Saturday, January 21, 2017

Be careful what you wish for

The idea that violence is primarily being done by Trump supporters against Trump opponents has become increasingly risible over the last year-and-a-half. It's long since passed the point of absurdity and has now reached the point of being embarrassing even for most moderate leftists to treat seriously.

The quantity of video evidence refuting the blood libel mendaciously spread by fake news and their lickspittle lackeys is overwhelming. The cache grew larger still during Trump's inauguration yesterday:

Psychological projection is an important concept to understand in making sense of how cultMarxists are constantly warning about violence being done by Trump supporters. These people are characterized by a dangerous mixture of self-righteous zeal and a bully's intolerance for anyone who disagrees with them about anything. There are lots of comments to news stories on these events about how Trump supporters have it coming to them, that violence against "Nazis" is justified, etc.

The danger they pose is dwarfed by the danger they are exposing themselves to, however. The vast majority of the people doing the attacking are devoid of any actual relationship with violence--they aren't in shape, they're not physically strong, they've never trained in any martial art, they don't own guns (let alone have any idea how to use them), etc. These are self-entitled, prospectless omegas living off student loans or their parents in urban and suburban aquariums. If they acted like this in the ocean they'd be hanging from street lights in a matter of minutes.

With Trump in the White House and Jeff Sessions as AG, law enforcement across the country is probably going to significantly step up the severity of how they deal with the left's violent street rabble. If the authorities to whom we've outsourced the execution of violence fail to do so, middle Americans will do it themselves.

It's going to be an interesting eight years.

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.