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

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:

PersonScore
1) Alex Jones10
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!

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

White despair in the General Social Survey

In 2014, the GSS asked respondents if they had ever been told by a medical professional of any type that they were depressed. Because it was only asked in a single year, sample sizes aren't huge, but they're serviceable for whites and NAMs (789 for whites, 328 for non-whites; about half that for the class bifurcations).

The percentages who have been told they have been or are currently depressed, by race:


In a couple of iterations of the survey during the nineties, respondents were asked if they'd gone to the doctor in the past week. Blacks were actually modestly more likely to have gone than were whites and considerably more likely to have gone than were Hispanics (20.1%, 18.5%, and 11.8%, respectively). It thus doesn't appear to be an obvious consequence of whites simply getting more medical attention than anyone else.

The following graph further insinuates as much. The percentages of depressed whites and non-whites, by class:


There are minor differences among non-whites, with the upper half of the class distribution actually appearing to be a bit more prone to depression than the lower half. Among whites, though, the class distinction is Charles-Murray-clear.

If not for the attention drawn to an increase in the rates of working-class white deaths of despair by the now famous paper from the Princeton pair, this is something I would've likely never noticed.

GSS variables used: ETHNIC(17), RACE(1)(2), RACECEN1(1)(2), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), DEPRESS, CLASS(1-2)(3-4), GODOC

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Will screwing sexbots screw us?

Heartiste's take on the coming sexbot revolution is probably an accurate auguring of what will come to pass:
The Sexbot Revolution (it’s happening), in conjunction with the introduction of the male Pill, will upend the sexual market and bring chaos to long-established and evolved implicit rules of conduct. The biggest impact will be a reduction in the asking price of women (in normie terms: a lot of sub-hottie women will have to date below their league if they don’t want to be alone). Sexbots, and other realistic simulacra of sex with a hot woman, will occupy the attention and, ahem, energy of a mass of omega and beta males who will prefer the intense experience of release with their Minka Kelly lookalike bots over uninspiring sex with the human plain janes and fatties who would normally be their lot.
It's not inconceivable, though, that the development instead turns out to be a saving grace, putting the West's native stock back on the path to replacement fertility. Here's how it might look.

Not only is the female asking price reduced by what amounts to an almost infinite supply of real women plus their artificial fleshpot lookalikes, men--all men, no matter their level of attractiveness--experience a genuine increase in desirability in the eyes of women by way of of an across-the-board leveling up of men's abundance mentality.

This could be disastrous:



On the other hand, the assumption here is that given unlimited access, men would take it easy, a la "civilization is men's attempt to impress women". That's a rather gynocentric spin on a quip whose scope is sufficiently larger: "Civilization is men's attempt to acquire dominance" (one major benefit of which is access to women).

Genghis Khan was no slouch. He spread his seed far and wide but he didn't actually spend much time getting women to spread their legs. Cut out the courtship--even its most expedited, maximally efficient manifestation, tight Game--and there's a lot of time leftover for other things. Top athletes, rockstars, and other celebrities don't have to expend much effort getting laid by groupies who throw themselves at said natural alphas.

The sexbot revolution doesn't require men to date robots, it just makes jacking off indistinguishable from the real deal.

The modal man doesn't actually want to have sex more than a few times a day. Futurama, again:



Sexbots are the simulacrums that allow beta men to stop being solemn suckers.

Women are no longer the gatekeepers of sex, but that doesn't have anything to do with procreation per se. In the modern West, the separation of procreation and fornication happened half a century ago. We're already a couple generations into that.

Throughout most of human history, natural selection favored fornication. Procreation was a seemingly inseparable consequence. Now they are not only separable but are actually largely separate.

We have a situation now where most women who want to procreate can do so (though many of the men they'd like to procreate with don't want to procreate with them), some men who want to procreate can do so (though many are limited in who they are able to procreate with by the dynamics of the sexual market ), and some men who want to procreate cannot.

By lowering the female asking price and boosting all men's desirability, many men who desired procreation but were denied it on account of their inability to fornicate in a world where women were the sexual gatekeepers now find themselves able to have children. Women who want to procreate but who were holding out for a man beyond their reach now see a wider pool of men as desirable on account of fewer men being desperate.

In short, we're already well past the  point where the desire to have children is the primary limiting factor on Western fertility. Sexual market dynamics, however, preclude some people--mostly but not exclusively men--who desire children from having them. The sexbot revolution allows many of those who were precluded to get into the game without throwing anyone else out of it (and possibly making alpha men who are on the fence about fathering children more willing to do so on account of being able to continue to enjoy sexual variety both by way of the sexbot option and also a presumed further reduction in the social sanction that accompanies male infidelity).

An increase in fecundity results.

An open question that I didn't address is how sexbots will be viewed inside the confines of a monogamous relationship. Can a man cheat with a sexbot anymore than he 'cheats' when he masturbates?

Friday, May 12, 2017

Septimius Severus' advice to his sons

Agnostic on the political-industrial alignment:
Why has the military latched onto the GOP so much in recent decades, and Wall Street so much onto the Democrats? As the parties have become increasingly aligned with liberals or conservatives, it has driven the more conservative military to the GOP and the more liberal financiers to the Democrats.

