Here's someone who isn't a fan of free speech:

Now make it illegal to hold racist views

The Model Law states that there is no place for "tolerance of the intolerant" in modern society. It seeks to introduce for the first time into British law novel provisions including stronger safeguards against hate speech, the introduction of group libel, specific mention of antisemitism, outlawing of Holocaust denial, and educational initiatives from primary school upwards promoting tolerance, diversity and respect.

Dr Moshe Kantor is President of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation and President of the World Jewish Forum Foundation (WJF)

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/now-make-it-illegal-to-hold-racist-views-1.60748

Dr Kantor is a billionaire too and has lots of high-up friends in European politics. See the list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_on_Tolerance_and_Reconciliation

Fortunately, Dr Kantor and the ADL are only a tiny minority of white liberals and are far out-numbered by white liberals who support free speech.

Yes. Three charts.

Chart 1 – Independents (lean Rep) by race
Chart 2 – Independents (lean Dem) by race
Chart 3 – Independents (remaining) by race

I guess restrict to likely voters? I imagine Independents are more likely to stay home than partisans.

There are ways I could've made the gap look a lot wider–for example by subtracting "not allowed" from "allowed", which would give us a Muslim bar at 2 and a white liberal bar at 35x that (70). 

Lol.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the "question"…

Liberal whites – *cough cough* – SUPPORT "free speech"
MORE than moderates/conservatives?!?!?

If my understanding is correct, I CALL BULL.
WHO has been shutting down conservative/alt right speeches?!?

Please, Anepigone, please don't do this to graphs. Yes, the numbers are there, but visual impressions count

Muh concern. Git gud.

It's the whole rights vs responsibilities thing. Liberals feel that paying lip service (and taxes) to the Great Progressive Society ought to enable you to sleep around, do drugs, move from one place to another, and bloviate in whatever manner you see fit (as long as doesn't offend a liberal pet group). And that's why so many liberals have a lackadaisical attitude towards crime, terrorism, immigration, drugs, stds, etc. but then act so butthurt about muh racism or whatever.

Conservatives are more likely to feel a sense of responsibility about maintaining order, and thus are approving of restrictions intended to keep the peace. E.g. it's not ok to shout fire in a crowded theater, to tell a cop to go fuck himself, to shout down a public speaker, and so forth. Conservatives are less accepting of threatening, rude, and chaotic behavior, whereas progs wax nostalgic about protests and riots.

Here is where Boomers come up short, as usual, since they're so fundamentally hedonistic and the idea of restraining oneself still seems so alien to them. Remember that they came of age in the 60's and 70's, when doing what you wanted and breaking the rules was "in".

I have to wonder if the Jewish and liberal White respondents have a different idea of what "free speech" means, compared to conservative and moderate Whites. After all, I have heard many a peer insist, without the slightest hint of irony, "Hate speech is NOT free speech!"

This should give lie to the idea that the nature of the country will not change if it becomes majority non-white.

Please, Anepigone, please don't do this to graphs. Yes, the numbers are there, but visual impressions count, and your graph, with the bottom at 40%, gives the misleading impression that the Mohammedans' support is only half of even blacks' (never mind that all this is self-reported and not revealed-preference) when really the ratio of the largest to the smallest bar is less than two. It's bad enough that everyone else does this with the small print, but Carlylean veracity is the only way for us.

Lol anon, read the OP. N = 11930. Demographics: look at the picture.

——

SJWs and BLMs will continue to eagerly shut down white/Jew politicians at Democratic conventions. They have to keep rolling over, but that will only increase the disgust among white Dems and Dem-leaning white moderates.

It's Okay
To Have
Free Speech

BTW–can you do a break down of registered Independent leaners and true Independents by race?

What was the sample size on this poll? The demographics?

Sid…

"My guess, however, is that dumbies and more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are. Occuring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact. After two kids or so, dumb whites understand that children are expensive and then use birth control more regularly, abort unwanted fetuses, and simply have less and less interest in sex over time."

Assuming that white people are acting against their own interest to have more children to negate the impact of non-white children.

Assuming that IQ is the end all and be all for every white person.

Assuming that there will be an "unmistakably dysgenic impact" should white people choose to make their own decisions about race and culture and child rearing.

Praytell, what are your metrics for determining "dumb whites"?

I see; thanks for the explanation. I should have paid attention to the percentage shares for each category the first time around.

@Sid

Yes, that is exactly why the situation is really bad for blacks and Hispanics. Imagine how socially isolating it is to be an IQ 130+ white person. Now imagine how much worse it gets if you are an IQ 130+ black or hispanic person. I imagine that it must be just as lonely for the IQ 130 blacks and Hispanics as it is for the IQ 145+ whites.

Two things:
1.) How can this data jive with the fact that the white birth rate is 1.75, the black rate is 1.9, and the Hispanic rate is 2.3? I know this is based on people who had their kids years ago, and the birth rate (especially among Hispanics) has declined since great recession, but hasn't the white rate been at or below two for several decades?

