a great-great-grandmother 81 times over, while Blanca is an octogenarian with nine grandchildren of her own.

Twenty years beyond that--we're a century into our example now--and Ebony, who just posthumously welcomed 243 great-great-great-grandchildren into the world, has 351 living direct descendants. Blanca, who just passed away last month, has 39.

Although both women and their descendants have identical total fertility rates, Ebony has an order of magnitude more living descendants than Blanca does!