The relationship between trust and IQ

Last month Steve Sailer wrote:

Higher IQ people probably tend to be more trusting — high IQ environments tend to be more honest and cooperative.

Stepping away from the presidential election for a moment, allow me to do what the tagline advertises and validate Steve's stereotype.

The GSS routinely asks respondents whether they feel as though most people are trustworthy or not. The following table shows the percentages of people, grouped by intelligence*, who say that "generally speaking, most people can be trusted". For contemporary relevance, to avoid linguistic problems, and to avoid racial confounding, responses are from 2000 onward and restricted to non-Hispanic whites who were born in the US (n = 2,458):

IQ	Trusting
Really Smarts	61.7%
Pretty Smarts	44.2%
Normals	34.0%
Pretty Dumbs	22.3%
Real Dumbs	17.2%

People of modest intelligence are correspondingly more likely to assume that someone or something is intentionally taking advantage of them when the evidence is unclear or ambiguous.

Stepping back to the election, this presumably goes some way in explaining Trump's working-class appeal and the allergic reaction many upper-middle class cuckservatives have to him. Foolishly trusting people and institutions unworthy of trust is one of cuckservatism's defining characteristics.

It's also why the FBI investigation redux, in concert with Project Veritas' videos and the steady stream of WikiLeaks' revelations is potentially lethal to the harridan from hell. It's pushing the most inherently trusting, Midwestern-nice Flanderesses to the breaking point. Each of these Clinton scandals that keep piling one on top of another are, individually, much worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon administration was. It's getting more and more difficult, even in the lard-filled crevices of Erick Erickson's corpulent mind, to imagine how Trump could be worse than Hillary.

As the West becomes less European, it becomes less trusting. The instinctively high levels of trust intelligent people have is a feature in a society where people and institutions tend to be trustworthy. Such societies are becoming increasingly rare, however, and it will in large part be up to the Joe-bag-of-donuts to save clever sillies from themselves before current demographic trends become irreversible and the Occident gets swallowed up by the tides of darkness forever.

GSS variables used: TRUST(1-2), YEAR(2000-2014), RACECEN1(1), BORN(1), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10)

* Respondents are broken up into five categories that roughly forms a normal distribution; Really Smarts (wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 12%).

Reuters-Ipsos: Ask the Oregonians

The following table shows how each state's percentage of the Reuters-Ipsos' national polling sample running from 7/28 through 10/25 compared to its percentage of the nationwide vote in the 2012 presidential election. In other words, it shows how over- and under-weighted each state is in determining R-I's nationwide polling results. Figures over 100% indicate that a state is being oversampled by R-I; figures under 100% indicate that a state is being undersampled. States in red are those Romney won by 6+ points; blue that Obama won by 6+ points, and purple those with margins of less than 6 points:

State	Weight	n =
1) Oregon	215.5%	683
2) Nevada	212.8%	389
3) Kansas	208.9%	435
4) Vermont	208.8%	112
5) Maine	199.3%	254
6) Idaho	193.2%	225
7) Delaware	180.0%	135
8) North Dakota	175.6%	101
9) Connecticut	172.4%	488
10) Arizona	170.8%	709
11) Oklahoma	168.4%	413
12) South Dakota	168.3%	110
13) Nebraska	166.7%	238
14) Kentucky	166.3%	540
15) Montana	165.7%	143
16) Minnesota	163.7%	862
17) Arkansas	163.4%	313
18) West Virginia	163.4%	197
19) Tennessee	162.4%	723
20) Colorado	160.3%	739
21) New Hampshire	155.6%	200
22) Utah	153.5%	280
23) Wisconsin	145.5%	810
24) New Jersey	145.3%	962
25) Hawaii	141.2%	111
26) Alabama	140.8%	531
27) Iowa	138.0%	394
28) Maryland	135.1%	658
29) Massachusetts	134.8%	770
30) Louisiana	134.3%	484
31) Virginia	125.3%	874
32) Washington	123.1%	689
33) Missouri	118.8%	591
34) Indiana	118.2%	559
35) New Mexico	116.6%	161
36) South Carolina	109.3%	389
37) Georgia	96.5%	683
38) Mississippi	90.1%	211
39) WY+RI+DC+AK	88.6%	204
43) Michigan	79.5%	684
44) Illinois	79.4%	752
45) Ohio	77.9%	786
46) North Carolina	73.5%	601
47) Pennsylvania	61.6%	642
48) Florida	48.4%	747
49) New York	45.8%	587
50) Texas	40.1%	580
51) California	24.0%	561

As you might guess just by looking at the results, there's no statistically significant correlation between 2012 results and the apparent R-I sampling discrepancies for 2016. No blatant partisan slant is apparent in the ranking.

You'd be forgiven for assuming that because the big three electorally-safe states of California, Texas, and New York are severely undersampled, R-I is intentionally pulling more heavily from swing states and less so from uncontested ones. But rounding out the bottom and coming in just ahead of these three are Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio. These are arguably the four most determinative swing states in the whole election and yet they, too, are substantially undersampled.

The final column in the table includes the actual number of survey responses by state in anticipation of the objection that it's as easy to accurately sample California when n = 1,000 as it is to sample Delaware when n = 1,000.

Lacking said information that would be a reasonable objection. As presented above, however, it's clear that there is no sample size threshold being striven for in the sampling methodology. Four of the states had insufficient samples for R-I to even show individual results, with an average of 51 people polled in each of them during the three month period, while Oregon had 683 and Minnesota 862 sampled over the same time frame.