2.) Is the black rate really That much more dysgenic than the white rate? This scale is using the white mean score of 6 as normal, but the black mean/median, I assume, is lower. If, as with IQ, around 1/6 of blacks score at or above the white average, then blacks with a "normal" score are actually among the top 1/6 of blacks, and they have a birth rate of 2.5. I know the black birth rate fall off a cliff at the very high end, but presumably that is a small portion of the their top 1/6, or even their top 10%. Based on this graph, I would guess that the birth rate of the top 10% of blacks is still higher than 2. Clearly, this graph shows a more dysgenic trend among blacks than whites, but maybe not dramatically so.

@akarlin

Might just be a chance effect of lower sample sizes in the "Pretty / Really smarts" categories though.

I'd suggest, reanalyze and look at each group normalized to its SD and mean.

Replicate with SES would also be interesting.

(Incidentally, Greg Clark has his finding from surname analysis that low status White names such as "the surnames of the New France settlers of North America – Hebert, Cote, Gagnon — are all now of low social status, 300 years after most of these settlers arrived in the New World. And they are converging on mean status no faster than black surnames", which is at odds with higher / lower regression among different groups. What does anyone make of that? Suggests a) no White low surname advantage in attaining medium status, which you would suggest if racial discrimination mattered and b) no different regression to the mean.)

Since gays are more extroverted, and don't have wives or children to protect, it's much easier for them to pile up in urban areas where they end up often competing with each other in various fields requiring extroversion and flamboyance. We all know too that decadent gays are far less troubled by urban crime and disease waves than heteros are.

And I thought I read that gays were studied and were found to have sharper diction that heteros. Likely that in the course of their lives, gays pad their advantage by frequently hanging out with verbal elites (gay or otherwise), which further develops the former's eloquence.

For those keeping score, try and conceive your kids in non-elite metro areas (if you aren't willing to live totally out in the sticks), preferably in the parts of the US that are dry and/or cold. I'd bet that males born and raised in the outer suburbs and hinterlands of the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho are probably the least gay people in the country (not including feather indians who grew up on dreadful reservations).

Bos-Wash, the Deep South, and Texas should be avoided at all costs, esp. if you're white. That being said, if you do end up in these places, avoid the urban areas like the plague, esp. if you're going to be having a kid. That goes for every region, really; stay the hell away from the bug-ridden cities.

Wikipedia looks to have scrubbed the gay-germ theory from it's arena of "acceptable ideas"; you have to go to Greg Cochrane's bio article to find it.

Environment and homosexuality does have a section on urban correlations, but it's framed in terms of "social construct" BS.v Several studies linking gayness to urban upbringing are acknowledged, but don't mention anything related to science. The idea that people born in the country are more likely to repress their identity is laughable; every body wants and needs sex, and wants to hang out with like-minded people. To the extent that fairies are born in the sticks, most end up going to and staying in the big city. Ultimately, most men born in low-pathogen areas are straight as an arrow, verbally disinclined, and have a visceral distaste for homos and for urban areas that will never really go away. The homos and elites who didn't happen to grow up in the big city are the exception that proves the rule, since they stand out so much from the ranks of hinterland proles.

The last point I brought up because immigrants always bring in new varieties of germs that the locals aren't used to. More immigrants=more diseases.

Urban environments, immigrants, transplants, warm weather, rainy and humid weather, and 3rd world culture are all associated with high levels of pathogens.

Wordsum, whites and males only (I don't control for Hispanics since that makes sample sizes too low, so I use race(1) and that's it) by number of same sex partners:

Nummen (0)
10 – 5.2
9 – 9.2
8 – 12.5
7 – 17.3
6 – 22.3
5 – 15.9
4 – 9.5
3 – 4.9
2 – 2.0
1 – .9
0 – .3

Nummen (1-700)
10 – 9.0
9 – 8.6
8 – 13.3
7 – 16.4
6 – 24.1
5 – 14.0
4 – 7.0
3 – 4.2
2 – 2.4
1 . 9
0 – 0

Wow, that's a fairly sound victory by fairies. Gays are vastly over-represented in acting, singing, the media, and politics, given how few gays there are. Also of note is that there appears to be a correlation between urban upbringing and teh ghey, and we all know that verbal elites cluster in big cities. It could well be that hetero urban elites are more likely to give birth to off-spring who are verbally gifted and/or recipients of the gay pathogen.

BTW, this would also explain why homsexuality doesn't get "evolved" out of existence; humans who either are very high or very low in class cluster in high pathogen environments to live near like groups (what, do you expect elites to no be as close as possible to their fellow lawyers, politicians, think-tankers, etc.?). The disadvantage incurred by not reproducing is off-set by most (advanced?) human societies conferring high status on verbal elites who must accept exposure to pathogens as the price to be paid for living near thousands of other fellow elites. And these same elites, more often than not, enjoy ethnic restaurants staffed by immigrants and ethnic urban labor in general.

