Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Diversity is strength! It's also... unhappiness and mistrust

Happiness quotients, by race, computed by taking the percentages of GSS participants who self-describe as "very happy" and subtracting from them the percentages who say they're "not too happy", presented in both table and graph formats. The higher the score, the happier the group. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 15,414):

American Indians7.3

We can speculate about causation until we're blue in the face but it doesn't change the conclusion that a whiter America would be a happier America. A country for Ice People would be only modestly less sunny, while a Sun People society would be quite frigid indeed.

Blue people are happiest of all
A whiter America would also be a more trusting America. The following table and subsequent graph show the percentages of people, by race, who say that "generally speaking, most people can be trusted". Again for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 11,715):

American Indians16.2

Among many other things, a modern economy requires a high-trust society. As social trust continues to decline across the West, so will the the standard-of-living and quality-of-life the West enjoys.

There's a way for the Occident to avoid this fate. It starts with more Orban and less Obama, more Trump and no more Merkel.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1,2,3,4-10,15-16), TRUST(1-2), HAPPY(1,3), YEAR(2000-2014)

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Weaselly Reuters

Currently the featured item on Reuters' Polling Explorer site:

Here are the results of the poll among the general public since it began a month ago (restricted to just registered voters, Trump does slightly better, with 49.5% agreeing). It asks respondents if they think Trump will put the country's interests ahead of his own:

Some glass-half-empty headline that is! Yes, technically fewer than half of respondents agreed with the statement, but considerably more agreed with it than disagreed with it. The results are presented as though the question is a binary one when in fact it is trinary, with a "not sure" option included. To see the results broken out requires drilling down further into the particular poll. If a reader is just scrolling through the headlines, he'd have no idea.

If respondents had to either agree or disagree, a majority would almost certainly say they expect Trump to put the country's interests ahead of his own. That he is doing ten points better on this issue than he did in the election itself should objectively be perceived as a positive thing for him. Such an assessment doesn't fit The Narrative, of course, so that's not what we get.

To the contrary, push-polling this result was the primary purpose of fake news outlets BuzzFeed and CNN taking out fourth mortgages on their credibility by publishing the risible troll job pretending that Putin trapped Trump using Russian prostitutes giving golden showers.

It's only slightly hyperbolic to say that if the allegations are controversial, a heavy dose of skepticism is warranted until at least one of the following conditions is met; 1) Verifiable primary source material is produced, 2) There are non-coercive admissions by the parties involved, or 3) WikiLeaks reports it.

While there's plenty of schadenfreude to be had as the legacy media crumbles, Trump is now the single most powerful person on the planet. We have a vested interest in holding him to account, but the legacy and SJW media machines have forfeited every ounce of good faith they used to enjoy among non-partisans. The boy-who-cried-wolf dynamic in play is potentially dangerous.

Speaking of "fake news", now that the media is urging the retirement of the phrase that has been appropriated as devastatingly as Pepe was, it's imperative we keep using it emphatically and repetitiously. Anytime you'd have previously written or said "the mainstream media" or "the major media", consider writing or saying "fake news" instead.

When they start issuing trigger warnings for the phrase, we'll know we've done our duty:

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Contact your senators on Sessions' behalf

The single most important confirmation fight for the new Trump administration is going to be over before a lot of people even realize it's begun. Contact your senator (information here) and urge him or her to support Jeff Sessions for attorney general. These constituent 'votes' really do matter. Feel free to cut and paste the weasel words below. It's something you can have done in less than five minutes.

Especially important are so-called class one senators who are up for reelection in 2018. Lots of them are Democrats from red and purple states. It might be worth slightly editing the wording to urge those who've said they won't support Sessions to do so--say you're an independent or a Democrat who voted for Trump in your call or email, etc--and to thank Manchin for having the courage to support Sessions' appointment.

It is imperative that the following Democrats fell the pressure:

Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (says she'll oppose)
Joe Manchin of West Virginia (says he'll support)
Sherrod Brown of Ohio (says he'll oppose)
Bob Casey of Pennsylvania (says he's leaning against but still undecided)
Joe Donnelly of Indiana (leaning against)
Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (leaning against)
Claire McCaskill of Missouri (non-committal)
Bill Nelson of Florida (non-committal, but he's teamed up with Sessions to lower H-1B visas)
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (non-committal, has also teamed up with Sessions on legislation)


Dear Senator [name],

After a contentious election it is now time for the new presidential administration and Congress to get to work addressing the problems our country faces and coming together in good faith to arrive at solutions to these problems. Allowing president Trump to assemble the best team he is able to is critical to making this happen.

Jeff Sessions has served with distinction in the Senate for two decades. He brings with him the experience and determination to ensure the laws of land are enforced fairly and firmly. As a previous state Attorney General he is the right man for the job. I strongly urge you to vote to confirm him.