As noted in a previous post, R-I weights its results based on four characteristics--education, sex, age, and ethnicity. The poll doesn't weight by geographic location.

Yet this isn't the result of random sampling, either, even though there is a moderate correlation (.60) between R-I sample size and a state's total number of voters. There's no way California, with a population 10 times that of Oregon, only gets 561 participants to Oregon's 683. The chances of that happening randomly approach zero.

So that you don't feel as though you've wasted five minutes reading inconclusive blather, here's Z-Man pithily summing up the take-home message regarding the R-I poll in particular and polling on the 2016 presidential race in general:

My theory for a while is that it is not so much chicanery at work as confusion. The old models are not proving useful. Polling outfits cannot admit that as it invalidates their reason to exist. The natural response is to huddle around the coin flip range. They keep tweaking their models and sampling to get closer to that comfortable zone of a tie. All of them seem to be drifting to that happy place. If all the pollsters declare the race too fluid to call, then no one gets blamed.

One caveat: While there's clearly a lot of uncertainty as to what the final results are going to be, polling outfits are not above trying to bring about self-fulfilling prophecies. The needle they're trying to thread is to demoralize the Trump Train as much as possible and then as time runs out shift closer to a coin toss to save face.

Reuters-Ipsos curiosities, continued

The Reuters-Ipsos interactive interface for the organization's national presidential tracking poll is a composite of the results obtained from the 50 states and DC. The national sample of likely general election voters totals 22,846; the sum of the states over this same period of time comes to 23,310. It's unclear where those additional 464 participants come from. My guess is that it's the consequence of some coding errors or a few respondents being double-counted, but at 2% of the total, it's a trivial difference.

The three most heavily sampled states are, from the top, New Jersey, Virginia, and Minnesota. These states are the 11th, 12th, and 21st most populous in the country, respectively. The latter two are blueish-purple states and the first is, while relatively amenable to Trump compared to previous Republican candidates, deeply blue.

It's an inconvenient week to have the schedule loaded up because this really feels like something worth getting a handle on. R-I only applies weights to the following four variables: Gender, Age, Education, and Ethnicity. A 40 year-old white male college graduate from Mississippi and a 40 year-old white male college graduate from Minnesota aren't necessarily interchangeable.

I remember hearing exasperation during the primaries from pundits who couldn't figure out why Trump's performance among "white Evangelicals" in South Carolina was so much better than it was in Wisconsin (ie relative to previous Republican presidential candidates, Trump resonates especially well with 'Scots-Irish' from Appalachia). If these professional prognosticators don't have a clue, how unreasonable is it to wonder if the pollsters do?

How much is the fact that Trump isn't a generic Republican candidate disrupting the utility of standard polling models? It's an important question. As commenter pyrrhus alluded to, polling outfits have to draw the line somewhere, but the unusual nature of this election could be causing these polling models to be missing the mark in a systematic way.

Then again, this could just be wishful thinking on this Trump supporter's part. This weekend I'll compare the R-I samples by state with votes cast in 2012 by state to present a fuller quantitative picture. Any help making sense of this in the comments is appreciated.

More curiosities surrounding Reuters-Ipsos polling

I'm not able to make the time to do the digging I'd like to at the moment, but playing around with the R-I interface that allows users to toggle cross-tabs, I noticed that since September 1st, R-I has sampled just 376 likely voters in Texas to 565 likely voters in Virginia. The 50 states and DC add up to the entire nationwide sample so there isn't any weighting of responses taking place as R-I gets to its national polling numbers.

Given that Texans cast more than twice as many votes in the 2012 presidential election as Virginians did, that's a bit... odd. And given that Texas is a red state while Virginia is a blueish-purple one, maybe it's actually more Oddjob than just odd. There's more than a little evidence that the deck is being stacked.

Texas could destroy the United States

Many people mistakenly but understandably believe that the State's most powerful weapon against its subjects is its superior firepower. While that firepower is obviously important, it's not the State's most powerful weapon.

The State's most powerful weapon is its putative legitimacy. As long as the State is perceived as legitimate, it can do anything it wants to. Once a regime loses its legitimacy, however, its downfall becomes not a question of "if", but a question of "when".

The state department is conceding things in negotiations with other countries to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Thousands of illegal voter registrations have occurred in places like Indiana and Virginia. There are millions of dead people on voter rolls and registered in multiple states--and voter fraud is relatively easy to detect. Electoral fraud--the fraud that takes place during the counting process--is even more difficult for those on the outside to trace and definitively track.

With wildly divergent polls providing cover, an professional media backing Hillary more overwhelmingly than self-identified Democrats are, and a bipartisan political apparatus that demands Trump lose, even the discovery of blatant irregularities and outright fraud won't reverse a Hillary win if it occurs.

Trump's refusal to offer a blanket acceptance of next month's election results was the most significant blow he's landed on the Establishment in the last 18 months, and that's saying a lot.

Speaking of, I'd be remiss if I didn't propose a toast to the host who can boast the most roast:



If Hillary wins, she'll enter office with an approval rating below 50% and it probably will not, through the course of her presidency, ever crack 50%. The majority of white Americans will be faced with the stark reality that they haven't chosen a president for over a decade, and rather than being an aberration, such an outcome is the new normal.