The voter bases reflect this split as well, with conservatives identifying more with the military, and liberals more with business professionals. This boils down to liberals being more abstract and cerebral, and conservatives being more concrete and physical in orientation (nerds vs. jocks, Jews vs. Celts).
Since its inception, the GSS has queried respondents about federal government spending on "the military, armaments, and defense" with three possible responses--"too little", "too much", or "about right". The following graphs show the percentage of liberals and conservatives, by decade, who gave other than a goldilocks answer:



The differences Agnostic identifies were clear during the Nixon administration and are even starker today, mostly on account of many conservatives clamoring for more military spending and few conservatives demanding less of it. The trend really got going after 9/11, and even as large year-over-year increases in military spending happened throughout the 2000s, the numbers of conservatives who wanted more spending still increased.

Following the end of the Cold War, when Pat Buchanan called for the troops to come home, military spending to be reigned in, and NATO to be retired, the grassroots were divided on how to proceed. It was conceivable that, having spent the Soviet Union into collapse, those on the right would have united in favor of smaller government across the board, including defense.

Instead, Buchanan was run out on a rail, the neocons nestled in, the grassroots urged the party to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Most of Trump's based liked the Syrian airstrikes and a lot of them view the budget deal as a win on account of it netting another prodigious increase in defense spending even though it lacks any funding at all for the big, beautiful wall.

GSS variables used: NATARMS(1)(3), POLVIEWS(1-2)(6-7), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Trump's wall of opposition

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentage of those who oppose the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, by selected demographic characteristics (n = 1,286; "don't know" responses are excluded):


The Sabine women don't want to come back. Swarthy, swashbuckling invaders taking them captive? Sweet sweet fantasy baby--after all, those invaders are on the right side of history!

Single white women are more opposed to a big, beautiful wall than Asians, blacks, or even Hispanics are.

Married white women and single white men are modestly in favor of it, while the bulwark of support comes from married white men--married white men such as, to pick a random example, Donald Trump.

Just as Trump's candidacy was a referendum on a wall, so will his ability--or lack thereof--to get that wall built be a referendum on his presidency.

Sunday, May 07, 2017

Democracy's decline

Pat Buchanan on the god that failed:
Democracy seems everywhere to be losing its luster.
As the late Lee Kwan Yew famously pointed out, democracy doesn't work in multiracial societies.

The GSS indicates that much of the American public understands that, at least at a subconscious level. In 2004 and again in 2014, the survey asked "How well does democracy work in America today?" Responses are on a 10-point scale, the higher the value the better democracy is perceived to be working. The mean values among respondents, by year:

2004 -- 6.64
2014 -- 5.86

One standard deviation is 2.27, so we've seen the mean shift one-third of a standard deviation in a decade. If we were measuring the average height of the population--an absurd analogy I know, but standard deviations allow absurd analogies to work--that'd be akin to Americans today being one inch shorter than they were ten years before.

The same respondent pool was also asked about the prospects for democracy ten years in the future. Responses for where democracy would be a decade down the road:

2004 -- 6.18
2014 -- 5.39

In other words, democracy is on a downward trajectory and people expect things to keep getting worse, not better. Looking at the latest iteration, the results by age:

Under 30 -- 5.48
30-44 -- 5.77
45-64 -- 6.06
65+ -- 5.98

Boomers are the most sanguine about democracy, and millennials the least so.

By race:

Whites -- 5.85
Blacks -- 5.79
Hispanics -- 5.42
Asians -- 7.12

There is virtually no difference in perceptions among whites and blacks. Sample sizes are too small for Asians and Hispanics (36 and 52, respectively) but such as they are Asians are more enthusiastic and Hispanics less so than are old stock Americans. While Asians may see things moving their way in the future, Hispanics theoretically should too, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

Parenthetically, keep in mind that this is all prior to the last presidential election cycle and the contentious primaries preceding it. It's pre-Trump and pre-Sanders. It's a safe bet that perceptions of American democracy today are even less favorable today than they were the last time the GSS asked about them.

GSS variables used: DEMTODAY, DEM10FUT, YEAR, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16)

Saturday, May 06, 2017

Blacks more likely than whites to attribute black problems to genetics

In his April Diary, the Derb brought up posts from the Inductivist (still relatively active here) and the Occidentalist concerning changes over time in the self-reported perceptions of why "on the average blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than whites do".

The response "less in-born ability to learn" has steadily declined from the 1970s through to the present, even as psychometric evidence and increasingly now genetic evidence for that explanation has accumulated over the same period of time.

Part of the change must be attributable to political correctness--"less in-born ability" makes normies squirm more than a value-neutral explanation like "genetic differences" would--but exactly how much is conjecture.

Reminiscing on my fellow GSS data miners, I took a look at the variable I don't recall having analyzed much in the past.

The racial differences in responses are noteworthy. Because the question has been asked in every iteration of the survey, sample sizes are large. For contemporary relevance, then, all responses are from 2006 onward. The percentages of those who attribute greater success in life outcomes for whites than for blacks to the latter having "less in-born ability to learn", by race and a few other select demographic characteristics (n = 9,341):


One of Thomas Sowell's major insights in Black Rednecks and White Liberals--that on many things black opinions and behaviors are closer to those of white conservatives than of white liberals--is relevant here.