"The gay advantage (and corresponding bisexual disadvantage, interestingly) over heterosexuals in wordsum for men is .4, about a quarter of a standard deviation, or about 4 IQ points. But the gay numbers in these samples are prohibitively small since the SEXORNT question only began being asked in 2008. "

"Bi-sexuals" mostly includes low self-esteem and/or low-IQ women (think: future porn star material) who presumably are not exactly bookish and are more into acting out. A decent number of guys sow their wild oats (within reason) and then grow out of it, whereas (as you've noted recently) wild-child girls are setting themselves up for a life-time of an emotional void and overall ill-being.

Is NUMMEN (and NUMWOMEN) a better way to gauge sexuality than SEXORNT? The num variables have a much longer history on the GSS, and besides are much more objective than asking someone what their identity is (how many Millennials girls "identify" as gay or bi when they're in college?).

@ A/E,

Thank you for your response.

I'm not being hostile I was giving it to the crowd straight. This is how when matters are important men may and do speak.

The winds of this blog and this current on the right consistently point towards either genocide or partition. I've pointed out before the geography of North America not to mention our current human map support no such partition; the winner of the wars will unite the continent as we did. In attempting to separate peacefully there would be a chain of bloody conflicts that end the same way although we might end up not the winner.

I also pointed out that intelligence is overrated, thank you for acknowledging it's not a trait pointing towards evolutionary fitness.

I have pointed out with the vantage of half a century those who live by quantifying humanity should not make life or death decisions especially genocidal ones; you don't understand people enough to make such decisions.

I gave an example of what per the "data" should be a super dysgenic family that instead is quite successful by white metrics across the board. They are a Gold Star Family.

Finally there is this: the people who do make life and death decisions are bound by war, crime fighting, firefighting, blood and oath and again we're all coming from the same clusters of families for generations now and please be aware those ties outweigh all else. I am describing not just military here but also police, firemen, EMTs etc.

**We're all coming from the same clusters of family. That's what volunteer defenders has literally bred us.**

We're exactly reflective by the way of the country as a whole in terms of race. As far as intelligence our testing – we are one of the few favored still with actual ability tests in the ASVAB – we eliminate the bottom quintile and are underrepresented in the top quintile.

But ^none of that^ matters to us just our ties of blood by war family.

Your conclusions and data, metrics and sums can be useful Sir as rough measurements of the situation but can't and won't tell in actual policy. What is above will tell. Sirs.

AE – "The r-value is .01 and the p-value is 0.86, so there's no basically no relationship between the two. It gets slightly weaker if foreign-born are excluded."
Are you referring to INTRWGHT? You need to use INTRWGHT(2-4) to see the relationship. The variable is parabolic. 1 is underweight, 2 is normal, 3 is overweight, 4 is obesity. You have to look at (1-2), vs (2-4) separately to get a linear regression.

"That is still interesting, though it doesn't hold for white men or for non-whites. To the contrary, the correlation between WORDSUM and CHILDS is strongly negative for non-whites with intrwght controlled for." As stated in the last comment, I believe that is the harmful effect of affirmative action. If we control for EDUC, the effect of WORDSUM is almost non-existent for all races. Also, we really don't have a good obesity data, and I suspect some of EDUC is really obesity at college age.

–An Inflammatory Commentator

Sid:

"I'd like to know why smart blacks and Hispanics don't have so many children. Maybe their being so much smarter than their group average means that they have a harder time finding spouses? Maybe it's because blacks and Hispanics reproduce in their late teens to mid twenties, which is when so many smart people are busy with college and maybe professional/grad school? I don't know, I find this genuinely interesting."

I think I can explain this for you. When I just looked at the GSS white non-Hispanic and performed a regression analysis looking at WORDSUM and INTRWGHT, after adjusting for obesity, WORDSUM actually had a positive effect on fertility. I was surprised to discover that when I looked at all races, WORDSUM actually had a negative effect on fertility. When I added EDUC to the multiple regression analysis, the WORDSUM had almost no effect no fertility, but EDUC had a large negative effect, as did obesity.

I think the problem is that affirmative action is harming Black and Hispanic students. It is causing them to take on large amounts of debt and then not graduate, or graduate with a degree in a career where they under perform because they weren't really qualified. You can see the regression coefficients yourself. I limited INRTWGHT to (2-4) because it is a parabolic relationship, and there are not many people who are underweight.

