Sunday, September 24, 2017

Sportsballing with Cameroon on a Sunday afternoon

Scrolling through Nintendo Wii's old game offerings, I see Super Dodge Ball but not Nintendo World Cup. Both were Technos creations and used the same graphics engines. The costs of putting old titles on offer is negligible--sales must be virtually (heh) all margin.

The reason one is for purchase while the other is a no show? Political correctness, I suspect. Unlike revamped versions of old games with added features, the Wii downloads are unchanged from the originals. That way there is no cost for Nintendo associated with the re-releases. In this context, it means the teams a player has to face in each game remain unchanged.

In Super Dodge Ball, the American team faces the following, in ascending level of difficulty:

1) England
2) India
3) Iceland
4) China
5) Kenya
6) Japan
7) USSR

A majority of the teams are non-white. Of those that are white, two are cakewalks. Fittingly, the Soviets are the most formidable opponent, something that felt real enough when the game was released stateside in 1989. Today, though we wish more than anything that it felt real, it doesn't.

Even the pre-match graphic is insulting
The teams faced in Nintendo World Cup, again in ascending level of difficulty:

1) Cameroon
2) Japan
3) France
4) Russia
5) Spain
6) England
7) Mexico
8) Holland
9) Brazil
10) Italy
11) Argentina
The Germans have better huts
12) West Germany

The game throws a bone to Latin America but Africa gets dumped on.

Cameroon, Africa's sole representative, hasn't even developed the pass! All the Cameroon players are capable of doing is trying to dribble from wherever they get the ball all the way to the other goal, even if it's a defender who gets possession and even if he is swarmed by the other team.

Transitioning to sports-related things people actually care about, the NFL is in trouble. This is now the fourth consecutive year of ratings declines for the league, and tussling with Trump--from Ted Cruz to CNN--rarely does anybody any good. He has a talent for ensuring that his opponents always come out worse for the wear:


The NFL won a big battle against Trump's United States Football League in the eighties, but the war isn't over!

Football surpassed baseball as America's pastime decades ago. Consequently, it shows up near the partisan center of the following graph (that I recall seeing years ago in a Steve Sailer post I cannot currently locate) because of the sheer size of its viewership:


Remove blacks from consideration and the NFL bubble shifts to the right. Then, with respect to the 2016 presidential election, nudge it a bit farther to the right to account for blue collar whites who traditionally identify as Democrats but who voted for Trump (and correspondingly move the PGA bubble to the left to account for Republicans who look like Mitt Romney not voting for Trump), and we can see the threat this poses to the NFL.
Deplorable wasting a Sunday afternoon

NPR-listening SWPL-types have no love lost for football. They think its low-class and barbaric, and that its fans are crass and stupid. While they're happy to highlight the riff to hurt Trump, they're simultaneously coming after the league for something that could genuinely present it with an existential crisis if the nearly $765 million CTE settlement turns out to just be the beginning.

Sports are the true opiate of the contemporary American masses. If the upshot of all this is middle Americans frittering away less time--and more importantly, less tribalistic impulse--watching mercenaries smashing into each other so that the time and energy is freed up to do things like, say, make America great again, it'll be a win.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Hillary Clinton puts one-third of her voters in the basket of deplorables

At least that's the implication from Hillary Clinton's new book (via Steve Sailer):
When I said, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” I was talking about well-documented reality. For example, the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago found that in 2016, 55 percent of white Republicans believed that blacks are generally poorer than whites “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty.”
The figure she cites checks out.

What percentage of Democrats belong in that same basket of deplorables, you ask? A mere 35% of them is all. That's barely even one-third of Hillary's putative supporters! Most of her backers are still With Her.

Some Democrats are more deplorable than others. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected characteristics, who accompany half of Trump's voters in Deploraville as of 2016 (n = 1,634):


Half of Hillary's Hispanic supporters--like half of all of Trump's supporters--are deplorable. Who knew?

NAMs, on the whole, are more deplorable than whites are. It is thus imperative we always distinguish between goodwhites and badwhites.

Naturally, the Chosen People are the nation's least deplorable.

GSS variables used: RACDIF4, RACECEN1(1)(2), RELIG, PARTYID(0-1), HISPANIC(1)(2-99), YEAR(2016)

Friday, September 22, 2017

Foreign-born percentage of US electorate by presidential election

The following graph shows the percentage of the American electorate that was foreign-born in each presidential election going back to 1992. Quantity has a quality of its own:


If Pelosi's pals have their way, the percentage will rocket into the double-digits.