On the other end of the spectrum, Jews--all Jews, not just liberal Jews--are even more prone to blank slate thinking than white liberals are.

GSS variables used: RACDIF2, YEAR(2006-2016), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16), POLVIEWS(1-2)(6-7), RELIG(3)

Friday, May 05, 2017

Clarification clarion concerning college

In a characteristically perspicacious Taki's Magazine article, Steve Sailer writes:
Among respondents who graduated from college in the 1960s, the average score on the vocabulary test, expressed on an IQ scale, was 112.3, almost a standard deviation above average. For each decade since then, the average vocabulary IQ has dropped steadily down to 100.0 (two points above the mean) for those who graduated in the 2010s.

Among those who didn’t graduate from college, the mean score has dropped from 97.3 for those who left school in the 1960s to 89.3 in the current decade.

You might be somewhat surprised by the falling vocabulary test scores because raw IQ scores in the 20th century tended to go up. But the Flynn effect was seen less on culture-loaded subtests such as vocabulary and more on subtests that resemble programming your smartphone.
A couple of clarifying comments I should've fleshed out more fully in previous posts:

- For the cohort having attended college in the 2010s, 100.0 may be more than 2 points above the population mean. The total sample is based on an assumption of a population average IQ of 98, but the total population is whiter than the under-30 population is. At less than 60% (non-Hispanic) white, nearly 25% Hispanic, a bit under 15% black, and 5% Asian, the average IQ of the current college-age American population is probably closer to 96 than 98.

- Average Wordsum scores for the total population have remained remarkably consistent over time (6.11 in 1978 to 6.13 in 2016 with a mean over the life of the survey of 6.10 and a standard deviation of 2.01--in other words the population average has moved an imperceptible .01 standard deviations!). Wordsum scores for whites have very slightly increased from the 1970s to the present (from 6.26 in 1978 to 6.34 today), in line with the modest increase the Flynn effect has had on vocabulary scores.

That average scores for both those who attend college and those who don't have fallen over the same time range without the total population average changing is a result of an increasing percentage of the total population going to college today compared to six decades ago.

As college attendance effectively becomes less restrictive, the average IQ at each level of educational attainment will decline without any necessary change to the total population average IQ. Educational romanticists would have us believe that education increases intelligence, but as the Wordsum--among other measures--shows, that's not the case.

For simplicity, assume that the total population IQ ranges from 50 on the low end to 150 on the high end, a point for each percentile increase. In the 1960s, the top 10% of the general population (mean IQ 145) goes to college while the bottom 90% (mean IQ 95) does not. By the 2010s, the top 40% of the general population (mean IQ 130) goes to college while the bottom 60% (mean IQ 80) does not. In both the 1960s and the 2010s, the population mean IQ is 100 even though the mean IQ of both those who've gone to college and those who have not has declined from the 1960s to the 2010s.

Parenthetically, this results anytime the cream of the crap is taken from the broader crap bucket and dumped into the broader crop bucket--like, say, with immigration of the "talented tenth" from third-world countries to the West, a phenomenon that lowers the average IQ of both the sending third-world countries and the receiving Western countries without (sans differential birthrates!) changing the average global IQ.

- A perceptive commenter also pointed to Google's Ngram viewer program, which tracks the relative frequency of words in books published, by year. Here are the Wordsum words in books published from 1950 through 2008 (the word "space" is shown at just 5% of its total frequency because if included in the results without an adjustment it dwarfs all the others and renders the graph incomprehensible--my thanks to candide3 for pointing out that Ngrams allows words to be rescaled):


"Pact" spiked in the 1940s--ie, the Nazi-Soviet pact--and was in the process of settling back to its historical norm when we pick it up here. Excepting that and "allusion", there hasn't been much change in frequency of the words included in the test over the last several decades.

The commenter's insinuation is that the more (or less) frequently these words appear in books--and by extension the culture generally--over time, the better (or worse) performance on the Wordsum should be during the corresponding period of time.

That's intuitive, but it may not actually be helpful in understanding the dynamics of the test.

Jason Malloy reported on correct response rates by word. "Allusion"--the word that, after "space", has consistently appeared more frequently in books than any of the other words have--has the lowest correct response rate of all. That is, it's the one test takers have the most trouble with even though it shows up in books more than do other words people struggle less with.

Similarly, though "space" is orders of magnitude more common than any of the other words, test takers miss it more than they miss "broaden" or "edible".

GSS variables used: WORDSUM, BORN(1), YEAR, RACE(1), EDUC(12)(16-20)

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Perverting Luke 15:4

Via Vox Day, news on the United Methodist Church's election of a lesbian bishop:
Karen Oliveto clutched a friend's hand, closed her eyes and wept when she learned last year she had been elected a bishop of the United Methodist Church. Oliveto, who is married to another woman, had become the denomination's first openly gay bishop.

