Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Republican electorate leads opposition to 'free trade'

As the zombie-Reagan agenda continues to rot away, its organic material is fertilizing the Clinton wing of the Democrat machine. The following graph sourced from a current Reuters-Ipsos poll shows percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who agree that "international trade hurts average Americans because it keeps wages down due to the cheaper costs of foreign labor" (N = 3,397):


Trade restrictionism, like immigration restrictionism, is a populist issue. Parenthetically, what constitutes populism in the American context? "Anything most Americans are in favor of but the 2% opposes" is a pretty good rule of thumb (though just 55 Jews were sampled, so take it as merely suggestive).

The political distinctions are modest by comparison. Surprisingly, this is even the case by income. There's a bit of a top/bottom-vs-middle dynamic apparent, but those differences are even smaller than the political ones are.

As currently constituted, international trade is an enormously complicated issue I won't make too much of a fool of myself by opining on. A couple of things I would, though, like to hear free traders address that they rarely bother to address:

- Trade deficits are not a curse, they're a blessing. We send them pieces of paper and they send us all kinds of cool stuff like cars, computers, and consumables. What a steal!

Okay, but why doesn't that logic apply at the individual level? I don't even have to send out pieces of paper to get a hold of cars, computers, and consumables. I just scan this piece of plastic and it's all mine. What a steal!

- If it is always in a country's best interest to keep its markets as open to international trade as possible, why is every country seemingly so willing to shoot itself in the foot by responding to one country's tariffs by imposing tariffs of its own? If the country imposing the restrictions is the loser, why do trade wars escalate?

The winning strategy must be to let other countries impose all the restrictions they want on your stuff--it'll just hurt them, after all--without imposing any restrictions in return. So why don't any countries actually do that?

Monday, May 21, 2018

Better prude than rude

The Derb on how the kids don't rut like they used to:
The general decline of interest in sexual intercourse must also be playing in to these numbers somehow. I have often reflected on how odd it has been, across my own lifetime, to see the general decline in libido all over the Western world. Fifty years ago — I was there, listener, I was there — when not one citizen in a hundred had a gym membership, and halitosis and body odor were common, and the male-female imbalance in workplaces, clubs, sports, schools was way more marked than it is today, making it harder to get to know the opposite sex; back in those benighted days, with all those disadvantages and deterrents, the people of the West were going at it like rabbits.

The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, perfect dentition, and daily showers, with sex segregation actually outlawed almost everywhere — heck, we even have women on submarines today — they can't be bothered. From a report in Maxim magazine last July, based on a different set of numbers from the CDC, quote:

"Between the ages of 15 and 19, 42 percent of women and 44 percent of men reported having sex, relative to … 51 percent of women and 60 percent of men in 1988."
The following graph is sourced from a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking women if they consider unwanted compliments about appearance to be sexual harassment. The results, by age ("don't know" responses are excluded, N = 1,958):


A consequence of this change in mores is a society heading in the direction of removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

For obvious biological reasons, women are the more restrictive sex. Men request access, women grant it. What is deemed "unwanted" is entirely up to the subjective judgment of the woman in question. It's tough for men to gauge whether or not the compliment is wanted or unwanted until after it is made.

This makes apprehension manifesting as approach anxiety relevant again for men. Exploding Muhammads excepted, today it's relevant not because the woman's brother or father might put a shiv in your ribs for approaching, as was the case earlier in human history. It's relevant instead because the woman who is approached may decide not only is the one who approached her beneath her attention, but he should suffer for thinking she'd have anything to do with him.

For alphas, this isn't that big of a deal, though it carries risks even for them. For lesser betas and omegas, however, it's ruinous.

Who is at the head of this women's march to sexual market collapse? The following graph shows the percentages of women, by race and presidential vote, who consider unwanted compliments about appearance to be sexual harassment. Sample sizes for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are too small to break out separately so they are combined and presented here as "non-white":


Some of the political disparity is on account of older women tending towards Trump and younger women towards Clinton, but the age gap only explains a part of the large gap between Trumpettes and Hillary's Harpies.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Support for secession by state

The following map and subsequent table show percentages by state who, according to a 2014 Reuters-Ipsos poll, support "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government" ("don't know" responses are excluded; N = 12,734):


StateSecede
1) Alaska58.3%
2) New Mexico45.2%
3) Texas40.4%
4) Illinois38.9%
5) District of Columbia38.1%
6) Alabama38.0%
7) Utah37.6%
8) Louisiana37.5%
9) Montana37.2%
10) Rhode Island36.9%
11) Nebraska36.2%
12) Delaware36.1%
13) West Virginia35.4%
14) Georgia35.3%
15) Vermont35.1%
16) Wyoming34.8%
17) Oregon33.9%
18) Virginia33.8%
19) Kentucky33.0%
20) South Carolina32.7%
21) Idaho32.5%
22) Florida32.2%
23) Colorado32.2%
24) New York32.1%
25) Arkansas32.0%
26) Oklahoma31.6%
27) North Dakota31.6%
28) Mississippi31.5%
29) California30.0%
30) Maine29.8%
31) Kansas29.8%
32) Nevada29.7%
33) Tennessee29.7%
34) Arizona29.0%
35) New Hampshire28.8%
36) South Dakota28.4%
37) Maryland27.9%
38) Washington27.5%
39) Ohio27.3%
40) Hawaii27.2%
41) Michigan26.9%
42) Pennsylvania26.0%
43) Missouri25.9%
44) North Carolina25.7%
45) Iowa24.5%
46) Indiana24.3%
47) New Jersey23.4%
48) Wisconsin22.3%
49) Massachusetts21.2%
50) Minnesota20.6%
51) Connecticut19.2%

Just under 13,000 people across 51 states and the Imperial Capital comes to 250 people per, some with fewer and some with more, so bear in mind the limited sample sizes.