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss16
Analysis => Multiple Regression
Dependent: CHILDS
Independent: WORDSUM, INTRWGHT, EDUC
Limits: AGE(40-100),INTRWGHT(2-4)

WORDSUM correlation coefficient drops to -0.008
INTRWGHT is -0.075
EDUC is -0.076

However, if we go back to non-hispanic whites:
AGE(40-100),HISPANIC(1),RACECEN1(1),INTRWGHT(2-4)
WORDSUM has a slightly positive effect on fertility 0.003
EDUC is still slightly negative, but I suspect this is really capturing the effect of obesity during the college years, as discussed in the comments here:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com.tr/2017/07/stalin-is-new-hitler.html

–An Inflamatory Commentator

JayMan – "You need to adjust for obesity. Wordsum has a positive impact on even female fertility after accounting for obesity. However, it appears some of the genes that positively influence wordsum also lead to obesity." If this process is real (which I doubt), the GSS is hardly the place to look at it.

The article is about the GSS data, so I don't know why we would look for it here. However, what I was alluding to was the known association between use of electronics and obesity. Light at night alters metabolism, and I suspect smarter people are more likely to be entertained by night time computer use. That is how the genes that cause increased intelligence could cause a behavior that increases obesity. It is also why we need to perform regression analysis instead of correlation analysis:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230826783_Availability_and_night-time_use_of_electronic_entertainment_and_communication_devices_are_associated_with_short_sleep_duration_and_obesity_among_Canadian_children

–An Inflammatory Commentator

I wonder how much the effect of selective forms of migration for hispanics. Since a huge proportion of that population is composed of people who came illegally very recently from basically rural peasant backgrounds.

Those are the types of populations most likely to have very low average IQs (The smart fraction from those populations likely go to the urban centres of Mexico or would be better off coming as legal immigrants and the IQs of such populations is likely depressed anyway from lower protein diets) and to respond most pro-natally to the increased resources of the US and particularly to the social welfare incentives (From their perspective) to have more children.

IE, without first generation immigrants responding to the resources of the US from their point of comparison of rural Mexico, even those of an illegal immigrant, is it as bad for hispanics as it looks?

None topic related. The most important post have been about the younger generation. I am still skeptical about the survey and would like to see it replicated. However, the election results and voting trends in Austria seem to support your findings. I would like to hear your thoughts.

About the achievement gap:
Unfortunately dysgenic fertility is only part (and probably smaller one) of the generic dysgenic trend. Deleterious mutations are, according to the best estimates, at least as strong and possibly stronger driver.
And their effect is expected to be much higher on whites because high IQ is pretty recent evolutionary adaptation and thus suspectible to a quick reversal as soon as the selective pressure ends.

One could be forgiven for wondering if in fact intelligence itself as an evolutionary fitness strategy is overrated? They don't seem to have a good long term strategy for survival or even an old age if our known bankrupt government doesn't provide care?

It's almost as if they aren't so much "intelligent" in a practical sense but more clever in a wordsum sense but fatally silly on matters of survival.

I wonder what the Wordsum of the Wright Brothers was?

More Bluntly..Only a hopeless and hopelessly unfit from the evolutionary standpoint would you know come up with quantifying word count into "Wordsum."

Don't worry. We healthy middlers will save humanity, whites and probably even Civilization from your out of control pets.

I say your pets because if Progressives hadn't become so Jewish dominant and so genocidally anti-white you'd be Progs today.

On that note your judgement was off on freeing the feral pets, and we healthy working class middlers had it right.

Similarly your judgement is off on genocide as the solution or ethnic cleansing, or partition. Your numbers will not reveal this to you: you have poor judgement.
Perhaps that's the quant attraction. But your judgment is poor.

So kindly having taken us all to the left of pluto and regretted it don't try taking us to the right of Hitler. And bugger your precious intelligence.

You may have quantifiable wordsum [wordsum…I can't get over this…] but you have SHIT POOR JUDGMENT and shouldn't make life or death decisions, never mind genocide.

PS have a look at this gold star family. With proper raising you'd never guess their putative racial dysgenics. Elder son has academic scholarship with 3.7 GPA from K-school on…and he's half black, half Latino.

Because judgement and tradition not numbers work.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/gold-star-widow-releases-trumps-call-after-husband-was-killed-in-afghanistan/

vxxc
catch me on new post ban ID ! vetssc17

Yes, Jayman also has a good article on this.

Pretty disturbing. Anyone seen good explanations as to why this might be the case?

Not about the dysgenics, but about gap narrowing:

Isn't a interracial marriage number quite high for blacks? I am not saying it is, but I keep reading that here and there… ANd if it is, wouldn't that mean a force contributing to narrowing of the gap?

On another hand, if one measures the gap between population A and B, and then C and B, where A (blacks from 1960) and B (blacks from, say, 2060) are genetically different, the any narrowing of the gap would be meaningless anyway..

I doubt it too. The genetic correlation between intelligence or education and BMI/obesity is always negative in all reports. Why would it be positive in just African-Americans?