Within minutes, a formal complaint was filed challenging her election as contrary to the church ban on clergy who are "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" - a petition that the highest Methodist judicial authorities agreed to consider. On Tuesday, the court will take up the closely watched case, the latest flashpoint over LGBT rights in a denomination splintering over the Bible and homosexuality.
Vox lays out Christianity's options starkly--maintain what is regarded as eternal truth or be converged out of existence:
Any acceptance of same-sex relationships is sufficient to not only defrock a minister or a deacon, much less a bishop, but merits immediate expulsion from the church. Any so-called "Christian" church that embraces formalized sin, of any kind, is clearly nothing of the sort. This is not even remotely debatable.

Conservatives need to understand that the infiltrators are not seeking acceptance, and that they are not misguided, but they are there to destroy the organization from within. It's not as if Christians weren't warned of these "wolves in sheep's clothing", after all.
The following graph shows the frequency of worship attendance by sexual orientation in the US (n = 178, 222, and 8,897, respectively):


If gays are so spiritually vain and fragile that they aren't involved in the church because it doesn't flatter their egos then it's obvious that they do not and will not ever take the professed truths of the church seriously.

And if the church jettisons putative fundamental truths in an effort to appeal to the fashionable cause of the day, it's obvious that the church does not take the professed truth of Christianity seriously, either.

Pandering to homosexuals--and to virtue-signalers by way of embracing homosexuality--not only makes a mockery of the putative eternal truths found in Christianity, it makes little practical sense, either.

Gays are, in addition to being small in number, are also relatively irreligious. A better explanation for why they don't visit houses of worship is that most of them don't see a point in doing so. The percentages, by sexual orientation, who are firm theists:


A denomination that caters to their  need for validation will end up alienating current members. In the numbers game of community participation, it's one step forward followed by two steps backwards.

Not surprisingly, affiliation in liberal mainline denominations that pitch to the catchers' vanity is dropping four times as rapidly as evangelical affiliations are:


It's almost as if the real goal is to converge churches by infiltrating their organizational structures and governing bodies.

GSS variables used: ATTEND(0-1)(2-3)(4-5)(7-8), GOD(6), SEXORNT

Monday, May 01, 2017

From the ADL's mouth

So far in 2017 Jews have been perpetrating "anti-Semitic incidents" in the US at more than 19,000% the rate that non-Jews have been doing so.

The AP, via Steve Sailer:
The increase continued into the first three months of this year, with reports of 541 incidents compared to 291 in the same period the year before, according to the ADL data released Monday. 
The preliminary 2017 numbers include a wave of more than 150 bomb threats that started in January against Jewish community centers and day schools. Authorities arrested an Israeli Jewish hacker who they said was behind the harassment. The ADL insists those threats should still be considered anti-Semitic since Jews were the target. During the same period, a former journalist in St. Louis was also charged with threatening Jewish organizations as part of a bizarre campaign to intimidate his former girlfriend. But authorities believe the Israeli man is primarily responsible.
Those are the numbers, I didn't write them.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Coming collegiate collapse

The previous post on the apparent decline in the average IQ of college graduates in the US over the last fifty years used the GSS' 10-question Wordsum vocabulary test as a basis for those IQ estimates. As was pointed out, vocabulary tends to increase with age (through the late fifties before peaking and then beginning to decline). That incremental increase through adulthood is very modest, however, reducing the gap between those who graduated in the 1960s and those who graduated in the 2010s by less than 1 IQ point.

To illustrate the change over time more starkly, the following graph shows, among those who spent at least four years in college, the percentages by year of participation in the survey who scored either 9 out of 10 or a perfect 10 out of 10 on the Wordsum test. Responses are restricted to those aged 25-40 at the time of participation so potential age confounds are eliminated:


The questions have been the same since the survey's inception (see them here).

Forty years ago, 1-in-2 graduates could ace the Wordsum test. Today, 1-in-6 can. That's just about perfectly in line with what we'd expect to see if the top 6% or so of the population is capable of acing the test.

Four decades ago, 12% of the population had degrees. Today, 33% does. If, in the early seventies, that 12% roughly corresponded with the top 12% of the IQ distribution, then the 6% of the population that aced the Wordsum test would comprise 1 in 2 of those grads. If today that 33% roughly corresponds with the top 33% of the IQ distribution, then the 6% of the population acing the Wordsum test would be a bit more than 1 in 6 of today's grads. QED*.

This is a devastating refutation of contemporary educational romanticism. College isn't anything close to a panacea. Education doesn't increase intelligence. It doesn't even appear, for most people, to do much in the way of increasing knowledge. These ten vocabulary words are all common enough that it's almost inconceivable that after four years of college a student who paid attention and engaged with the classroom material would not have come into contact with all of them on multiple occasions.

The incentive structure for higher education is extremely perverse (or more charitably, is setup on the genuine presumption that spending time in college reliably increases earning power).

Student loans are the most difficult types of loans to have discharged, so lenders who lend to students are making what amount to government-guaranteed loans. After a few years interest on those loans runs at 5% or 6%. Lenders are thus earning 5% on things that putatively carry zero risk. It's easy money.

The universities are getting paid by lenders no matter what so they have no incentive to restrict student enrollment either (unless they're top-tier universities who trade on restricted access).

The zeitgeist says if you don't go to college then you're a loser, so lots of people who have no business being there end up going.

