Sunday, May 21, 2017

Let Alex Jones' tears splash all over you

With Vox Day as an impetus, the table below lists the 41 biggest names in news and current events online in the US over the last year (from May 22nd, 2016 to May 20th, 2017) as measured by Google Trends searches.

A brief technical note: Trends allows five terms to be compared at a time and calibrates the search volume values of each term relative to the search volumes of the other four inputted terms. The second column in the table shows each person's search volume scaled against the king of the internet, Alex Jones, whose value is set at 10. Values are rounded to the nearest whole number but are ordered by search volume throughout (ie, both Mark Levin and Don Lemon round to 1, but Levin generated more interest than Lemon and is ranked accordingly; Lemon is then ahead of Van Jones for the same reason, etc).

Come and see:

PersonScore
1) Alex Jones10
2) Tomi Lahren6
3) Rush Limbaugh5
4) Ann Coulter5
5) Milo Yiannopolous5
6) Sean Hannity5
7) Bill O'Reilly5
8) Rachel Maddow4
9) Anderson Cooper4
10) Glenn Beck3
11) Michael Savage2
12) Tucker Carlson2
13) Laura Ingraham2
14) Richard Spencer2
15) Mark Levin1
16) Don Lemon1
17) Van Jones1
18) Shepard Smith1
19) Lester Holt1
20) Paul Krugman1
21) Brian Williams1
22) Jake Tapper1
23) Paul Joseph Watson1
24) Neil Cavuto1
25) Dana Perino1
26) David Brooks1
27) Charles Krauthammer1
28) Chris Matthews1
29) David Muir1
30) George Will1
31) Ta-Nehisi Coates1
32) Gavin McInnes1
33) Jorge Ramos1
34) Maureen Dowd0
35) Wolf Blitzer0
36) Lou Dobbs0
37) Erin Burnett0
38) Michelle Malkin0
39) Bill Kristol0
40) Terry Gross0
41) Bret Baier0

Mostly (white) men, around one-quarter Jewish, more blacks than Hispanics, one Asian just making the cut--no big demographic surprises. Jews do tend to constitute higher proportions on lists like these than they do on this one in particular. That this one is based on actual user searches--as opposed to news services or magazine doing the ranking--suggests some circle jerking occurs when the media honors itself. Shocker, I know.

A lot of people on the Alt Right, myself included, were wary about Richard Spencer seemingly walking into a media trap, but the rules of the game have changed--maybe so much that no matter how bad the publicity, if there's something good or interesting underneath, people will find their way to the latter by way of the former. He's out there doing it, not afraid to walk into a den of thieves.

I recall Trump making an appearance on Alex Jones' radio show early on in the campaign, before the primaries had started, and the predictable talk of how doing such a 'fringe' venue would underscore the idea that Trump was an unserious candidate. How wrong they were. In the virtual world, everyone is on the fringe relative to Jones.

I spent an hour or so searching for commentators I was unfamiliar with. The only name on the list totally unbeknownst to me prior to putting this together is Erin Burnett. That may be an indication that I unintentionally screened out some people who should be included (near the bottom of the list, I hope--if not, I really blew it!). I'll update accordingly if and as other names are brought to my attention.

Parenthetically, Stefan Molyneux and Mike Cernovich came in 42nd and 43rd, respectively.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Beyond TFR

The CIA world factbook recently added a field listing of the mean age of women at first birth for several countries. In Chad and Niger, most women are getting pregnant before they turn 18. Sexual relationships that violate laws on statutory rape in the US are commonplace in sub-Saharan Africa, where the age of first birth ranges from the late teens to the early twenties. Most Greek women, in contrast, don't a child until after their 31st birthdays.

The graph Steve Sailer dubs the world's most important:


African fertility rates are much higher than fertility rates in the West, but the population of Deep Darkness would leave Europe's and North America's in the dust even if all three continents had the same total fertility rates.

Here's a (relatively) simple if extreme example to help grasp the magnitude of the difference differential ages of mothers' births have on total population sizes.