The black birth rate is much lower than it was in the mid 90's and previous several decades; The Hispanic birth rates has fallen quite a bit over the last 5-10 years (the late 2000's recession), as Steve Sailer has noted that the late 90's and early 2000's were a time of tremendous growth in the "sand states" (the Sunbelt, really), and we've yet to recapture that era (most of the current so-called recovery is going to rich people and big companies). Actually, come to think of it every single post-mid 70's economic boom has increasingly been concentrated on rich people and conglomerates, with the latest "recovery" mostly a mirage to middle class people of whom there are fewer and fewer. Also relevant is that these booms primarily benefited Silents and early Boomers first, late Boomers 2nd, Gen X-ers third, and Millennials last. The economic climate of the 50's and 60's was a middle class paradise for Silents and early Boomers; today's supposed boom means absolutely nothing to people born after 1980.

WRT GSS skepticism, I'd bet that most high scoring blacks are part of a unusually studious and high scoring professional black elite who are not interested in having families. Other ethnic groups have enough inherent intelligence that they can score fairly well on the wordsum score in the absence of particular studiousness/professionalism. BTW, how many blacks score well on the Wordsum test, any way? We might be dealing with a small sample size because there just aren't that many blacks who score well in the first place, which is also taking into account the possibility that few blacks took the test in the first place.

Lastly, might we try and see how sexuality plays into this? Gay men are more verbally gifted, and quite a few high-scoring black women might be lesbians who'd rather read than get knocked up. Is the gay verbal advantage even more pronounced within black folk, compared to other races?

Would love to know why the trend is so steep amongst rising IQs among blacks. Fascinating.

It seems like FTR/IQ segment is a bell curve. With blacks the cut-off is just more visible because their average is lower.

Does this mean that the extremely smart Asians and Whites (0.1%) also have very little children?

1. The dysgenic trend among whites is surprisingly mild. I figured that anti-fertility propaganda was imbibed mostly by college educated women. That might be the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if dumb whites simply watch TV shows and read magazines that I don't indulge with that have the same anti-fertility messaging.

My guess, however, is that dumbies and more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are.
Occuring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact. After two kids or so, dumb whites understand that children are expensive and then use birth control more regularly, abort unwanted fetuses, and simply have less and less interest in sex over time.

2. I expect that any effects improved nurture had on black IQ (increased and targeted funding for black schools and access to medical care) was canceled out by how those very same policies subsidized the breeding of a black underclass. Simply put, underclass blacks don't pay for much with their own money: they get Medicaid, Section 8 housing, and food stamps. As such, it's easy for them to breed and there's not the same cost that other sections of society have when having children.

Apparently the same is happening with Hispanics.

3. I'd like to know why smart blacks and Hispanics don't have so many children. Maybe their being so much smarter than their group average means that they have a harder time finding spouses? Maybe it's because blacks and Hispanics reproduce in their late teens to mid twenties, which is when so many smart people are busy with college and maybe professional/grad school? I don't know, I find this genuinely interesting.

You need to adjust for obesity. Wordsum has a positive impact on even female fertility after accounting for obesity. However, it appears some of the genes that positively influence wordsum also lead to obesity. I have a theory for the mechanism. Take a look at the GSS Data again, perform a regression analysis, and age over 40 is really necessary these days:

Regression Analysis:
Independent Variables: INTRWGHT, WORDSUM
Dependent Variable: CHILDS
Limits: AGE(40-100),SEX(2),HISPANIC(1),RACECEN1(1),INTRWGHT(1-4)

Correlation really isn't causation, even if data speculation is life beautification.

This shows WORDSUM having a positive impact on fertility. I'm not sure if intelligence is causing increased obesity because it leads to an activity that causes weight gain in the modern environment, or if some of the genes that cause intelligence also lead to weight gain. I suspect probably both in some cases.

–An Inflammatory Commentator
P.S. The cure is getting closer, and it is impossible to use backward looking data to predict a future after a medical revolution.

"Follow the Derb's advice instead and just don't do race.
" – DR3 is more aimed a the suburban Whites, so he probably does need to pay lip service to it. Otherwise though I'd certainly agree that there is zero percentage in it.

Regarding audience guests, Chuck Johnson gave an interview I think it was on Fash The Nation that they invited a special guest for the third debate. Since he brought Kathy Shelton for the second debate, I assume he will be true to his word. I'd be curious who it is, my guess is that it is Bill's supposed illegitimate half back son but we'll see. With the Clintons, there are so many possibilities!

Anonymous,

I've spent the better part of two months getting people registered, filling out absentee ballots, etc. Unfortunately the GOP is very poorly equipped for significant GOTV efforts. Some people think it is intentional but my experience is that this is really the first time in their lifetimes where people are really, really excited to vote for the Republican nominee. One weekend they ran out of forms and I went to a local copy center and made 1000 copies of the registration forms so people can go knock on doors. It's disgraceful but hey, we weren't going to have people just walk out when they're excited to hit the street.