Outstanding student loan debt in the US is now at $1 trillion and climbing, but a huge chunk of that value is illusory value. Many of those loans aren't going to be paid back. The people holding them do not have the prospects or the ability to ever pay them off. Lenders are booking them as essentially no-risk assets, but they're not.

I don't purport to be a financial expert--let alone an Economist!--but I can't shake this feeling that we've seen something eerily similar to this before.

As the Z-Man is fond of saying, this will not end well.

GSS variables used: YEAR, EDUC(16-20), AGE(25-40), WORDSUM(9-10), BORN(1--except for 1974 and 1976 as the variable wasn't introduced until 1978)

* Okay, not quite. About 12% of the population aces the Wordsum test. There is a correlation between intelligence and educational attainment, but it's far from perfect and is becoming more and more attenuated as time goes on.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Average IQ of college graduates by decade of graduation

The mean IQ scores, converted from GSS wordsum results, assuming a national average of 98 and a standard deviation of 15, of those who attended college for at least four years by the decade they graduated in* (n = 5,124, though n for 2010s is only 49 and should be seen as merely suggestive--the trend is clear regardless):

Graduated inIQ
1960s112.3
1970s109.1
1980s106.0
1990s103.9
2000s102.9
2010s100.0

The change in the intelligence of the average college graduate over the last fifty years approaches the IQ gap separating whites and blacks.

This is an inevitable consequence of increasing the share of the population that attends college. In the sixties, 10% of American adults had college degrees. Since then that figure has more than tripled, to 33% today.

To say we're well into the territory of diminishing returns is to understate the problem--we're past the point of negative returns. Most Americans in college today are not benefiting from being there. They're foregoing work to accrue debt for degrees that, if they increase earning power at all, do so only marginally and they're picking up an unhelpful sense of entitlement in the process.

GSS variables used: COHORT(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999), EDUC(16-20), WORDSUM, BORN(1)

* Values for each decade come from those born two decades prior, so the time of actual graduation is approximate. For example, the result for the 1960s comes from the wordsum scores of those born in the 1940s; the result for the 1970s from those born in the 1950s, and so on. The approach isn't perfect--some people graduate later in life and a few while still in their teens--but it is an improvement on previous approaches.

**Update** Restricting the age of those evaluated only very marginally lowers the mean wordsum for the earlier cohorts (less than half of 1 IQ point on average).

Also, to reiterate, this measures respondents by total number of years spent in school. There are some--more now than in the past, presumably--who spend eight years in college without ever actually getting a degree.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

The United States is not and has never been a nation of immigrants

While the US is not and has never been a "nation of immigrants", Israel was almost from the beginning. In the 1950s, around half--maybe more, it's tough to tell with certainty--of those living in the country were immigrants. Still today a larger share Israel's population is foreign-born than has ever been the case throughout the entire history of the US.

The following countries* also have larger immigrant population shares--right now, in 2017--than the US ever has at any time from 1776 to the present:

Canada
Estonia
Ireland
Austria
Germany
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
Israel
The United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Kuwait
Bahrain
Singapore
Jordan
Hong Kong
Saudi Arabia
Oman
Kazakhstan

Parenthetically, while technically further refuting the "nation of immigrants" mendacity, this list largely serves rhetorical and polemical purposes.

Other things being equal, geographical size substantially factors into determining the population share of a country's immigrants. If One Worlders had their way and the globe became a single political entity--called, say, the United Nations--the percentage of immigrants would drop to zero overnight. If the US dissolved into multiple countries, the immigrant share in each would likely (though not necessarily) be higher than was the immigrant share of the former United States as a whole.

That said, Canada is larger than the US and Australia is nearly the same size as the contiguous 48 states.

"Immigrant" is a political description and as such is of less importance than are cultural or identity descriptions. Identity is greater than culture and culture is greater than politics. Consequently, in addition to being inaccurate, referring to America as a "nation of immigrants" is ultimately a politically arbitrary designation. It's importance is consequently limited and superficial in significance.

The culture and especially the identity of immigrants--or non-immigrants--is what matters. The immigrant in 1890 and the immigrant in 2017 have as much--or as little--in common as they have in shared--or unshared--culture and identity.

* Among countries with populations of at least one million people. The list gets substantial longer if smaller countries are included.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Half of those 50 or older who voted for Clinton support airstrike on Syria

From Reuters-Ipsos polling (n = 2,918), support among Hillary voters aged 50 or older for the airstrikes on Syria:


Hillary voters under 30 and aged 30-49:



A similar age pattern exists among Trump voters, just depressingly shifted nearly 50 points in the direction of support:




Stripping away political orientation, then, we see that there is a substantial generational divide when it comes to policing the world:




This is Feryl's wheelhouse. Boomers hate the idea of being "isolationists".

Supporting that assessment, there are marginal differences among white and non-white Hillary voters, with the former only slightly more supportive. The modest differences we see among Hillary's coalition is accounted for by age, as older Hillary voters are of course whiter than younger ones are:



For those who want to maintain the 666-dimensional-chess analogy, the attack could be seen as trying to further split the Hillary and Bernie wings of the Democrat party by driving the wedge hard into the coalition of the fringes, while simultaneously bringing butthurt cucks and neocons back into the fold without much political downside.