Not just white Republicans, either, but white Democrats as well. White Democrats wanted Hillary in 2008 but got Obama instead. White Democrats wanted Bernie in 2016 and got Hillary instead. A minority of a minority of whites now pick the president.

Wealth inequality will continue to grow, the number of adults out of the workforce will as well, and another recession similar to the one that began in 2008 will hit. Nullification and secession will continue to move from the fringe of political thought into the realm of not just the possible, but the desirable.

And if something like Texit happens, the United States as a political entity is over. If Texas leaves, the electoral college immediately becomes utterly and irrevocably impossible for Republicans to win. Movements in the remaining red states to follow suit start springing up everywhere and the perceived legitimacy of the federal government, already on a decades-long downward trajectory, plummets through the floor.

An "extremely expensive election to poll accurately"

Gregory Cochran descended to say a few things about political polling and elections outcomes. It is by default worth reading because it's written by him, but commenter pyrrhus' dissenting remark is what really caught my eye:

[Representative samples have] become increasingly difficult to obtain, with many voters having only cellphones, widespread disinterest in answering polls, and candidates challenging the 2 party status quo. Furthermore, when people know that they might be fired for supporting the “wrong” candidate, they are not going to respond….truthfully. That’s how Bernie was 22 points behind in [Michigan] the day before the election and won.

In the primaries we saw polling in the earlier state contests regularly overestimating Trump's performance while polling in later states consistently underestimated it.

A cynic might say it's because the Cathedral wanted the Trump fireworks to go on for awhile for entertainment and pied piper value but later began fearing, once he began to look like the clear GOP favorite, that the Trump forest fire was burning out of control and had to be contained. There are real reasons to suspect that some intentional polling 'irregularities' have occurred.

That's what those of us on the Trump train hope is to be the case, anyway.

Pyrrus concludes thus:

My wife, an expert in this area, comments only that this would be an extremely expensive election to poll accurately.

Let's take a look at the RCP average at the same point at the same point in the 2012 election cycle as we're in now:

To avoid redundancies we're considering a wider time frame in 2012 than we are when we look at RCP's most recent average for 2016. Across 14 polls and spanning nearly three weeks, in 2012 we span from Romney +3 to Obama +3, a range of 6 points.

Compare that to the current RCP average for 2016:



Across 10 polls spanning 11 days we span from Clinton +12 to Trump +2, a range of 14 points.

The polling this time around, at least some of it, is in fact quite inaccurate and will turn out to miss the final mark badly, even with the benefit of margin of error taken into consideration. Including reported MoEs extends our 2016 range from Clinton +15.6 to Trump +5.6--a difference of more than 21 points!--over a sampling period of less than two weeks, all of which was conducted less than a month out from election day.

Third presidential debate

As a time capsule, a record of my live reactions to the third presidential debate, starting from the beginning and progressing through to the end. I use facebook instead of twitter because I can't multitask well enough to corral what I write into 140 characters or less while still paying attention to what's being said.

---

Hillary says we are going to "ask" the wealthy to "contribute". If I say "no", does that mean I don't have to pay any taxes?

Orwellian.

---

Yes, Hillary, our foreign policy should definitely be determined by sad pictures of children.

---

"If she did nothing, we'd be in much better shape."

The truest statement made in any of the four presidential debates.

---

Questioning the integrity of the electoral results was risky in the extreme--and one of the reasons I admire Trump's candidacy so much. Just recently there were thousands of illegal registrations discovered in Virginia alone.

Virtually every time there is a recount conducted anywhere, the subsequent results differ from the original ones. Usually the differences are marginal and don't effect the outcome; occasionally they do. But the first run is never accurate. There's plenty of opportunity and incentive for foul play.

WikiLeaks reported that John Kerry made negotiation concessions to Ecuador in return for shutting up Julian Assange. If the federal government is bending US diplomacy to the purpose of getting Hillary elected, why shouldn't we assume that electoral fraud is at least on the table?

---

I remember hearing about how the Good Guys were fighting to take back Mosul a decade ago. It never ends. It never will until we extract ourselves from our futile, deadly nation-building enterprises in the world's tribalistic hellholes.

---

Trump takes the gloves off with men, too. Criticizing men is no big deal, but dare to criticize a woman and it's time to collectively clutch our skirts.

Hillary, if you want to act like a man then be prepared to be treated like a man. That's what feminism is all about, right?

---

Hillary would've more accurately said: "There's only one person on this stage who has created jobs."

---

The US foots well over half of NATO's effective budget. It's obsolete. The Cold War is over. We may need NATO, though, if Hillary is president, because that Cold War won't only be back on, it might get ignited into a Hot War.

---

Hillary tries to deflect to the source of WikiLeaks rather than the content of the leaks. If it sets off WWIII, well, when you want an omelet sometimes you have to crack a few eggs.

---

Ha, she wanted open borders for energy. Of course! There is simply no reason that kilowatts should have to be stopped-and-frisked as they cross the Rio Grande! Open borders for electricity of all kinds, no exceptions!

---

In Operation Wetback, for every one illegal immigrant the Eisenhower administration deported, 8 left on their own. The BS about long lines of busses is demagoguery of the worst order. It's quite simple--make it difficult to live in the country illegally and far fewer people will want to do it.

---

Hillary thinks it's absurd that every single illegal immigrant could potentially be subject to deportation.

