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)