That strikes me as fanciful thinking, however. And I intentionally use "fanciful" rather than "wishful" here. As Z-Man puts it:
Trump is wildly unpredictable, at least he seems unpredictable. That’s a big part of how he plays the game. He wants everyone to think the range of choices for him include some collection of unknown options that no one has yet to consider. That keeps foes on the defensive, making them tentative, even when they have the advantage. By appearing to have no clear strategy and routinely breaking old habits, Trump appears to be a wild man, who is capable of anything. Therefore, there’s no way to plan for him.
He greatly expanded the Overton Window and provided a template for hungry, aspiring politicians to follow in the future. We can hope for him to be something more than a transitional figure, but we'd be foolish to expect it.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Euronation

America is a white nation.

America is a Christian nation.

America is an Anglophone nation.

America is a nation built and led by white men.

America is a heterosexual nation.

America is a nation of male breadwinners and female homemakers.

America is a nation of natives born on its soil.

All of these assertions have been accurate for most of the country's history and remain accurate today. In contrast, the idea that America is a "nation of immigrants" is not accurate now nor was it accurate at any point in the past.

Despite that, none of those true statements are perceived as legitimate arguments for why America should continue to embrace these aspects of its character, while the mendacious falsity is treated as an argument for finally making it true by deluging the country with foreigners.

The phrase "nation of immigrants" first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935:


Truman, in 1952, was the first president to make use of it while in office.

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country's population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.

Anyone who claims America is a nation of immigrants is appallingly ignorant, lying through his teeth, or both--and there's a good chance he has to go back.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Playing with fire

The real tough cookie on getting acquainted with violence for the first time in her privileged life:
“Me and my friends were fleeing. As we were running away I lost my friends,” she said. “I was trying to follow my boyfriend, but he just disappeared…I was just trying to block myself away from different people who were just pushing me and attacking other people.”
As has been noted here several times, if the civil authorities refuse to intervene against leftist street fighters, the new populists will take action into their own hands. And we are much better prepared for violence than the agitators are.

Antifa was better armed--they brought banned items like glass bottles and pepper spray--and still got their asses handed to them.

While her recounting of events should be taken with a grain of salt, it is telling that as she was allegedly trying to follow her boyfriend, "he just disappeared".

In 2004 the GSS asked respondents if they agreed with the statement "I would rather suffer myself than let the one I love suffer." The percentages, among men, who gave a response other than "strongly agree", by political orientation (n = 610):


Not only are the leftist street brawlers no match for MAGA berserkers in a melee, they are--as the GSS illustrates--more likely to flee the fray to save themselves when the going gets tough. As every student of history knows, that's devastating to the tactical effectiveness of any fighting unit. When the line breaks is when the route begins. They will leave their wounded on the battlefield. We won't.

Parenthetically, absorbing punishment so one you love does not have to is not white knighting. White knighting is absorbing punishment for someone who does not love you, often someone you don't even know.

If Billy Petit had staggered up the stairs with a lead pipe in his hands and bloodlust in his heart instead of scampering off to a neighbor's house while his wife and daughters were burned alive, it wouldn't have made him a white knight. It would have made him a man worthy of the name.

If Abdullah Kurdi would have swam under the waves in a frantic search for his two-year-old son until his lungs filled with water, he wouldn't have died a white knight. He would have died a man worthy of the name.

Were you planning on living forever? No one gets out of this alive. If there aren't things you're willing to die for, yours is not a life worth living.

GSS variables used: AGAPE1(1)(2-5), SEX(1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Tax cheating among whites

The Derb, excerpting George Orwell:
The masses still more or less assume that “against the law” is a synonym for “wrong.” It is known that the criminal law is harsh and full of anomalies and that litigation is so expensive as always to favour the rich against the poor: but there is a general feeling that the law, such as it is, will be scrupulously administered … An Englishman does not believe in his bones, as a Spanish or Italian peasant does, that the law is simply a racket.

The English People, Collins, 1947
With all the caveats about self-reported data, especially on ancestry among the European mongrels who make up America's contemporary white population, as well as the limitations caused by having just two years of survey data and thus suboptimal sample sizes on the question under examination taken into account, the following graph shows the percentages who say it is morally acceptable to under-report income for the purpose of paying less in income taxes, by ancestry among whites (see here for NAMs):


Spain is included among "Other Southern European" responses, and then there are the Italians.

When Orwell was writing in the 1940s, the masses of England were English and so what he wrote was accurate. No longer.

WEIRDO societies require WEIRDOs to make them work. The less WEIRDO a society becomes, the more being a WEIRDO--characterized by high social trust, reciprocity, political compromise, generosity to those in need, isonomy, etc--switches from being an advantage to being a disadvantage. Social trust declines, reciprocity disappears, political compromise is replaced by a winner-take-all ethnic spoils system, generosity is exploited to the point that it is seen as an entitlement, and the legal system gets hijacked by racial grievance concepts like "social justice". It's a vicious circle.

And so the progress takes away what forever took to find.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Omnivores on the right

In a podcast on veganism, two red-pilled herbivores lament the putative association between veganism and leftist politics. Richard Burgess implies this is some sort of new phenomenon*.