We start with a Ebony from Eritrea and Blanca from Belgium. The total fertility rates in both countries are 3.0, and both women and their descendants are representative of their countries in terms of reproduction.

In anticipation of the objection that countries where younger births are the norm are also countries where earlier deaths are the norm, life expectancy in this example is 50 in Eritrea and 100 in Belgium. Both women and their descendants are also representative of their countries in terms of life expectancy.

At age 20, Ebony has her three kids. Twenty years on, Blanca has her three children at age 40 (or Ebony at 19, 20, and 21 and Blanca at 39, 40, and 41 if you insist!), just when Ebony's children are having three children of their own.

Two decades later, the late Ebony is a great-grandmother 27 times over. Blanca is the mother of three adult children.

Another twenty years go by and Ebony, whose children have now passed on, is a great-great-grandmother 81 times over, while Blanca is an octogenarian with nine grandchildren of her own.

Twenty years beyond that--we're a century into our example now--and Ebony, who just posthumously welcomed 243 great-great-great-grandchildren into the world, has 351 living direct descendants. Blanca, who just passed away last month, has 39.

Although both women and their descendants have identical total fertility rates, Ebony has an order of magnitude more living descendants than Blanca does!

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

White despair in the General Social Survey

In 2014, the GSS asked respondents if they had ever been told by a medical professional of any type that they were depressed. Because it was only asked in a single year, sample sizes aren't huge, but they're serviceable for whites and NAMs (789 for whites, 328 for non-whites; about half that for the class bifurcations).

The percentages who have been told they have been or are currently depressed, by race:


In a couple of iterations of the survey during the nineties, respondents were asked if they'd gone to the doctor in the past week. Blacks were actually modestly more likely to have gone than were whites and considerably more likely to have gone than were Hispanics (20.1%, 18.5%, and 11.8%, respectively). It thus doesn't appear to be an obvious consequence of whites simply getting more medical attention than anyone else.

The following graph further insinuates as much. The percentages of depressed whites and non-whites, by class:


There are minor differences among non-whites, with the upper half of the class distribution actually appearing to be a bit more prone to depression than the lower half. Among whites, though, the class distinction is Charles-Murray-clear.

If not for the attention drawn to an increase in the rates of working-class white deaths of despair by the now famous paper from the Princeton pair, this is something I would've likely never noticed.

GSS variables used: ETHNIC(17), RACE(1)(2), RACECEN1(1)(2), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), DEPRESS, CLASS(1-2)(3-4), GODOC

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Will screwing sexbots screw us?

Heartiste's take on the coming sexbot revolution is probably an accurate auguring of what will come to pass:
The Sexbot Revolution (it’s happening), in conjunction with the introduction of the male Pill, will upend the sexual market and bring chaos to long-established and evolved implicit rules of conduct. The biggest impact will be a reduction in the asking price of women (in normie terms: a lot of sub-hottie women will have to date below their league if they don’t want to be alone). Sexbots, and other realistic simulacra of sex with a hot woman, will occupy the attention and, ahem, energy of a mass of omega and beta males who will prefer the intense experience of release with their Minka Kelly lookalike bots over uninspiring sex with the human plain janes and fatties who would normally be their lot.
It's not inconceivable, though, that the development instead turns out to be a saving grace, putting the West's native stock back on the path to replacement fertility. Here's how it might look.

Not only is the female asking price reduced by what amounts to an almost infinite supply of real women plus their artificial fleshpot lookalikes, men--all men, no matter their level of attractiveness--experience a genuine increase in desirability in the eyes of women by way of of an across-the-board leveling up of men's abundance mentality.

This could be disastrous:



On the other hand, the assumption here is that given unlimited access, men would take it easy, a la "civilization is men's attempt to impress women". That's a rather gynocentric spin on a quip whose scope is sufficiently larger: "Civilization is men's attempt to acquire dominance" (one major benefit of which is access to women).

