Saturday, December 09, 2017

Stomp on sanctuary cities

The percentages of bay area respondents familiar with the case who say the verdict in the Steinle case was "wrong", by race (N = 457):


In total, more than two-in-three residents (69.1%) don't like the decision.

Keep in mind this poll was taken among residents of San Francisco, where the economic and educational disparities among racial groups are larger but the political disparities narrower than in nearly all the rest of the country.

The left can gloat as much as it wants about the Steinle verdict, but trashing it is a populist issue. Trump has a knack for identifying things that are simultaneously 'controversial' and popular--very often more popular than he is:


Even in a deep blue urban SWPL stronghold like San Francisco, sanctuary accomplice city status gets mixed reviews. Nearly half of denizens don't favor subverting national sovereignty in this way ("unsure" responses are excluded; N = 650):


Soy boys and buggers though they be, San Francisco's white men still tend to be the city's least treasonous group.

If only half the population in accomplice cities support their cities being an accomplices, there's a huge vulnerability to be exploited. Hell, even Bugman (R, VA) grasped as much.

Bringing accomplice cities to heel is something the Trump administration needs to be pursuing intensely. Puttering around with half-percentage reductions in federal funding is the first step in a miles-long chase.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Muhammad Mohamed Mohammed Mohammad

A few more graphics bequeathed to the historians of the future who will write The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Empire:



Those results are for the US. Baby Naming Wizard includes a list of Western countries where Muhammad--peace be upon him--is among the top 100 most popular names for baby boys:


There are several variants of the given name's spelling and they're counted separately in the tallies. In England and Wales, as of 2013--so the ascent has surely continued since then--"Muhammad" came in at #15, "Mohammed" at #23, and "Mohammad"at #57.

The only state in the US so far where the name has cracked the top 100 is Minnesota, but it will not be the last.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Unintelligent snowflakes are the ones suppressing free speech

Dan echoes a question brought up by others with regards to the GSS showing a strong correlation between high IQ and support for free speech:
It is most interesting that support for Free Speech is tightly correlated with IQ.

But then, I wonder if that is just a relic of high IQ people knowing that free speech is the 'right answer'.

Every time a high profile conservative tries to speak at a university now, they face an attempted shutdown, which is successful a high percentage of the time. Universities are not condemning the students but siding with them. Police are the ones upholding free speech rights.
My suspicion is that the students who are making the biggest ruckus are not the sharpest ones on campus. The administrators are intimidated. The professors leading the charge are doofuses like this and the ones who provide fodder for Z-Man's weekly XirlScience segments, not top engineering or chemistry professorial talent.

The following graph shows the percentages of college graduates born in the US, by IQ as measured from Wordsum scores, who support the right for racists, communists, homosexuals, militarists, and atheists to all speak publicly. For contemporary relevance responses are from 2000 onward (N = 1,263):


Educational attainment does appear to associated with tolerance of free speech independent of intelligence, but a strong relationship remains even among the well-educated.

The braying rabble on display here are nowhere near the top of their class:



Is it implausible to suspect that a majority of them are at Yale on account of some sort of academic affirmative action favoritism?

The seeming ever-increasing calls for censorship on college campuses is surely not unrelated to this:

Graduated inIQ
1960s112.3
1970s109.1
1980s106.0
1990s103.9
2000s102.9
2010s100.0

Idiocracy beckons.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), SPKATH, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMIL, SPKCOM, DEGREE(3-4), BORN(1), YEAR(2000-2016)

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Eager Ashkenazi, coy Goy

They're thinking about it:
A lot of sexual harassment stuff in the news of late. I couldn't help but notice a very disturbing pattern emerging, which is that many of the predators--not all, but many of them--are Jews.
So Vox Day is justified in doing the same:
What a surprise that someone named (((Israel Horowitz))) should turn out to be a sex criminal. I am, of course, absolutely shocked that yet another illustrious member of the (((immigrant community))) that created America practically from nothing and has lots and lots of Nobel Prizes and is selflessly devoted to healing the world should turn out to be yet another pervy freakshow.
The GSS has (at least) five questions that potentially provide some insight into why Jews appear to be heavily overrepresented among the sexually overambitious. The questions don't get into the sort of criminal harassment and abuse that some of the "predators" are alleged to have engaged in--people are understandably reluctant to legally indict themselves in surveys!--but they are suggestive.

The following graph shows attitudes in sexual permissiveness (and in the case of purchased sex, behavior) among Jews and Gentiles. Sample sizes for Gentiles are in the tens of thousands and for Jews in the several hundreds except for the question on premarital sex, which was only asked in four iterations of the survey. For it, the Jewish sample is just 89:


As Steve Sailer notes, it's important to keep supply and demand in mind. In industries where there are a lot of women around--especially young, nubile ones--they are easier to sexually exploit because there's always plenty more where that came from.

Movie and television actresses are famous mostly because at one point they were given the vanishingly rare opportunity to become famous. Pass on that rare opportunity, and there are thousands of others eager to take advantage of what the one passed up.

High-end female computer programmers, on the other hand, are hard to find, so when an organization is able to snap one up, it doesn't want to let her go because it will be hell to find someone to replace her.

GSS variables used: XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

Saturday, December 02, 2017

Jerks fornicate (but don't necessarily procreate)

In response to GSS data showing that criminals get more tail than those who follow the law do, Jig Bohnson wonders if it is merely a consequence of people at the bottom of society in general both rutting more and ending up in the slammer more:
There is no controlling for income or socioeconomic status here. Are we just seeing the effect of lower socioeconomic classes being more promiscuous? The prison population, white or otherwise, is drawn overwhelmingly from the lower strata of society.
The question was only asked in 2012, so the sample size is in the hundreds instead of the thousands or tens of thousands. Consequently there's a limit to how much drilling down can be done.

Generally speaking, there is virtually no difference in lifetime sexual partners by social class. From 2000 onward lower, working, middle, and upper class men all report a median number of lifetime sexual partners of five.

It's not clear, then, that lower classes are more promiscuous, especially given that they are less likely than middle and upper classes to be married and so correspondingly less likely to be putatively committed to fidelity to a single partner.

Looking at partner counts among men of the same social class provides further evidence that the answer to Jig's reasonable question is probably "no". The following graph shows the median number of lifetime female sexual partners among men who have and have not spent time behind bars, by social class. The sample sizes for lower and upper class respondents are small, but the trend is present across the social spectrum:


This does not, of course, speak to the quality of the women, only to the quantity.

Before the progressive enlightenment brought us women's liberation and the castration of the patriarchy, society had ways of keeping criminals and low-lifes away from nubile women at risk of spreading their legs for said criminals and low-lifes. With those ways having been crippled, criminals and low-lifes are free to prowl.

Interestingly, the deleterious effects of the sexual revolution may be neutralized by the salubrious effects--at least in this particular context--of modern contraception. While criminals and low-lifes do more fornicating, they do not appear to do more procreating. Among men aged 30 or older, those who have done time average 1.94 children while those who have not average 2.08 children.

GSS variables used: LOCKEDUP, SEX(1), NUMWOMEN(0-989), CLASS, AGE(30-89), CHILDS