We have a presidential candidate who is advocating that the top executive in the country should not enforce the nation's immigrations laws.

---

Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion should be returned to the states.

That's a great rule of thumb for every "culture war" issue. Instead of fighting for 51% of the votes and then forcing the other 49% of the country to bend to your will, let's live-and-let-live to the extent that it is possible.

---

Once again Hillary makes no mention of the Constitution when asked about her appointment(s) to the Supreme Court other than to argue that the Senate should let Obama name Scalia's replacement. The court's exclusive function is to rule on the constitutionality of laws and the execution of those laws.

US government negotiates with Ecuador to swing the election to Hillary

I don't have anything particularly insightful to say here, but this can't be disseminated too widely.

Assuming it is credible--and WikiLeaks' record is impeccable--why wouldn't we assume electoral fraud is also in the works? We're looking at a situation where the Obama administration's state department has made negotiation concessions in an effort to influence the outcome of a domestic presidential election. Adding a few hundred thousand votes here and dropping a few hundred thousand there is hardly remarkable in comparison to that level of corruption.

Yes, votes are counted and electors 'assigned' at the state level. So what? The effort to stop Trump is a bipartisan effort motivating almost the entire political class. Remember Colorado? North Dakota? And those were solely Republican efforts to steal the election from Trump.

Crickets in the media, with a few honorable exceptions. The fourth estate has become the fourth pillar of the state.

Democracy isn't just the god that failed, it's dead--and our overlords have killed it.

Julian Assange, Occidental Hero--whether of the rearguard or vanguard yet to be determined

Julian Assange has been neutered. He's been suffering some sort of chronic pain in his right shoulder for months. This presumed warning shot hasn't dissuaded him from the steady drip-drip-drip of Clinton campaign emails.

Now it appears that under pressure from the US government, the Ecuadoran embassy in Britain--where Assange has been holed up for four years to avoid extradition--has cut off his internet access.

Shutting him up is preferable to assassinating him. The Cathedral doesn't want to make a martyr out of Assange. But WikiLeaks has contingency plans in place, so it's a false choice. The information is coming and Team Clinton can't stop it.

This is about more than the presidential election. The Cathedral thinks it has that in the bag, through a combination of rigged polls, voter fraud, electoral fraud, a bipartisan circling of the wagons, and the elevating of every accusation of misconduct by Trump on nothing other than the account of the person making the allegation while entirely ignoring the same when Hillary is the accused.

This is about the media lapdogs snuffing out the media watchdogs. WikiLeaks' record is squeaky clean. The organization has never presented an apocryphal document in its decade of existence, a record CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, or the Washington Post couldn't hope to match for a single week, let alone a ten years and counting.

Instead of diving into years' worth of free Christmas gifts in the form of the WikiLeaks' data dump, the lickspittle media lapdogs are lamely trying to scare the Dirt People away from it:



Major media bias is old hat, but it's remarkable just how overwhelming it has become. The Center for Public Integrity today released a review of campaign finance records showing that those listing their occupations as "journalist", "reporter", "news editor", or "television news anchor", have given over $380,000 to the Clinton campaign and less than $15,000 to the Trump campaign, a 96%-4% Clinton advantage over Trump among the line workers who create the Narrative's news.

That's small potatoes compared to the Clinton allies like Haim Saban, Jeff Bezos, and Carlos Slim, controllers of Univision, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, respectively.

Reported recently on CNN: "We have not heard such vociferous attacks on a presidential candidate since 1860." A cold civil war is here. A hot one may be coming.

Trump should continue to poison the well. There's no reason for restraint when it comes to accusations of cover-ups, fabrications, voter fraud, the rigged system, etc.

Nullification followed by secession is on the horizon.

Trump, bring the angel moms to the third debate

Topics for the third presidential debate have been announced:

Wallace will ask questions about debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy, the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots and the candidates’ fitness to be president, according to an announcement made Wednesday by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Each of the six segments will last 15 minutes.

It's stunning that Team Clinton is permitting the subject of immigration to be discussed. Trump's restrictionism is more popular than he is, and Hillary's open borders are less popular than she is. Immigration is a populist issue she's extremely vulnerable on.

Trump should invite some of the "angel moms" to attend the debate and then during the segment on immigration point them out in the audience and demand Hillary apologize directly to them:



After she stumbles through a response--if the command doesn't trigger a seizure--Trump should link Hillary's Goldman Sachs speech calling for a "borderless world" to Bill Clinton's speech the day before 9/11 calling for exactly the same thing. Go into how for thirty years Hillary has been in a position to secure the border and get control of immigration but instead all she's done is made sure it stays wide open.

Outside of VDare's readership, Bill's call for a borderless world is virtually unknown. This is the perfect time to rectify that, knock Hillary on her ass, and let middle America see itself in the faces of the angel moms.

Reuters-Ipsos polling suggests black and Hispanic (but not white) turnout will be down from 2012

On multiple occasions an anonymous commenter has pointed out the Trump campaign's missed opportunity with regards to registering unregistered white voters over the last year:

Trump has irretrievably squandered a priceless opportunity to register and mobilize the Missing 47 Million White Blue Collar people for a “mess of pottage” from GOPe agents.

The thought is that without additional white voters, Trump will have to do about 3 points better than Romney did among whites in 2012. Trump will have to get 62% of white support to win the popular vote.