If Hitler's vegetarianism gave it cachet on the right, that effect had long since worn off by the nineties. I can still vividly recall a time during my coming of age when a group leftist activists throwing paint on patrons coming out of an Alaskan Fur store.

A couple of times in the mid-nineties the GSS asked respondents if they avoided eating meat for "moral or environmental reasons" (I realize this is effectively grouping vegetarians and vegans together, but we work with what we have). The percentages of those who said they did so either "always" or "often", by political orientation (n = 2,792):


Compare that to hunting, the following showing the percentages who hunt or have a spouse who hunts, by political orientation:


Two decades ago liberals were 51% more likely to avoid meat than conservatives, while conservatives were 49% more likely to hunt than liberals.

It's as reasonable to associate not eating meat with political liberalism as it is to associate hunting with political conservatism.

GSS variables used: HUNT(1-3,4), NOMEAT(1-2), POLVIEWS(1-3,4,5-7)

* It's worth noting that he is from Canada and Tara McCarthy is from Great Britain while the subsequent evaluation of their assumptions comes entirely from US data, so the trends may not hold across the Anglosphere.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Intersectionality

Google Trends on search volume for "intersectionality":


The program analyzes words or phrases as a percentage of all searches at any given period of time, so these results show searches relative to all search activity, not just the absolute number of searches. This is far more useful than if the program returned absolute numbers of searches, since most things would increase over time simply as a consequence of ever greater internet penetration.

The peak up to this point came during the women's marches in January that followed Trump's inauguration.

Vermont tops the list of states in search volume interest. Here are the top ten:


That's fitting, since intersectionality is largely an effort by privileged goodwhites to artificially glom themselves onto the inherent virtue enjoyed by members of established Victims, most notably blacks. Your chains and my experimental lesbianism against The Man!

Speaking of blacks, they're not interested. Some affirmative action transgendered mulatto leading an ivy league community organizing group on campus, maybe, but xe's the exception.

That exception, and all the Victim group trough-feeding--my cousin works for Claire McCaskill's office in the Imperial Capital and his wife for an LGBTTXHFPLOLZ 'advocacy' organization there)--explains DC's spot near the top, but the black South fills out the bottom of the list, with Mississippi ranked dead last:


Schadenfreude is on the horizon as we watch the Coalition of the Fringes come apart. The 2020 presidential election is full of potential. There aren't any viable white candidates on the Democrat side.

Bernie Sanders and creepy Joe Biden will be in nursing homes. Fauxcahontas, whose national appeal is reminiscent of Michael Dukakis', is the youngest known quantity of any significance and she'll be older than Trump was when he was elected the oldest president in US' history.

As 2016 illustrated, with Lincoln Chafee and Martin O'Malley polling at 1%, this geriatric generation of white Democrats is the last of a dying breed when it comes to top leadership roles.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Fully restore Trump's Twitter privileges

Trump takes a lot of crap for allegedly getting all his news from cable TV shows, but that clearly wasn't the case during the primaries, as anyone who followed his Twitter feed was well aware of.

He got a lot of it from other Twitter accounts. He retweeted Heartiste at least once and for awhile followed the DemsRRealRacists parody account (now J Burton). That's how he ended up retweeting politically incorrect stuff about black crime and Israel's wall, among many other things.

In the interim he has been relentlessly advised and admonished to stay away from Twitter as much as possible. It's not "presidential", they say. Even many of his Alt Right supporters recommend this. I heard Black Pigeon Speaks say as much on a recent podcast.

A couple months into office, it looks like Trump's taken this advice to heart. While he is still fairly active on social media--though not nearly as active as he was during the primaries and the general election--he now uses it for little more than what are basically press releases. If he's a person very much attuned to what is directly in front of him, as seems to be the case, this has to have been, from our perspective, a change for the worst.

Of his children and children-in-law, Don Junior is by far the most sympathetic to the shitlord memery that helped put his dad over the top. He is, not coincidentally, the most fiery of the brood on Twitter:

Top of Don Jr's feed at the time of this posting
He recently retweeted an account with 1,300 followers, something Trump himself used to regularly do.

Someone close needs to convince the president to reengage on social media to fire up in the morning and blow off steam at night, critics be damned. It's something he clearly enjoys doing that includes, as a side effect, the salvation of the Western world.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Overwhelming majority thinks Assad a threat to US

Reuters-Ipsos ran a poll in December and January querying people on whether or not they thought "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad" poses a threat to the US. The results, for everyone, for Trump voters, and for Hillary voters (n = 3,246):




To call this highly discouraging would be an understatement. It is that, but it's also a hard reality check. When the bombs dropped last week, I thought "why would an America First populist allow himself to be dragged into this mess?" without realizing that the question contains the answer--because doing so was popular, overwhelmingly so.

The answer to Ron Paul's rhetorical question in reaction to the airstrikes may be "never":


Even if Assad hoodwinked the world over the last few years by making it believe he didn't have chemical weapons before using them at the most inopportune time to kill 70 people in a civil war that has claimed 400,000 lives, it's still difficult to see how one gets from there to the understanding that he is a threat to the US.