Generally I'd say that Trump's base, including his new voter base, tends to be with it more than the Democrats, which require getting a bus in major urban areas to hand out sandwiches to get them to go to the booth. Even the dormant voters or those who never voted that I came across, many of them already registered or were going to register (until we showed up and got them to fill out the form).

With the news of 250,000 PA voters switching affiliations from Democrat to Republican, Republicans leading in early voting in Florida, etc. I'd say the outreach is effective so far. The Democrat base is very different than the Republican base.

I think your assessment is a mistake. The need for ground game is more for apathetic minorities that Democrats absolutely need to win the election, not the fired up working class that keeps packing his rallies. More outreach is always better of course and there's still time. I remain confident turnout among whites will be very high, especially among the working class that will serve as the major tent pole for Trump's Republicans.

One more thing, AE

The priceless opportunity to motivate and mobilize 47 Million Eligible White Voters has been squandered. Given this, I offer The God Emperor the following last minute advice:

1. Seek advice from a team of psychiatrists and psychologists for Debate #3. At minimum, Donald needs to provoke Hillary into a live seizure on camera.

2. Work the Catholic and Protestant Christian angle and the First Amendment in general. Point out that Hillary and “her core atheist and Synagogue supporters� intend to conduct new persecutions.

3. Put up $200 million for hard-hitting ads. Maybe $400 million. The enemy is going to break him later anyway, if he loses, to set an example to others.

4. The Hillary Campaign’s complicity with Soros’ plans to destroy Christianity in the West.

5. Hillary’s own crimes as an accomplice of the criminal sex predator, Bill Clinton.

6. Hillary’s own collusion with Putin and her exposure to blackmail from virtually every government in the world with electricity and a computer.

Just sayin'…

AE,

Most of what you write is spot on, but Trump’s failure to employ ground game to motivate and mobilize 25-50% of those 47 Million Eligible White Voters cannot be justified. His reliance upon mainstream media jiu-jitsu, social media tweets on twatter, and rallies – while important – is akin to entering a fist fight with one arm immobilized.

Instead, Trump felt that appealing to a small, fickle contingent of American Africans and "Hispanics" to the exclusion of 47 Million Eligible White Voters was the rational route to follow.

His failure to motivate and mobilize 47 Million Eligible White Voters is due to poor judgment or is linked to the mess of pottage sold him by the GOPe – the same clowns who sabotaged his campaign from the beginning and recently stabbed him in the back.

Outraged snowflakes (male and female) may decide this election.

Let us hope Trump pulls a miracle out of his ass to overcome the rigged voting and that the “less energized� subset of the Independent and Republican “likely voter� contingents don’t go for Hillary or decide to stay home.

Latest daybreak poll has Trump capturing 38.7% of the hispanics. Romney only got 27% of the hispanic vote in 2012. Dubya received about 40% of the hispanic vote in 2000. While I suspect this is just a brief spike, for as much talk as there is about Trump being a racist, he seems to do better with minorities than McCain and Romney. He should probably end up somewhere around 1/3 of the vote, which combined with a higher white turnout, will likely secure a good Trump victory. All along I wanted a landslide but if he gets over 300 electoral votes, I will be happy. I still think that is definitely possible.

Trump might be capturing more of the black vote as well.

https://archive.is/CXNoH

Gentlemen,

All good points but it's time to look past Nov 8th. Come what may it's a new world on Nov 9th. We were never going to talk our way out of this – and that includes voting.

Now do we want to survive and want our posterity to survive?

Then we fight.

We. Men. Or not. If not we cease to exist – probably much faster than the comfortable 2040-2070 windows bandied about. If we go down without fighting we'll never rise again [and frankly don't deserve to continue].

Slavery isn't a viable option even for otherwise prospective slave-owners as machines or Mexican's are far cheaper and less risky than us.

So it's Victory or Night. No Dawn save Victory – this is past the election which just chooses the legitimate Commander in Chief.

VXXC

>>All that said, there is a Brexit vibe to this election. I've often thought that the ruling class hysteria in the final weeks of the Brexit vote tipped a lot of voters to the Leave side.

Negative campaigning has historically reduced the turn out of the least commited.

Going nuclear on Trump favors the candidate with in the race with the most committed voters…which is Trump.

This is why Hillary is the worst candidate imaginable for Democrats…and the GOpe.

A really populist White turn ut that remembers its enemies down ballot will play hob with the McCain's and Ryan's relections.

Six months ago I reverse engineered Clinton's polling: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=7596

What I find remarkable is just how steady her polling has been over the last year. She remains locked into a range of 43-to-45 percent no matter what happens in the race. Trump has these wild swings, often based on nothing more than some silly hysteria in the press.

One theory here is skulduggery. The pressure on polling shops to present good news to their customers is probably enormous. Just look at what happened to credit agencies in the run up to the mortgage crash. The Reuters poll is a pretty good example of working toward a preferred result.