While granting clemency to Paul Ryan after the primaries only to have the cuck later stab him 23 times looks like a mistake, that may not be the only path to a Trump victory (assuming minimal electoral fraud--an admittedly big and unwarranted assumption).

The Reuters-Ipsos' daily tracking poll has justifiably come under fire for rigging its surveys in Hillary's favor. It has oversampled Democrats and undersampled independents and to a lesser extent Republicans. It has also oversampled the well-educated and undersampled the modestly-educated. Its utility is an open question.

That said, it allows users to create and toggle cross-tabs across a whole slew of variables. Having done so, here's a reason to be cautiously optimistic: Turnout.

The turnout rate, by race, among eligible voters in 2012:

White -- 64%
Black -- 67%
Hispanic -- 48%

The percentages of registered voters who self-identify as "likely general election voters" in November in Reuters-Ipsos' daily tracking poll (running from 9/15 through 10/15), by race:

White -- 77%
Black -- 65%
Hispanic -- 37%

Comparing turnout among eligible voters and among registered voters isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The pool of eligible voters is larger than the pool of registered voters, as all citizens aged 18 or older are eligible voters (excluding incarcerated felons) but not all eligible voters are registered to vote.

Consequently, we should expect the 2016 percentages to be higher across the board than the 2012 percentages are. While that is the case for whites, it's not so for blacks or Hispanics.

Whites appear to be fired up about heading to the polls next month. Non-whites, not so much. Lest we forget what the electoral map would look like if only whites could vote:

Rather than the story being how Trump lost because he was unable to mobilize enough politically apathetic white voters, it could instead be how Hillary lost because she was woefully unable to match the electoral enthusiasm among NAMs that Obama generated in the last two elections. While overall turnout was down 6% in 2016 compared to 2008, black turnout fell 11%, or twice as much as non-black turnout did (there isn't sufficient exit polling data to calculate Hispanic turnout).

A modest suggestion for Trump: Drop the "what do you have to lose?" pitch to blacks. Hillary's using it repeatedly to prod uninterested blacks into taking an interest in the campaign. Pointing out that things have been bad for blacks will cause blacks to reflexively feel like Obama is being attacked, and black racial solidarity will translate that into an urge to make the effort to vote for Hillary on behalf of Obama. Follow the Derb's advice instead and just don't do race.

Fighting the good fight on social media, email lists, etc

Here are several smug celebrities doing things like telling Ann Coulter to "kill yourself" (43s) and comparing her to a "skeleton" (1m18s) and a horse (1m40s):



One might argue that encouraging a woman to kill herself rises above the level of talking about grabbing her crotch.

Yeah, you say, but that's a roast and everyone involved was good with what was going on. It's harmless fun!

Right, and the same thing applies to Trump's conversation with Billy Bush. In that case, the audience was in the single digits (prior to the public release of the illegally recorded video). In the case of Coulter, the audience was orders of magnitude more and the content worse.

You read Fifty Shades of Gray for the S&M fantasies. You watch Game of Thrones where real sexual assault is depicted. You listen to hip hop where sexual assault and murder are mundane. These are multi-million dollar enterprises.

Applying these standards, by doing this--alongside hundreds of millions of others who do the same--are you not advocating for things much worse than a guy having an illegally recorded private conversation about aggressively hitting on women could have ever intended to? And more important still than your advocacy is your patronage of those who trade in this stuff.

Yeah, but those things are just for fun, you say. I mean, just because we're enthralled by viciousness and violence and sexual assault doesn't mean we're advocating any of it!

Right, and just because a few guys shooting the breeze joked about crotch-grabbing doesn't mean they're advocating it, either. Let's review the video:



Did you see Trump kiss the hostess like he said he was going to? No, of course you didn't, because of course he didn't, because of course he wasn't serious about what he was saying, and of course the people in the conversation knew that, and of course none of them thought anyone else would be privy to their vulgarity.

He's been in the public eye for four decades and yet has just one dubious and unsubstantiated accusation of sexual malfeasance against him despite the ubiquity of beautiful women in his world over the last fifty years. His sexual market social value is atmospheric and he's utilized that to his advantage, and here we get a glimpse of him having some fun crassly bragging about it.

If I could have been a fly on the wall through the course of your entire adult life and taken any two-minute period from it and shared it with the entire world, think I could make you look like a monster?

Seventeenth century New England Puritans have nothing on self-righteous, hypocritical, self-unaware modern Americans.

Awhile back The Onion aired a special report entitled "Every Potential 2040 Presidential Candidate Unelectable Due To Facebook".

What we're seeing play out before us is everything Orwell and Huxley warned us about. In a world where everyone can find everything you've ever said, written, and sometime in the future even thought, the Cathedral is able to destroy anyone it desires to destroy with a well-timed revelation or two.

Every person alive, were the worst two minutes of his life aired to the world, will find himself precluded from the presidency. That doesn't mean that in practice no one will be presidentially electable (substitute for whatever other position of power you'd like here--the mechanism remains the same)--it merely means those unapproved by the Cathedral will be unelectable.

Unless we reject this bullshit, that is.

Parenthetically, always feel free to borrow--in spirit or verbatim, with or without attribution--anything presented here. Trump left it all on the field on Sunday. We should do the same.