A secular ruler who shaves his face every morning before putting on his suit and tie, who protects religious minorities--including Christians, dead without him--is ISIS' biggest enemy in the area, and has been desperately hanging on by a thread to part of his little plot of sand (that doesn't contain much in the way of natural resources) is a threat to America?

Maybe some of that 70%+ of the American public would point to Syria allowing groups like Hamas to operate within its borders as constituting the threat, but I bet they're in the minority. Most probably can't articulate a way from here to there at all.

So maybe America First, no more being the world's police force, making our allies pay their fair share, etc works in the abstract but the invade-the-world specifics remain reliable winners. After all, letting God's babies be gassed is not "who we are".

At least we still have reason for guarded optimism on the even more important invite-the-world front, right?

Oh boy, and here comes Kevin Hassett:
President Donald Trump has picked an economic advisor who believes in growing the nation’s economy by importing workers and consumers, and by expanding free-trade outsourcing, despite Trump’s “buy American, hire American” campaign promises.
How does a guy who seemed to feed off all the hatred and disgust he generated over the last two years fold now, when he has maximum leverage and a base so loyal that it's hard to think of any amount of blackmail that could lead to impeachment?

I expected a mixed bag as president, with some solid stuff and some silly stuff and lots of internal sabotage, but I'd be lying if I said I thought we'd see what looks like a capitulation coming from the top.

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Diversity! and Big Government go together like a hand and a glove

The 2016 iteration of the GSS asked respondents about who should be the primary provider for the sick, the old, and of education, along with five possible responses--the government, private businesses, non-profits, religious organizations, or family and friends.

The following graphs show the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics*, who said the government should be the primary provider for these things:




Open borders and Diversity! kill libertarianism dead. The schools are long gone. Overwhelming majorities, across the board, favor government funding of education. Throw on the political clout of the teachers' unions and it's clear government education is here to stay.

When it comes to government funding for the care of the sick and the old, roughly corresponding to medicaid and medicare, native-born high IQ whites--the only demographic where libertarians can be found--are fairly skeptical. Immigrants, NAMs, and those of modest intelligence, in contrast, are big supporters. They want the government to do everything. Open borders and its attendant Diversity! gives us more of the latter at the expense of the former.

The Derb supports libertarianism within one country. I naturally share those inclinations, but have come to realize the libertarian part of that objective is of picayune importance. The one country part is the part that matters. "Libertarianism" is about ideology and principles. "One country" is about interests and identity. I'm ready and willing to make concessions on ideology and principles in return for gains on interests and identity.

PRVDHLTH, PRVDOLD, PRVDSCHL, RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), WORDSUM(0-3,4-5,6,7-8,9-10), BORN

* Respondents are broken up into five categories that roughly forms a normal distribution; Really Smarts (wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 12%).

Posterity

Happy Spring.



Friday, April 07, 2017

Neoconned in Syria

Trump's facebook posts on Serbia Iraq Libya Syria:



The like/love-to-angry/sad reaction ratios are 27-to-1 (216k to 8k) and 24.5-to-1 (208k to 8.5k), respectively.

This is discouraging, to put it mildly. Trump's not a deep thinker, but he learns from his mistakes. He's floated trial balloons several times in the last couple of years, most famously going soft on immigration in one of the primary debates, before promptly correcting course in the wake of the angry response he received from his base.

As ominous as the airstrikes were, they're not catastrophic on their own. The damage comes from what they likely portend. That might be averted on account of an uprising from the base but it's not going to happen if the base doesn't rise up.

I remember in 2012, when the tea party movement was at its height, lots of people celebrating this putative embrace of the Ron Paul revolution. It sounded good to me at first blush, but the exit polling data showed that desirable narrative to be a false one. Self-identified tea party members were the least likely to vote for Ron Paul and the most likely to vote for Newt Gingrich. In other words, they were uber-conservative Republicans in the popular political conception of the term, not revolutionaries in any meaningful sense.

I'm getting this sinking feeling that a lot of Trump's most devoted supporters are the same types of people. If the Alt Right is the new anti-CultMarx vanguard, our absolute numbers correspond to that position in a military formation, at least for now.

As such, expectations need to be calibrated to the reality of Trump as a transitional figure. He's the first progression of steps towards a resurgent West favoring its own, an Occident unapologetically putting the interests of ourselves and our posterity ahead of the interests of sub-Saharans and Sunnis. If he comes up short on a lot of fronts--even if he misses the mark on all of them--his electoral victory is not a Pyrrhic one. He's laid the rhetorical, polemical, and issue-based groundwork for other aspiring 'outsiders' to imitate. Before Caesar there was Marius and before Marius there were the Gracchi brothers.

The indefatigable Deplorable Primate has changed his handle to #ImpeachTrump.

His sentiment is entirely understandable but I'm not there. Trump's remained relatively strong on immigration, and the "invite" part of the invade the world, invite the world, be indebted to the world is the most damaging part of the treasonous trinity.

Wreaking havoc (and blowback) in the globe's garbage cans and putting everything we purchase from China on credit is akin to taking out a second mortgage on the house and, well, maxing out the credit card. It sucks climbing out of a self-dug hole, but it can be done. Replacing our native stock with Mexicans and Somalis, however, is akin to being fired and lighting the master's degree on fire--there's no coming back from it.