Category: polling

Celebrating Their Own Demise

Partying at a funeral – their own.

Technical points:

1.  More details about these data would be helpful. The main story does give some details but these are not enough.

2. To what extent are pro-diversity White responses informed by a desire to be “PC” and a fear of being labeled “racist?”

3. To what extent are pro-diversity White responses affected by being exposed to a virtual monopoly of pro-diversity propaganda from the news and entertainment media, academia, public schools, celebrities, politicians, with virtually no dissenting views heard and/or taken seriously and/or labeled as anything other than “White supremacism” and “hate?”  Is the increased pro-diversity sentiment expressed by more educated Whites an indication of academic brainwashing (as well as smug “goodwhite” scorn for blue collar Whites)?

4. How stable will the White pro-diversity data be over time?  As Whites become a minority and suffer the consequences of being a hated subaltern group in a degenerated Third World America, will optimism continue to prevail?  Note that Whites as a minority in a majority non-White America cannot be expected to be catered to as are non-White minorities in the current majority White America: no affirmative action, no “PC” double standards for their benefit, no organized minority mobilization via a multicultural apparatus, no bending over backwards for minority rights, no favored status for minority immigration.

5. Just because a people believe something will be a good thing does not logically mean that it actually will be a good thing.  One would think that should be obvious, but it is (obviously) not.

Now, let’s consider the main take-home point: the utter and complete failure of the Right to make the argument, the utter and complete failure of American rightists, particularly the Far Right, to make the case against diversity and in favor of White preservationism.

Yes, yes, there is point #3 above, the monopolization of System messages, and the pathologization of dissident opinions.  But whose fault is that?  Note that majority-minority status is viewed more askance in Europe that lacks free speech than in America that ostensibly has it. I know the Type Is and their affirmative action leadership will make excuses as they always do, and claim that this supports rather than refutes their approach, claim it affirms ethnonationalism because most European nations have relatively monoethnic native populations while White America is an ethnic mix.  The same old story (and note that while expressed public opinion seems healthier in Europe it is not actualized in electoral results and in policy in most cases; note as well that White America elected Trump even with Trump’s phony veneer of being a “racist fascist bigot” – the story is more complicated than “movement” simplicity) – which ignores the elephant in the room: decades of “movement” failure, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money, millions of man hours of wasted effort, the stupidity, lies, and cowardice (SLC) of Der Movement, Inc., its utter failure to achieve anything of value.

The quota queens have the nerve to mock mainstream conservatism as Conservatism, Inc. – as a group of “beautiful losers” – a “loyal (pseudo) opposition” – not really interested in winning but just to make money and live off the donations of naïve and deluded suckers.  Pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

I attack the tin cuppers and their panhandling, particularly the happy penguins at VDARE, but consider: VDARE gets the lion’s share of “movement” money for doing nothing other than what other people do for free.  VDARE is a blog, for heaven’s sake  Brimelow is the editor of a blog that he occasionally writes for.  That’s it!  A blog writer and editor!  That’s something many people do for nothing, do for free, yet you retards are supporting his blue state lifestyle, and flushing the shekels down the VDARE toilet.  Do you understand how stupid that is?  It’s one thing if VDARE was an integrated activist organization actually getting things done.  It’s a blog.  A blog!  Pierce for all his faults (and failures) at least made the pretense of heading an activist organization; today’s quota queens simply run websites and expect in return to be supported in lifestyles superior to many of those giving donations.

Decades of a degenerating racial situation for Whites, the breakdown of law and order and civility in America, the utter chaos in Europe as another example of the perils of multiculturalism, the promise of balkanization from the Rise of Trumpism – all that for naught.  To the extent that opinion poll has any validity whatsoever, the (Far) Right has utterly failed, but as always there is ZERO accountability.  Given that a lack of accountability is a hallmark of affirmative action and its recipients, this is further evidence supporting the Sallis view that Der Movement, Inc. – a money-making scheme – is built on a foundation of affirmative action and ethnic quotas as regards “leadership” – and if you think about it, as regards ideology as well.

It’s going to be a bumpy ride…right down into the Third World sewer – with feckless, misinformed Whites grinning like idiots and blushing with embarrassment.  Don’t worry though – in the meantime, “movement” “leaders” will live well, lounging around in the leafy suburbs, going on international trips, buying dog food and movie tickets, living the good life while sponging off of hard-working fools and suckers.

Advertisements

We Need Real Data

This is important.

This is a topic that I’ve brought up in comments at Counter-Currents, particularly in response to some Le Brun podcasts, but is worth discussing again (and again and again).

We need data, strong empirically-determined data, to assist in understanding racial-social trends in society as a whole, as well as within the “movement.” Many assumptions are made, and strategic approaches are designed based on those assumptions, without any real founding on real evidence. This is crucial in determining the answers to crucial questions about how to get Whites in general motivated to pursue their own racial group interests, and how to get Whites actively involved in racial activism.