We can't make up the margin on volume and we can't make up the volume on margin, so... look at how much I love these kiddos!


In 2016, the Founders' Revenge took the form of the Electoral College:


That defense against the election of a new people will stand about as long as the statues of the founders do, though.

For the sake of ourselves and our posterity, the following three things must be done:

1) A moratorium on all immigration, lasting at least a full generation
2) All non-citizens repatriated (no #DACAmnesty)
3) Rebounding of native fertility to at least replacement level

The hour is getting late.

GSS variables used: BORN(1)(2), PRES92, PRES96, PRES00, PRES04, PRES08, PRES12, [2016]

Thursday, September 21, 2017

How the foreign-born vote in the United States

Here's one to file neatly under the blog's tagline.

The following graph shows the electoral behavior of foreign-born voters--mostly voting legally--in US presidential elections since 1992*:


Bringing in ringers. Electing a new people. Choose whatever metaphor you'd like to describe the disenfranchisement of Heritage America.

We have to go back to 1988 to find an election where the Republican candidate won the foreign-born vote.

That was a different era.

Those foreigners are not today's foreigners. The ink on the amnesty legislation Reagan eagerly signed was still drying and the massive chain migration it set in motion only just beginning.

The Cold War, when many of those the US took in were Soviet dissidents, was ongoing.

Hyper-partisanship hadn't reached the point it has today. Now landslide victories are nearly impossible. In 1988, Bush senior beat Dukakis 426-111 in the electoral college. There has not been a margin of victory so wide since, and until the political dissolution of the US begins, there won't be again.

Begrudgingly, it must be admitted that the Bushes have done less poorly among the foreign-born than other Republicans have. I suppose if the well-being of the Republican party matters more to you than the well-being of the country your grandchildren will inherit, that's something to celebrate.

On the other hand, losing by a narrower margin is still losing. To celebrate as much is to be like Lisa and Marge as they're shoveling down Grandma Plopwell's government-sponsored pudding:
Lisa: This pudding's pretty good.

Marge: I can feel the pounds just melting off!
GSS variables used: PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), BORN(2)

* Data come from the GSS for elections from 1988 through 2012. The 2016 results come from the officially commissioned media national exit polling.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

It's so PC it's killing me

From Reuters-Ipsos, a poll on the following:


The subsequent graph shows, by selected demographics, the percentages who agree. "Neither agree nor disagree" responses, which 17.6% of those sampled answered with, are excluded (n = 4,670):


Notice the y-axis begins at 50%. That's because even among gays, the group expressing the least concern about political correctness, a slim majority view it as a threat to liberty. This is great news.

Tempering it a bit is the realization that the public is, in general, 'better' on the abstracts than on the specifics. We say we want fewer wars of choice and less policing of the world, but ask about whether or not bombing Syria is a good thing and everyone is on board. We want less political correctness, but discussions about group differences in behavioral traits? Man, the air sure got thick in here. At least the tops of my shoes are fascinating!

Clever sillies are at work here.

Trump voters are even more anti-PC than Republicans in general, while Clinton voters are less so than Democrats in general. Self-identified Democrats who voted for Trump come in at 79.8% while self-identified cucks Republicans who voted for Clinton do so at 71.4%.

Heartiste, the world's most astute observer of human nature, offered counsel the other day that is of particular relevance to the subject at hand:
Alt-Righters should be hitting this free speech angle HARD. Every rally should feature the defense of free speech and assembly as its unifying theme, because free speech permits the expression and exposure of every other theme that energizes the pro-White counterculture. Freedom to express ideas without getting fired or purged or blacklisted means that there’s a chance those ideas percolate into mass consciousness and the needle moves away from the Lies and Ugliness of Equalism and toward Truth and Beauty.

Free speech is the first right enunciated in the Bill of Rights for a reason. Without it, all other rights are effectively voided. Given its importance to a republic, the default defense of free speech should always err on the side of absolutism.

Codified free speech is uniquely American. It’s what sets us apart from the rest of the benighted world, and from our ancestral homelands in Europe. It’s why when we’re kids learning about the Bill of Rights, we feel pride in our 1A heritage. It’s as American as apple pie and imported chinese junk. The Wild-Right needs to own free speech and assembly, and hang the smelly albatross of speech criminalization on the Leftoid Fuggernaut. Champion 1A, and the rest of your revolutionary pro-White agenda starts to look more A-1 to normies.
Pair that salient support for free speech with opposition to political correctness. These terms, like "amnesty", are among the precious few we have at our disposal that send shitlibs scurrying away in fear. They're our "nazi" and our "white supremacist".