My hunch is it is something different. Clinton has a solid base of support in the low 40's. She could be seen on video strangling a baby and that support will not erode much. That support is also her ceiling. There's 55% that will either vote for Trump, throw away their vote on a third party or stay home. Since some portion of that vote has often stayed home, it falls outside the standard models.

All that said, there is a Brexit vibe to this election. I've often thought that the ruling class hysteria in the final weeks of the Brexit vote tipped a lot of voters to the Leave side.

Jeremiah said-Pray your land prospers, if it does, you shall also prosper'(29:7)

This election lots of people are saying both candidates are 'equally' bad. They aren't.
There is one who intends to do good for our country, and one who intends it harm.

Pretend we didn't know their pasts, & we Only knew what each would do if elected. We know what HC wants because we have her private speeches, expressing desires for a 'Borderless Hemispheric Common Market.' – In other words, an end to a sovereign America.

Folks – The end of America!
How would one measure the tears in heaven from all who died for this country?
How do you begin to calculate the blood spilled over 240yrs of history for the US?
She wants to create a super-state combining N&S America!
Who'd stop her? Our current crop of yellow-bellied RINOs?

The US is the Cadillac of the West Hemis. Everyone else is a 10 year-old Yugo. The Yugo drivers would Love the wealth re-distribution. But what happens to Your standard of living if we combine economies? When HC says she cares about you & all the micro-issues, she means it only until you vote her in. We learned that with Obama. Leftists do what They want when in power. Proof? Did they care about public opinion when passing Obacare? Public opinion re gender/bathrooms? Care about the public's low priority re Climate Change?

Leftists have contempt for the Constitution, & go around it with 'ExecOrders'. They say it's a living document, making it malleable instead of inflexible. Not so! It isn't play-dough. But a Leftist SupCrt won't agree, & will rubber-stamp the Left's agenda, & will let unconst'l Exec-orders stand. We'll lose 1st & 2nd amends & many other freedoms. The next Prez may have 3-4 SC appoints. If HC makes those choices, America dies.

MrT, warts & all, wants America 1st. Period. John 8:7 says, 'Let him who is without sin cast the 1st stone.' Trump is a sinner, as are we all, but he won't dismantle the very nation that enriched him. – They are not equal.

To be fair to Trump, I think his addressing black voters briefly in his speeches is more about making certain white voters more comfortable with him. Yes, he's politically incorrect and blunt-talking, but all those Washington Lying Post smears of him being actively Racist must be false if he's trying to appeal to black voters in what counts as a genuine way, for him.

I think there are plenty of white voters who are sympathetic to his message, annoyed with shrill political correctness, but don't want to think of themselves as hardcore Racists (or supporting the same).

That's what this is about; I'm sure the Trump campaign, the GOP rank and file, and various sympathetic groups will not be going door-to-door on election day in black neighborhoods, trying to drum up turnout.

How would we know if it's "NAMs" or NWs? Tiger parenting is a thing yo. There are reasons why Whites tend to have low college enrollment relative to their IQ, compared even to immigrant Blacks (low effort parenting)…

Interesting study. The total number of families surveyed is fairly large (1807), and some of the differences are substantial, while others aren't. I wonder what the p values are.

Beautiful photo, don't stop!

This will continue to happen until whites grow a pair.

Zazzou, yes, Bosnians are White. Not the best of Whites, definitely not – no country is improved by adding people from the Balkans. But the Blacks who attacked him did so because they saw someone who looked White. Don't be a 'sperg focusing on side issues that don't disprove the main point.

I was stuck watching Anderson Cooper last night at the gym, since I couldn't change the channel without bothering the staff.

I am struck by how utterly inferior that man is his forebears in the news media. He spent 30 minutes on the question of whether the stepdad of Michael Brown should be indicted for inciting a riot. They show the dad shouting 'burn this shit down' and then they say an innane thing or two. And then they go back and play the clip again and then have a couple of talking heads. They got Dan Bongino on to say yes he should be indicted, and then played the vid again. And then someone who said the case to indict the dad is weak and then they played the vid again. And again and again.

So f'ing lazy.

Bongino should have said in Anderson Cooper's face that Anderson Cooper should be indicted for inciting a riot. But Bongino has a family to support and needs these gigs.

Obuddo ain't black

Bosnians aren't white.

Without white evanglicals, Republicans would not win as town dog catcher, but do 'values voters' have one enduring legislative accomplishment to show for 34 years of Repub loyalty?

All the more reason the GOP needs to reach out to more people, and more vigorously. Rand Paul knows this. Things are changing.

Perhaps going after the married has alot to do with the family values thing that is going on with Republicans.