#DemDownTicket

If you're unsure whether or not the Republican congressperson up for (re)election in November is sticking by Trump or stabbing him in the back in typical cuckservative fashion, ask (here and here). If (s)he is betraying Trump, pledge to vote for the Democrat and carry through on that pledge next month.

Trump's candidacy is a referendum on a wall, on America First, on interests over principles, against nation-building, and on national sovereignty. The cuckservative GOPe is on the same side as Hillary on all of these things. With Hillary as president it will be irrelevant whether the congress is split, cuck-controlled or Democrat-controlled as far as these things are concerned, so do all you can to make the bastards pay for their treachery.

Great job leading the House Mr. Ryan!

Second presidential debate

As a time capsule, a record of my live reactions to the second presidential debate, starting from the beginning and progressing through to the end. I use facebook instead of twitter because I can't multitask well enough to corral what I write into 140 characters or less while still paying attention to what's being said.

In summary, Trump left it all on the field tonight. Could not have asked for anything more from him.

---

Holy shit.

Trump is ANNIHILATING Hillary.

---

Rape enabler. Check

Sold state secrets. Check

Started the Obama-not-born-in-the-US rumor in 2008, three years before Trump said anything about it. Check

---

It was all over social media that Anderson Cooper's first question would be to about the 2005 video. The lying moderators said at the outset that only the two of them had seen the questions. Cooper's first question was in fact about the 2005 video.

Journalism in America is a JOKE.

---

Anderson Cooper to the rescue. I think--okay, okay, I hope--Hillary is about to have a seizure.

---

Not 1-on-3, Trump. You have the army of deplorables on your side. Shiv shiv shiv shiv shiv shiv shiv shiv. Hillary is bleeding on the floor.

Giving people insurance that's astronomically expensive and that doesn't cover anything is not progress. Premiums are up double-digits across the board.

Simply saying "you have insurance" that does nothing for those who have it is not progress.

---

Hillary Clinton is now like Julius Caesar. If he didn't win the consulship, he would've been prosecuted and likely executed. If she doesn't win the presidency, she'll end up in the slammer.

---

I almost forgot: Rigging elections. Check

Sanders' supporters, you can vote for Jill Stein. You don't have to be this corrupt, horrible woman's house slaves. She cheated your guy out of the nomination.

---

My big concern is about Islamophobia, too!

Not about skyscrapers being blown up, people being hacked to death on trains, people being shot to death on the road, people being blown up by bombs, people being beheaded in American streets, people being run down by maniacs in trucks--the murderers in all of these examples, by the way, are Muslims who killed Westerners.

That stuff doesn't matter. I'm worried about people who voluntarily come to the West to get away from the hellholes they come from having their feelings hurt.

---

Hillary thinks it is the US' responsibility to take in hundreds of millions--even billions--of 'refugees' across the globe. Google "gumball video immigration", lady.

---

Hillary wants to start WWIII with a nuclear-armed Russia over a civil war in Syria? She is the neocon candidate. She's never seen a military intervention or war she doesn't support.

Trump says mean things. Hillary is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and counting.

---

Hillary Clinton is bought and sold by Goldman Sachs. She is their puppet.

---

Hillary is talking about Abraham Lincoln. Someone give her an injection. She's losing it.

---

Russia doesn't control WikiLeaks. Julian Assange does.

This lady is just lies, lies, lies.

---

Russia doesn't want Hillary elected because he doesn't want to start WWIII and neither does Trump. Only Hillary does.

---

Hillary isn't Soros' friend, she's one of his marionettes.

---

Hillary is angry about Trump taking advantage of the tax code she's had years to change but never did because Goldman Sachs wouldn't let her, and neither would Warren Buffet or George Soros. She's an owned woman.

---

Not just all of Hillary's donors take advantage of the tax deductions. Every American who uses TurboTax or H&R Block does, too.

---

Did you hear that, folks? Your children are safe because of Hillary Clinton!

---

Hillary has to sit down in between questions.

Fit for the presidency? One of these two is physically unfit for it.

---

Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS?

Uh, Russia is the Assad regime's biggest protector and Assad is fighting ISIS.

---

Hillary, by coming, seeing, and killing Qaddafi in Libya, is one of the primary reasons Europe is being inundated by so-called refugees.

Trump says mean things. Hillary destroys North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe.

---

Trump is absolutely right: Assad's regime--the Alawites--line up on the Shia side of the major Islamic split. ISIS is composed of Sunnis from Iraq and Syria, mortal enemies of the Alawites.

How Hillary is able to get away with saying Russia isn't doing anything about ISIS is beyond me.

That's the biggest lie of the night, and she knows a lot of Americans don't know the nuances of what's going on in the Middle East.

---

Good that she doesn't think it's prudent strategy to try to hold land in the Middle East now. Too bad she didn't think that when she voted for the Iraq war.

---

Trump calls out the blatant bias in the moderators.

They've probably both been visited by the Clinton campaign. Arkancide is a thing. Anderson Cooper doesn't want to die.

---

Hillary wants to be a unifier, she says. But she thinks one-fourth of the country are irredeemable "deplorables".

Convincing.

---

One of Hillary's first professional actions was to register Hispanics in south Texas to vote.

Yeah, that's pretty much the Democrats' plan for electoral success--elect a new people.

---

When Hillary apologizes, she expects us to disregard her comments.

When Trump apologizes, she just keeps saying "he doesn't apologize".

She is getting ANNIHILATED. This is fantastic.

