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.