Saturday, September 24, 2016

Roughtly 1-in-30,000,000 police stops of blacks result in unjustified killings

Another small bridge connecting the races together was burned in the virtual world last week. A black guy I went to high school with, Brandon, wrote the following in response to the Charlotte shooting:
I was thinking last night as I drove home.

I live in LA.

Not afraid of gangs, muggings, car jackings, or black on black crime.

Not afraid of domestic terrorists, Al Qaeda, or ISIS.

The only thing in this world that truly scares me are police.

I say this not to create animus. I say it because its true. I would literally jump out of an airplane again before I called 911 for anything other than a fire. You cannot understand or empathize with what you fear. You fear me because of the sins of your ancestors. You fear my strength and promise. You fear my potential. You fear my forgiveness as much as you fear my vengeance.
The line about "the sins of your ancestors" is particularly remarkable because if whites ever lose the religiously-tinged sense of racism as Original Sin, it's game over for blacks. Without the white guilt life vest most blacks would drown in WEIRDO societies.

Blacks need whites. Whites don't need blacks. To the contrary, fewer blacks means fewer problems. That assertion is true almost irrespective of what the metric is--criminality, intelligence, health, family stability, innovation, financial viability, violence, longevity, poverty, infant mortality, time preference, on and on and on.

At some level it's easy to sympathize with Brandon. He's modestly intelligent for a black guy, affable in person, and proud of who he is. He almost has to rationalize here because ratiocination would lead him to human biodiversity, and human biodiversity to the rather obvious conclusion that people of sub-Saharan African descent need to live in societies predominantly populated by, managed by, and maintained by Asians or Europeans unless they want to have a standard of living and quality of life that is on par with what's on offer in Detroit, Haiti, Baltimore, Zimbabwe, or Ferguson.

I responded:
The fear may be true because you're experiencing it. That's subjective and consequently not something anyone else can evaluate.

What we can evaluate, though, is that your fear is irrational. Black-on-black crime kills 2000% more blacks than police shootings do. Between this police shooting and the next one that takes a black life, hundreds of blacks will kill other blacks.

And avoiding being killed by cops is easier than avoiding being killed by other blacks (or whites or any other group for that matter)--simply follow police instructions to the letter and you'll virtually always be fine. It may be humiliating, it may constitute a miscarriage of justice, it may even mean subjugating yourself to the whims of a racist, but if you follow instructions you won't end up dead. That's not necessarily the case when it comes to an armed robbery, a carjacking, or an assault.

This isn't to pick on you for experiencing a visceral reaction. Humans are more rationalizing creatures than they are rational creatures. I'm more apprehensive about lightning than I am about driving my car. You may be more scared of spiders than you are of driving your car. We are both, of course, far more likely to be killed in our cars than we are to be killed by lightning or spiders.

That said, if reconciliation is so unattainable, if these feelings are so embedded, so incorrigible, that we're effectively stuck with them forever, why don't we separate from one another? Secession is the political equivalent of divorce.

Why not? This country of 330 million has so many major fault lines of disunity--economic, political, religious, racial, linguistic, cultural, geographic, ethnic--that it's crazy to think that the tensions and the acrimony are going to do anything other than continue to get worse until we reach a breaking point, one that will likely be more violent and less civil than any of us would prefer.
He immediately deleted the response and unfriended me.

An ally, Kaoswear, crunched the numbers to figure out what the actual likelihood of a black being fatally shot during a police stop actually is and sent me this (slightly edited):
172 Blacks shot by police in 2016 (15 unarmed). Projecting that forward to the end of the calendar year gives us 229 (17 unarmed).
Roughly 1,100,000 sworn officers in the US. Realistically the number on the street is probably closer to 700,000. 
If we give the police absolutely no benefit of the doubt whatsoever and assume that every single black that was shot by the police was shot unjustly (armed or not), that means over the course of the year 0.03271% of cops--1 in 3,075--have unjustly killed a black person. 
If we eliminate the armed suspects, that is 0.00243% of cops--1 in 41,176--shooting unarmed blacks. 
Cops stop 3-4 people per shift. With 700,000 cops who work 50 weeks a year and five shifts per week, that is 875 stops a year per cop, for a total of 612,500,000 stops. If 40% of those stops involve blacks, that gives us 245,000,000 blacks stopped per year. 
If 100% of all blacks shot by police are unjustified, we're at fewer than 1 in 1,000,000 black stops resulting in the shooting death of the suspect. If, again, we only consider unarmed black suspects, we're at nearly 1 in 15,000,000.
The odds of winning the state lottery are several times greater than the odds an unarmed black will be killed by a cop.

If we allow that sometimes cops get it right and the suspect complies with with the commands he's given (which by definition does not occur in the case of armed shootings), the likelihood drops to some fraction of those unarmed figures.