---

Hillary let Americans in Benghazi die.

Then she said it happened because of a video, a huge lie.

Trump says mean things. Hillary has the blood of hundreds of thousands of dead people on her hands.

---

Hillary: "George W Bush basically endorsed me. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

---

Of the many things Hillary wants in a Supreme Court justice, someone who pays attention to the Constitution doesn't come up.

Couldn't squeeze it in, I guess.

---

Trump manages to mention that part of the Supreme Court's function--okay, it's EXCLUSIVE function--is to ensure constitutionality in the making and execution of laws.

---

Hillary's made tens of millions of dollars as a "public servant". Why can't she partially self-fund? She didn't serve the public for her own personal enrichment, by chance, did she?

Trump's apology well received

Before getting into tactical considerations, let me reiterate that an alpha male shooting the shit in private with a few other guys is harmless.

Even more, it's cathartic for a lot of men. In an increasingly feminized world where men have fewer and fewer venues in which they are able to interact exclusively with other men, they're forced to communicate using female-friendly language. Mixed-sex groups invariably move towards female norms of behavior and away from male norms of behavior, so the breakdown of gender barriers inexorably leads towards the breakdown of masculinity itself.

To condemn it is essentially to condemn virility. Hardly coincidental.

The skirt-clutching is disingenuous. Popular culture is full of stuff far 'worse' than anything Trump talked about.

In the case of Fifty Shades of Grey, we have simulated sexual assault being depicted favorably--textually and on-screen--for the purposes of entertainment and in front of a national audience.

In the case of Game of Thrones, we have terrible acts being depicted--verbally and visually--for the purposes of entertainment in front of a national audience.

Trump is depicting less terrible acts--and only verbally--for the purposes of entertainment to a few guys in private who are having fun with it.

That said, Trump's apology hit all the right notes. Especially effective was the remark that campaigning has changed him. This is a rare instance in his presidential campaign where it has made political sense to offer one, and as much as is possible given the circumstances, he did it from a frame and position of strength:



Social media confirms. Trump's post has, at the time of publishing, an astounding 350,000+ shares, 20 million views, and nearly half a million likes. We're not scattering, we're rallying:

Those are astronomical figures even for Trump, whose posts regularly get around one-tenth of those numbers.

Three primary reasons for the positive assessment:

1) Trump "never" apologizes. So the fact that he is apologizing becomes a story in itself.

2) It really is a distraction. That's something people are looking for in Trump, a move away from distractions. He's delivered on that desire, to the point of frustration for many of us in the first debate.

3) The gloves need to come off tonight, but the optics will be better for Trump if Hillary (or the moderator or a questioner in the audience) brings the remarks up. This will 'force' Trump to drag Hillary into the mud, an environment he's more adept at navigating.

Trump says it was private, lewd locker room talk between a couple of guys shooting the breeze, he wasn't running for office at the time, and he's expressed regret. He then calls on Hillary to apologize for the women she intimidated with mafia tactics so her husband could get away with rape. Hillary doesn't want to go down this road.

Newspapers are no longer businesses, they're propaganda outlets of the Cathedral

Just as the failing New York Times was purchased by Carlos Slim of Mexican-based Telmex, the Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos of Amazon fame. Both operations continue to lose money without any prospect of long-term, self-sustaining economic viability.

It's wrong to look at them as individual business entities. That's no longer what they are. They are now public relations departments and marketing departments owned by and in service to the Cathedral. Their purpose isn't to make money, it's to protect the power of those on the inside. These newspapers live by the grace of their death-angel investors, investors who keep them alive not to make money directly from them, but to use as enormous and relatively cheap press agents who still enjoy the perception of objectivity among some fraction of the public (the geriatric fraction, mostly).

Today offers a trenchant illustration of one of these Cathedral marketing outlets in action.

Just hours after WikiLeaks released Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs transcripts, the Washington Post--presumably in coordination with the Clinton campaign--responded by releasing a video from 2005 of Trump entertaining some guys by indulging in locker room talk that overshadowed the WikiLeaks' release.

In the video Trump talks about going after married women, getting pussy, and leveraging fame. He does so while in a relationship with his current wife, Melania (it's unclear to me whether or not they were married at the time--it occurred either just months before or just months after they were married):



This is the kind of thing men joke about with other men when women aren't around. Pithily, it is the way of men. I played Aussie Rules for five years and this kind of banter was all I ever heard during warm-ups and pregame.

It's harmless stuff. In fact, for a lot of men, it's cathartic. In an increasingly feminized world where men have fewer and fewer venues in which they are able to interact exclusively with other men, they're forced to communicate using female-friendly language. Mixed-sex groups invariably move towards female norms of behavior and away from male norms of behavior, so the breakdown of gender barriers inexorably leads towards the breakdown of masculinity itself.

The electoral optics, though, are bad. Mike Pence did yeoman's work bringing cuckservatives and Churchians straddling the AntiTrump and NeverTrump positions into the god-emperor's camp when he schooled Tim Kaine earlier this week.

Now that's compromised. Married women, the plurality of whom are planning to vote for Trump, don't like hearing this stuff (at least not hearing it described--when they're the intended targets, things get a little more *ahem* nuanced).

The rest of the owned media amplified coverage of the video while downplaying or outright ignoring the WikiLeaks' release. A presidential candidate engaging in crass frat talk about carpet-grabbing from over a decade ago is a big deal. A presidential candidate revealing that she dreams of a world without borders is not.