We need opinion polling and other types of survey data, looking at the White population (in different countries if possible, but at least in the USA), broken down, if possible, by age, sex, education, income/class, and other variables. We need to ascertain how many Whites are concerned about the racial-cultural trends, and if so why, and if not why. We need to understand why those who are concerned do nothing about it, why they eschew racial activism, and what they think of the “movement.” Looking at the “movement” we need to identify the types of Whites who get involved, what their motivations are, how they got involved, and whether the “gateway hypothesis” (that people enter through more mild, Alt-Wrong style activism and the progress to the more hardcore) is correct or not. We need to understand whether ”mainstreaming” really works (I think not), whether “vanguardists” are more attractive or not to recruits, and whether the Alt Right’s “youth culture” is really a net positive to the “movement” and whether it is really responsible for bringing in young recruits. And there are, I’m sure, dozens of other essential questions that need be answered – and answered by real data.

Why don’t the more well-funded and “connected” precincts of the Right (e.g., the Alt Wrong) at least get the ball rolling on this? Or, if not them, can the more hardcore among us pool resources and get the job done?

Real data providing real answers leading to real solutions to pressing problems.

Opinion Polling and a Conservative View from the NY Post

Cuckservatives.
To summarize:
1. Supporting amnesty is a good thing for the GOP nomination.
2. Side implication: getting the GOP nomination is more important than the well-being of the American people.
3. The most important thing for a GOP candidate is winning that small fraction of the vote that is “Latino.”  White voters can be taken for granted and simply ignored.
4. The popularity of Trump – wrongly perceived by the electorate as being anti-immigration – has no bearing whatsoever. Rigged “opinion polls” should be listed to instead.
5. One should follow the lead of McCain in these matters, who, after all, did so well in the 2008 general election, and who got re-elected in Arizona only after dishonestly tricking gullible White Arizonans to think he was “tough on illegal immigration” by squinting into the camera and muttering about “build the damn fence.”
Some realities:
1. Opinion polls do not exist to measure opinion. They exist to CREATE opinion. Combine a deceptively worded question, with a (in reality) non-random poll sample, with a deceptive “interpretation” of the “data,” and you get the “spin” that influences the conformist sheeple to go along with the program.
Polling questions on “immigration reform” that I have seen tend to emphasize enforcement, and couch language about amnesty in tough terms, usually counter-posed with some straw man alternative. Support for strict enforcement coupled with “hard-love” legalization is then equated to a “pro-amnesty” position.
The following would be typical:
Do you support immigration reform that would, once and for all, forever and ever, enforce immigration law, close the borders, end all illegal immigration, 100% permanently, coupled with allowing illegals presently in the country to stay if they pay a fine of ten million dollars apiece, speak English better than a British butler, and graduate from Harvard with a medical degree, OR do you support herding up all illegal aliens, killing them, and turning them into Soylent Green?
If more than 50% of Republican voters choose the “support immigration reform” option then that is construed as support for amnesty. Well done!
2. The current enthusiasm for Trump, and pitifully low numbers for Jeb and Miss Lindsey casts a pall over the chances of a GOP victory in 2016. Assuming the establishment will never let Trump be nominated, and given that the establishment would like to foist a pro-amnesty candidate, optimally Jeb, on us, this suggests that the base will be so “turned off” and unenthused in the general election that the Democrats could run a donkey as their candidate and still win. The base despises Jeb and pink-frilled Graham and the rest of the amnesty freaks.

Questions on Polling

Trump.
“Opinion polls” tell us that the majority of Americans – including a majority of Republicans – wholeheartedly support illegal alien amnesty. That’s the drumbeat of news reporting on a weekly basis.
If that is so, if that is true, then why do other polls tell us that Donald Trump has risen so sharply as a candidate among Republican voters after making strong remarks against illegal aliens, remarks that the usual suspects complain are “offensive?”
You’d think the opposite should be true, no?  
I don’t watch “FOX” or read any mainstream conservative papers, but I wonder if any of those conservative sell-outs have even noticed this inconsistency. The reality is of course that opinion polls on controversial subjects are designed to create opinion, not measure it.
All you need to do is (1) craft the questions in such a way as to lead the polling subjects to the desired answers, (2) pick a polling sample which is as non-representative as possible and skewed in favor of the desired answers. and (3) report the results in a breathless and misleading manner.
Given the most folks are conformist sheep, hearing that others allegedly believe “X,Y,Z” will make these folks also inclined toward “X,Y,Z.”  The same principle holds with news reporting, editorials, etc. Jeb Bush has been created into a “front runner” by virtue of the mass media repeatedly reporting him as such, even before he officially announced a candidacy.  It’s the “jump on the bandwagon” herd mentality. As another example: ever wonder why, in election time, people put signs on their lawns and stickers on their cars proclaiming their adherence to a candidate?  What’s the purpose?  Simple: to create the sense to the lemming observer that “hey, lots of people are supporting this person, that’s what everyone is doing, they must be right and good, so I had better support the candidate myself.” Why else spend the time and money on something so stupid?
As well: let’s assume for the moment that opinion polls (at least sometimes) do reflect public opinion. What does that tell us about the public that their opinions on major issues and personalities are so fickle and can be so easily swayed by recent events and propaganda? It always amazes me when a President’s approval ratings move up and down so quickly, based on some sort of recent event or speech.  Don’t the people being polled have any convictions whatsoever?  For example, imagine a President who represents everything a person opposes, whose actions and speeches work against that person’s interests. You’d expect that such a person would, when polled, give the President a rating of “disapproval.”  Why then should that suddenly change a month later to “approval” because “the economy grew by 0.001% this quarter” or “employment rates increased by 0.25%” or something or other happened which does not in any material way change the underlying reality of what is happening? 
And some people still support “democracy?”