For simplicity's sake let's say it's half the time the unarmed shootings are justified. That suggests a black being stopped by a cop has a 1 in 30,000,000 chance of unjustifiably being killed in the encounter.

Be ready to raise the drawbridges. The path to war is becoming inexorable. The Alt-Right arrived on the scene not a moment too soon.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Reuters-Ipsos oversamples those with college degrees, undersamples those without

The poll has come under criticism for oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans and independents. That suggests Trump will outperform Reuters-Ipsos' expectations.

In response to a reader's inquiry, I looked at the respondent polls from August 1st through September 23rd to see about the educational distribution. The poll has drawn 53% of its responses from those with at least a four year college degree and 47% of its responses from those without a degree. In 2012, exit polling showed those two figures swapped, with just 47% of the vote coming from those with a degree and 53% from those without.

That seems highly suspect given the strength of Trump's appeal among working-class whites--period, but even more especially so relative to Romney's appeal. And to a lesser extent, that also seems suspect given Hillary's appeal relative to Obama the SWPL wet dream's appeal.

If the Democrat primaries and caucuses are any indication, black turnout will be down from 2012 but that won't be enough to overcome Trump's middle American blue collar appeal by six points. It probably won't even be a wash. I suspect it'll be something like 55% without, 45% with.

In other words, the Reuters-Ipsos poll sample is more Democrat and has higher levels of educational attainment than the electorate will in November and the poll only has him down by 4 points.


Monday, September 19, 2016

Minnesota, migrants, and a migraine for Hillary

All of the the weekend's attacks are rib kicks to Hillary as she tries to pick herself back up off the phlegm-covered ground--New York because it's New York, New Jersey because it's within Trump's reach and along with a flipping a smaller state like Iowa or New Hampshire from 2012 would allow him a clear path to electoral victory without having to win Pennsylvania, but most of all Minnesota because it packs so many transgressions against the CultMarx narrative into a single incident.

Consider, Dahir Adan, the attacker, apparently asked at least one of his victims whether or not he was Muslim before stabbing him. A Muslim terrorist targeting Midwestern-nice white Christians? It's supposed to be Core America oppressing Fringe America, not the other way around. 

The attacker struck from a distance so close to his first victims that the only possible defense said victims would have been able to utilize was to profile him ahead of time. A young black guy of east African descent, probably Muslim? If you're aware of your surroundings, he should be on your radar as soon as he comes into view. The Talk could've saved some unfortunate mall-goers some pain and suffering.

He wielded a knife. While not necessarily as deadly as a gun--none of the victims died, after all--it's psychologically even more horrifying for the victims experiencing it than a firearm is. There's a reason why slasher horror movies involve antagonists armed with hand-wielded sharp objects instead of projectiles.

The attack was stopped by an off duty cop who shot the Muzzie dead. This incident will go down as a single fatality from a firearm. 

Taken in isolation, of course, that stat gets the story exactly backwards. The application of the second amendment kept this incident from being as deadly as it otherwise would have been. These scenarios don't show up in the statistics (or if they do, they make the US look more violent rather than less so, ceteris paribus), allowing misleading and unfavorable comparisons to be made between the US and [insert Northwestern European country] when it comes to violence, particularly gun violence. 

But the reason the US is so homicidal in the aggregate is because the US has so many people of African--and, Amerindian, and increasingly MENA--descent inside its borders. White Americans are as well behaved as other Northwestern Europeans are.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Deportation more popular than Trump is

The latest Reuters-Ipsos results from a poll asking respondents what should be done about illegal immigrants in the US. Among likely general election voters, the breakdown is as follows:


An outright majority--52.7%--prefers either that "all should be deported" or "most should be deported, with some exceptions". Back out the 8.2% who are "unsure" and we get all/most deported beating few/none deported by a 57.4%-42.6% margin. If Trump wins by half that margin in November we'll have the electoral Trumpslide Vox Day has been predicting.

The self-important cuckservatives who lament the rise of Trump have no one but themselves to blame for being such willing accomplices in the demographic transformation that has infected the West.

The Alt-Right is the Occident's latent immune system response to an infection that may yet prove fatal. It is up to us to ensure that its ascendancy is not too little, too late.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Marriage gap wider than gender gap

Support among married women who are "likely general election voters" (n = 3,458):


And among unmarried men who are "likely general election voters" (n = 938):


Trump is also winning among married men and Hillary among unmarried women.

So Trump is beating Hillary among married people, both men and women, and she is beating him among unmarried people, both men and women.

Once again a voter's marital status is shaping up to be far more predictive than his or her sex is.

Parenthetically, this data is pulled from Reuters-Ipsos, a polling outfit that habitually oversamples Democrats and undersamples Republicans.