As for turning voters against the Black population, I have to say this. I've been on some internet forums and I've noticed immense complaining about Blacks and who they vote for. I have to say this. If one intends to get people to vote Republican by turning them against Blacks, then one has no right to complain when Blacks vote Democrat. If the GOP wants more Black votes, they can start with the church. Last time I checked, Blacks as a demographic are more religious than other demographics(apart from Hispanics), many Blacks are against abortion and gay marriage. Alot of middle class Blacks support school vouchers. However, very few Blacks vote Republican.

Marijuana laws are one more area where smart people knock down barriers that were protective of stupid people.

If I can re-impose barriers on my own children that were removed from society at large, they will outperform their peers. Suck it!

When you look at voting by age, two things jump out:

1) In general, older voters vote Republican

2) The Boomers are a few percentage points to the left of where you would predict from a line of best fit curve. The Xers are a few points to the right.

What is AE's political position on marijuana legalization? It seems to have more support in on the left than the right, but it is one of those issues where liberals and libertarians have common ground. If Republicans were to embrace it (or at least lessen their opposition to it), do you think it could attract some younger voters? Also, what is AE's personal opinion on legalization?

I wonder how much of the 'marriage gap' is simply a combination of other variables already in play.

Age and gender between them ought to cover much of it.

One other thing I see in the exit polling:

Without white evanglicals, Republicans would not win as town dog catcher, but do 'values voters' have one enduring legislative accomplishment to show for 34 years of Repub loyalty?

Re Jewish voters, yes, I should have scrolled down in the link.

It something that Jewish Americans have so little problem with a president that gets along poorly with Israel.

Those who imagine that American Jews are pulling the strings to control America on behalf of Israel could not be more wrong.

I am curious about the Jewish vote. I was surprised when they still pulled 2-1 for Obama in 2012.

Since Obama has ramped up the anti-Israel rhetoric, I would predict that the Dems won an even larger share of the American Jewish vote in 2014, and for that reason :D.

One thing about the culture wars is apparent. Everyone is now on their own because society will not even take a small step to push people away from a path of self-harm.

In terms of success, people with sturdy church groups and cultural groups will gain a larger advantage as broader society provides less moral guidance.

Any idea how Brownback managed to win the Hispanic vote?

Audacious, can you find a data on sexual partners per state? I am curious about relationship between sex availability and the number of rapes per capita. — szopeno

If you want to increase recycling in this country, it means you would have to restructure the immigration system to favour Italians, Poles, and Asians while trying to keep out Africans, Mexicans, and French people.

Yeah, I thought it was a fine proxy; I was just rambling off on a tangent.

You are right about the dearth of immigration questions. I had no idea how bad it was. The best I was able to come up with was the ENGTEACH variable which overlapped with RECYCLE in 1994. Probably not a good indicator of current sentiment but for what it's worth, there was a very slight trend towards those less congenial to the idea of teaching school classes in a foreign language being more conscientious about recycling. Not enough to matter, though – the variables were close to being independent.

Like the other commenters I have sort of a intellectual distaste for recycling – don't think it's a terrible idea but don't think it's the environmental panacea it's made out to be and definitely don't think it's worth carrying around a bottle all day past several serviceable trash cans. It's been great working for a black female boss the past year. When people visit our office and wonder where the recycling bin is located, I chuckle and suppress blurting out, "Oh, Jane Doe is black, so she doesn't care for any of that bullshit."

It might be interesting to find an immigration question on the GSS and run a table of how people who love recycling break down on their immigration views. I'm too tired to do it tonight, though, so if you want to take that idea I won't begrudge you.

I hate recycling with all of my being (despite being Italian-American). It's so hypocritical and no better than prayer. With the world looking at 8, 9 , or 10 billion people recycling does nothing to assuage our problems, only our guilt.

I also get enraged seeing someone litter.

Is there such a question as "Have you intentionally littered in the last year?" Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about recycling after reading The Skeptical Environmentalist, for better or worse. However, I never litter, because it impacts actual people and their aesthetic enjoyment in life. Among those whites I knew who objected to recycling I didn't find those who objected to recycling to be correlated with their willingness to litter.

I'm currently working in a group that has several "Hispanics" – one Dominican, one upper class Mexican, I forget what the third one is. They all laugh at the term "Hispanic" and note that they had never even heard of such until they came to the States.

The prologue chapter to Tom Wolfe's latest novel points this out as well.

The modern BA doesn't serve white people very well either.

Do you find it slightly weird the Pew has a menu item at the top of its home page entitled "Hispanics"?

I think that in these decadent times, in this beginning eclipse, the greater risk is probably rather that a higher group-IQ would be seen as an unfair advantage; “after all, members of your genetic class were just born with it, they did nothing to deserve it…” And that, Sir, would be sinister.

Nice post.
Though, the _captions_ seem do contradict the text. I'm not a native English speaker, but I suggest you change the captions. Also it would make sense to put coloring inscription on the top so it doesn't interfere.

Also, which software do you use do dig GSS? The figure drawing seems to be of MS Excel.