Speaking of the Imperial Capital, the 38% figure strains credulity more than any other result does. The sample is the poll's smallest, though, at just 70, so take it with a grain of salt.

The mountain states, the Southwest, and the Deep South show the greatest support for secession. The Upper Midwest shows the least appetite for it, though Illinois--a financially dysfunctional Midwestern state held captive by ultra leftist Chicago--is a notable exception.

It's not particularly surprising that Alaska, with its petroleum dividend, libertarian streak, and minimal association with the rest of the country in terms of culture and politics, shows the greatest support for breaking away. It is the only state where a majority of respondents favor secession.

One thing I inexplicably failed to bring attention to in the previous post is the political split among whites:


White Democrats express a lot more opposition to secession than white Republicans and independents do. But non-whites, who of course vote overwhelmingly Democrat, are more supportive than white Republicans are. There's a gaping chasm between white Democrats and their non-white political allies when it comes to political self-determination. And the non-white enthusiasm for political dissolution expressed in this poll was captured during Obama's more explicitly anti-white second term.

R-I should run the poll again today. I suspect non-white support for breakup now exceeds 50%. Sure, political dissolution will threaten the gibs, but identity is more powerful than economic well-being. That reality is something WEIRDOs have a lot of difficulty understanding. Everyone else takes it for granted and acts accordingly.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

US political dissolution a question of when and how, not if

Revisiting a poll from a few years ago reinforces my belief that the US is headed for political dissolution within the lifetimes of most people reading this. In the latter part of 2014, Reuters-Ipsos asked a huge number of respondents (N = 16,668) if they supported or opposed "your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government".

The following graph shows the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who supported the idea. "Don't know" answers, which constituted 23.5% of all responses, are excluded in the graph which presents the results dichotomously:


At 87, the Muslim sample size is small, so don't read it conclusively. Instead, take it suggestively--suggestive of exactly what you assumed to be the case. And the 2%? Maybe they should've thought twice about destroying the nation that was the greatest thing that ever happened to them.

This poll was conducted during Obama's presidency, nearly a year before Donald Trump shocked the world by announcing his candidacy. Even during the Obama administration large numbers of non-whites--especially "new Americans"--liked the idea of getting out. Imagine what those figures would look like in 2018.

The warning that secession will lead to civil war has always struck me as highly unlikely. That  nearly half of the country's armed forces support political dissolution further confirms it.

If Texas goes, blue states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while red states begin planning on how to follow Texas' lead. If California goes, red states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while blue states begin planning on how to follow California's lead.

One reason secession strikes many as practically unthinkable at first blush is because the political zeitgeist is still overwhelmingly shaped and controlled by boomers. The generational divide is actually starker than the racial divide is. When the boomers exit the stage, the possibility will suddenly seem all too real.

To people who grew up in a country of 150 million that was 90% white with a minority that had been here from the beginning, the thing made sense. To people trying to survive inside an empire of over 330 million people who are religiously, ethnically, financially, linguistically, racially, politically, and culturally divided--bitterly divided--it makes no sense. About the only thing keeping the it together now is a mix of inertia and economic expediency.

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Support for it exists all over the dissident right--Heartiste, Z-Man, Vox Day, Julian Langness, Jared Taylor. Our favorite septuagenarian is even thinking it over. It's not just gaining traction out here on the political frontier, though. The Federalist recently carried a column in support of the idea. Even the NYT is dipping a toe in the water.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Stefan Molyneux on the GSS and free speech absolutism



Regular readers who watch this presentation will recognize that it is strikingly similar to this post. It also draws from this one.

This is not on account of Molyneux being a plagiarist. He contacted me and I subsequently worked with his producer, Michael, who had seen the post and found the topic fascinating. Over the course of several e-mail exchanges, I helped Michael understand how to navigate the GSS in general and how to replicate the results from that post specifically.

Michael was extremely cordial and complimentary. He offered to compensate me for my time. I refused and made it clear that no attribution was necessary. There are posts on this blog that delve into things Molyneux understandably doesn't need to get tangled up in. While I know the data presented are always reliably and precisely pulled from primary sources, it's easy to imagine a large portion of his audience questioning the validity of his presentation upon seeing the blog as the source. Pointing to the GSS directly is a better way to go.

Oh, and now we have a guy with nearly one million subscribers giving a detailed presentation based on the GSS, one of the most underutilized data sources in the world of social science. Three cheers!

Molyneux is doing civilizational-saving work. So far as I'm aware no one else is doing as much to spread realism about race and IQ as he is. Charles Murray gave the relationship salience with The Bell Curve, and other psychometricians and evolutionary psychologists have conducted research on it, but no one with a platform approaching the size of Molyneux's has weaved it into discussions of every topic it applies to (which is just about every topic there is).

Understanding IQ differences as an abstract concept is one thing. Actively applying it to everything aspect of existence is another. The latter is what will change the zeitgeist, and no one is doing as much to realize that change as Molyneux.

Parenthetically, Molyneux (or Michael) didn't apply the BORN filter when tracking free speech absolutism by intelligence (the relevant portion of the presentation takes place around the 31 minute mark). Since intelligence in this context is estimated based on the English vocabulary of respondents, it's an imprecise proxy if people who are not native English speakers are included. Consequently, my figures--which exclude respondents born outside the US--are modestly higher at all ranges of intelligence.