Thank you for your consideration and your continued service,


Saturday, January 14, 2017

They do until they don't

Red-tailed hawks being mobbed is a common sight here in the central provinces:

I remember as a kid wondering why these hawks didn't turn on their harassers. They could put a lethal stop to these things if they wanted. It's not natural for them to do so, though, so they don't. They put up with it because they can afford to. It's a hassle they tolerate--until they don't:

Whites tolerate the misbehavior and dysfunction of non-whites, too, until they don't. Like crows (or the invasive starlings in the case of Muslims in Europe or Amerindians in the US) mobbing a hawk, non-whites attack whites at the pleasure of whites. When European-descended peoples' commodious grace stores are depleted, the harassers' fortunes will change drastically and with stunning rapidity.

And changing they are--not just through the US presidential or Brexit campaigns, either. Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are both now allowing AmRen to carry their columns.

In a recent video, Stefan Molyneux approvingly mentions one of the most important formulas for understanding human societies, Diversity + Proximity = War. He also mentions human biodiversity, population differences in IQ, and how these things preclude non-East Asian non-whites from functioning in Western societies.

Less cerebrally, there are viscerally images like this that illustrate the same:

There's a reason the aphorism about a picture being worth a thousand words has such staying power. Still, supplementing pictures with words often accentuates the effect, as is the case here.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Of Trump and Putin

Some immediate questions and observations about the BuzzFeed article alleging Trump's "deep ties" to Russia follow.

- The dossier reports that Trump was offered several sweetheart real estate deals inside Russia but elected not to capitalize on any of them:
TRUMP has declined various sweetener real estate business deals offered him in Russia in order to further the Kremlin's cultivation of him.
This is excerpted verbatim. Notice how clunky the sentence above is. The supposed source is a British intelligence agent. Editing the sentence thus, "In order to further cultivate its relationship with him, the Kremlin offered various sweetener real estate deals that Trump declined", makes the sentence much easier to read. Maybe it's just a consequence of a certain technical writing style, but it could benefit from the services of an editor.

- The following is subsequently reported, however:
Regarding TRUMP's claimed minimal investment profile in Russia, a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want of trying. TRUMP's previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end TRUMP had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success.
This has the feel of a clever high school student's trolling effort to it. Well, I couldn't close the deal but it's a good thing I have all this coven of courtesans as a consolation prize!

Incidentally, the dossier also asserts that Russia "compromised TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him" by way of his "perverted sexual acts". I suppose no one is totally impervious to sex scandal fallout, but Trump is as close to it as they come!

More substantively, there's an apparent blatant contradiction here--Trump was offered plenty on the cheap but turned it down on the one hand but couldn't find anything to invest in despite trying hard to do so on the other.

- The report was prepared by "political opponents of Trump". An obvious question is why, given that the documents are dated from June through October of 2016, they are only now being released.

Even heroic anonymous agent isn't free of -isms!
- The dossier repeatedly mentions an organization referred to as "Alpha Group". The consortium is actually spelled "Alfa Group". Looks like Pepe, or maybe Heartiste, has gotten inside their heads!
name is actually

- It is alleged that Putin has been cultivating a relationship with Trump for "at least 8 years", efforts aimed at "splitting the US hawks inimical to Russia and the Washington elite more generally". Even with hindsight being 20/20, this seems incredible. Trump was utterly inconceivable as a presidential contender during the early years of the Obama administration. Even 18 months ago his bid was dismissed as attention-garnering fantasy. Russian prescience is astounding if they accurately divined how things would pan out a decade ago.

- The dossier alleges that Trump's business dealings in "China and other emerging markets" involved:
The payment of large bribes and kickbacks which, were they to become public, would be potentially very damaging to [the Trump] campaign.
Coupling the ChiComs knowledge of and involvement in business dealings throughout the middle kingdom and Trump's harsh rhetoric towards China it seems curious that these widespread bribes weren't made known during the presidential campaign.

It's also noted that Trump made payments to various computer hackers in multiple countries. None of the many, many people who should have evidence of putative Trumpian bribes and kickbacks are providing the proof that would vault them to messianic status in the eyes of the Establishment and have major media organizations the world over beating paths to their front doors? Hmm.

- The dossier also implicates Jill Stein, who--peacenik that she is--identified Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate most likely to start a war with Russia during the campaign:

On the one hand, the overall narrative presented is plausible. On the other, it's too plausible. All of Trump's friends in the fevered imaginations of those with Trump derangement syndrome--overt in the case of Putin and covert in the case of Stein, etc--are there in their caricatured roles. It reads like "just so" fan fiction designed to cast a lingering cloud of suspicion over the Trump administration. The contradictions, sloppy errors like the Alfa Group error and Paul Manafort's last name being misspelled "MANNAFORT" on p32, and grin-inducing terms like "golden showers" included make it difficult to take seriously.

Trump is vociferously denying the whole thing. That's his style, of course, but he's been briefed on the information from US intelligence agencies, so if he thought there was something to all of this the strident denials will turn out to be a series of unforced errors.

Given the CIA's atrocious history of fabricating so-called intelligence for the purposes of toppling governments--both foreign and domestic (see Iraq)--and the total lack of anything beyond anonymous allegations completely devoid of hard evidence, incredulity is the most prudent position to take for the time being.