Who? Whom? That's all you really need to know.

++Addition++While the major media may be obsessing over the Trump video, the real world is more interested in what Julian Assange revealed. WikiLeaks is generating more social media interest than all the other topics, including Trump and cuckbaby Ryan, combined:

There's a new game in town

If freedom of expression is something you value, ditch your current browser and use Brave instead. Ditch Twitter and use Gab instead. Ditch Wikipedia and use Infogalactic instead.

The Cathedral is being shaken to its foundations. The major media walls have already crumbled and dissidents have been running around the gatekeepers for years. Now the same thing is happening with social media.

The Alt Right hasn't peaked--the Alt Right is just beginning its ascent.

Virtue-signaling gets personal

As Hillary was going on about the strength and vibrancy of our black communities:

It's really unfortunate that [Trump] paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country. You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids. There's a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up.

I said to my monitor--hoping to psychically sync up with Trump--"ha, yeah and I'm sure you're moving to one after you lose this election. There aren't any blacks in Chappaqua, folks."

I've started taking a similar approach in realtalk conversations (which are increasingly all I can tolerate having anymore) about politics and specifically about diversity with goodwhites. It's become formulaic--I steer the conversation in this direction as soon as possible because it's so rhetorically easy and it makes them squirm like worms.

I say explicitly or let them insinuate that I'd prefer to live around other white people. I immediately turn it around by saying something to the effect of, "So I assume you live in a neighborhood that is less white than [the relevant metro area] is. That way you're able to get more house for the same amount of money in somewhere like [Sun/Sol neighborhood/city] than you're able to in a white neighborhood like mine, and you get more diversity, too. It's perfect! If you don't--and I know you don't--then you're really just full of shit, aren't you? Or you're slacking, badly. I'd be happy to help you, I'm good with Zillow. Sound good?"

It stultifies them every time. I've had a few people go the bad schools/high crime route, to which I say "that's exactly the point--unless you can name me a diverse area that has great schools and low crime? I'm all ears!"

Then comes the shiv--"Isn't it the height of hypocrisy to condemn other people to live around people you won't live around? You're saying it's great that the country is coming to resemble a neighborhood you'll do anything to avoid living in. And you can't even keep your head down while you're doing it, you have to virtue-signal by attacking other people who can't run away from diversity like you do."

Parenthetically, I suppose I'll eventually stumble into a goodwhite who lives in a Sun/Sol neighborhood and isn't desperately trying to get out, but given how reliably segregated living arrangements are across the country, less-white-than-the-whole-area is close to a sure thing (it has been every time for me so far), especially when we're talking about a metro area that includes black urban areas.

Alicia Machado

After Hillary mentioned her in the first presidential debate, interest in Alicia Machado exploded:

What those searching on her found--and that Team Hillary apparently, including its lickspittle lapdogs in the media, failed to find--is that she is a living, breathing real-life example of the worst caricature of New America imaginable. Talk about your all time backfires.

As a commenter at Steve Sailer's put it:

Usually the Left shows us outliers, or at least somewhat respectable immigrants with redeeming qualities – hard-working Dreamers – and tries to convince us they’re representative of the broader immigrant population. Now they’ve given us somebody that embodies every negative stereotype Americans have about Hispanics – trashy sexuality, prone to erratic fits of violence, and an anchor baby by a drug lord – and make it abundantly clear that if you want this woman and her family and their car on blocks next door to you, then Hillary is your candidate.

Heartiste raised him:

In Post-America, fat-shaming is a mortal sin while cheating on your fiancé, being filmed on camera having illicit sex, driving your boyfriend’s getaway car from the scene of a murder, threatening the life of a judge, bearing the bastard spawn of a drug lord, and happily lying while under the direction of a presidential candidate and a colluding media about your “20 years of humiliation” from experiencing a gentle and encouraging chiding about your weight are trivial details that should not reflect poorly on an attention whore’s character.

Humorously, most of the frantic searching has come from the Imperial City and its surrounds, where trough-feeding eunuchs are realizing in shock and horror just how terrible a poster girl Machado is:

Trump is right to hit back on this. He rightly criticized McCain and Romney for failing to go after Obama's exposed jugular and now the Cathedral is trying to portray Trump going for Hillary's here as a mistake. Just like when they offer electorally disastrous advice to their enemies on things like immigration, they're collectively hoping that the perception of this being some kind of electoral 'mistake' will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It won't. Machado is now off the table. There's no way Hillary will bring her up again. If she's mentioned at a subsequent debate it'll be because Trump elected to drag her carcass back out. We'll see if he has time to squeeze her fat, skanky ass in between grilling Hillary for calling one-quarter of the country she wants to lead "deplorables", using mafia-style tactics to intimidate victims of Bill's rapacity, and selling state secrets to foreign governments while secretary of state.

Don't give an inch

The second amendment's rhetorical kill shot, in pictures:

From top left to bottom right: Baltimore, Charlotte, Ferguson,
Dallas (dead cops), Milwaukee, NYC (dead cops)

The police can't--or more precisely, won't--even protect themselves or their stuff. Why the hell would you rely on them to protect you?

If you're a husband and/or a father, it's a dereliction of your duty as provider and protector to outsource the physical safety of your family to an apathetic state that isn't able to protect you and wouldn't care to do so even if it could.