Genghis Khan was no slouch. He spread his seed far and wide but he didn't actually spend much time getting women to spread their legs. Cut out the courtship--even its most expedited, maximally efficient manifestation, tight Game--and there's a lot of time leftover for other things. Top athletes, rockstars, and other celebrities don't have to expend much effort getting laid by groupies who throw themselves at said natural alphas.

The sexbot revolution doesn't require men to date robots, it just makes jacking off indistinguishable from the real deal.

The modal man doesn't actually want to have sex more than a few times a day. Futurama, again:



Sexbots are the simulacrums that allow beta men to stop being solemn suckers.

Women are no longer the gatekeepers of sex, but that doesn't have anything to do with procreation per se. In the modern West, the separation of procreation and fornication happened half a century ago. We're already a couple generations into that.

Throughout most of human history, natural selection favored fornication. Procreation was a seemingly inseparable consequence. Now they are not only separable but are actually largely separate.

We have a situation now where most women who want to procreate can do so (though many of the men they'd like to procreate with don't want to procreate with them), some men who want to procreate can do so (though many are limited in who they are able to procreate with by the dynamics of the sexual market ), and some men who want to procreate cannot.

By lowering the female asking price and boosting all men's desirability, many men who desired procreation but were denied it on account of their inability to fornicate in a world where women were the sexual gatekeepers now find themselves able to have children. Women who want to procreate but who were holding out for a man beyond their reach now see a wider pool of men as desirable on account of fewer men being desperate.

In short, we're already well past the  point where the desire to have children is the primary limiting factor on Western fertility. Sexual market dynamics, however, preclude some people--mostly but not exclusively men--who desire children from having them. The sexbot revolution allows many of those who were precluded to get into the game without throwing anyone else out of it (and possibly making alpha men who are on the fence about fathering children more willing to do so on account of being able to continue to enjoy sexual variety both by way of the sexbot option and also a presumed further reduction in the social sanction that accompanies male infidelity).

An increase in fecundity results.

An open question that I didn't address is how sexbots will be viewed inside the confines of a monogamous relationship. Can a man cheat with a sexbot anymore than he 'cheats' when he masturbates?

Friday, May 12, 2017

Septimius Severus' advice to his sons

Agnostic on the political-industrial alignment:
Why has the military latched onto the GOP so much in recent decades, and Wall Street so much onto the Democrats? As the parties have become increasingly aligned with liberals or conservatives, it has driven the more conservative military to the GOP and the more liberal financiers to the Democrats.

The voter bases reflect this split as well, with conservatives identifying more with the military, and liberals more with business professionals. This boils down to liberals being more abstract and cerebral, and conservatives being more concrete and physical in orientation (nerds vs. jocks, Jews vs. Celts).
Since its inception, the GSS has queried respondents about federal government spending on "the military, armaments, and defense" with three possible responses--"too little", "too much", or "about right". The following graphs show the percentage of liberals and conservatives, by decade, who gave other than a goldilocks answer:



The differences Agnostic identifies were clear during the Nixon administration and are even starker today, mostly on account of many conservatives clamoring for more military spending and few conservatives demanding less of it. The trend really got going after 9/11, and even as large year-over-year increases in military spending happened throughout the 2000s, the numbers of conservatives who wanted more spending still increased.

Following the end of the Cold War, when Pat Buchanan called for the troops to come home, military spending to be reigned in, and NATO to be retired, the grassroots were divided on how to proceed. It was conceivable that, having spent the Soviet Union into collapse, those on the right would have united in favor of smaller government across the board, including defense.

Instead, Buchanan was run out on a rail, the neocons nestled in, the grassroots urged the party to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Most of Trump's based liked the Syrian airstrikes and a lot of them view the budget deal as a win on account of it netting another prodigious increase in defense spending even though it lacks any funding at all for the big, beautiful wall.

GSS variables used: NATARMS(1)(3), POLVIEWS(1-2)(6-7), YEAR(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)