Demographic Breakdown Of The Pivotal 2016 Election

The Bigly Epigone has done a yeolord’s job compiling demographic data on voting patterns in the 2016 national election. Barring a couple of surprises, the data confirm what we in the wokentariat already know about our tooth-and-claw Diversitopia and its consequences for the continued survival of the nation.

One of the highest IQ groups — single Jewish women — voted in nearly the same overwhelming number for Hillary “thecunt” Clinton as did one of the lowest IQ groups — black single mothers, (88% and 97%, respectively). Only “black women” and “black single mothers” had a lower Trump-vote share than did single Jewesses.

This voting data provides evidence for my observation that no group has a greater disconnect between their practiced lifestyles and signaled virtues than do Jewish women. Jews are perhaps the most hypocritical group in America today. Call it anti-semitism if it makes you feel assuaged, but it’s what the real world is telling us.

Also, for any cucked con who thinks there’s a groundswell of “natural conservatives” among nonblack nonWhites and sexual deviants just waiting to storm national elections if the GOPe supplicates hard enough, here are the depressing facts:

TRUMP VOTE SHARE

homos: 20.7%
muslims: 28.4%
hispanics: 32.2%
hindus: 34%
asian women: 33.7%
asian men: 40.7%

Demography is destiny.

The biggest Trump supporters?

White Protestants (68%)
Married White Protestants (70.6%)
Mormons (71.6%, the beeg weiner)

Trumperica is basically Heritage America plus the Wonder Bread of Whites, Mormons.

Which brings us to Surprise #1: Trump’s vote share among single Jewish men was 35.9%, more than three times the number of single Jewish women Trump voters. And among married Jews, an astounding 58.8% majority of married Jewish men voted for Trump! (The corresponding Trump share number for married Jewish women was 42.9%.)

So before we finger all the blame for our nation’s decline on Jews, it’s a good idea to remind oneself that 6 in 10 married Jewish men have boarded the same Trump Train as the goyim. Now we know why all those Jewish men who have enough on the ball to be marriageable like to marry shiksas….they can’t stand their own women’s feminist kvetching.

Which brings us to (Sorta) Surprise #2. Audacious E and Steve Sailer stress that the real dividing line is, and continues to be, marrieds versus unmarrieds rather than women versus men. I wonder though if AE & SS haven’t missed what I consider the most telling demographic Trump vote share revelation. As anonymous over at Sailer’s comments,

Which of these things is not like the others?

Single white women: 39.0
Married white women: 61.4
Single white men: 59.0
Married white men: 61.0

That’s peculiar (not). There’s one glaring outlier to the pro-Trump voting trend among Whites, and it isn’t the generic “unmarried Whites”. It’s “single White women”. Single White men voted for Trump in almost the same numbers as did married White men. Our traitorous, thecunt-loving, Trump-hating Whites are predominately SINGLE WHITE WOMEN. We are betrayed by the sobbingly empty wombs and cock-carved twat tubes of the libarts and salty tarts crowd. Honestly, we all should have seen this betrayal cumming. Single White women have politically (and even socially and sexually) morphed into nonWhites, seeing the government as a substitute beta male provider who doesn’t demand much in return (sex) and lets them slut it up with sexy cads.

So it’s more accurate to say the real dividing line in American politics, at least among Whites, is single White women versus all other Whites.

And from personal anecdote, I can tell you this is true. I have heard more than one single White woman gripe about how her mom or dad or both voted for Trump and she just couldn’t understand what they were thinking.

I can tell her what her parents were thinking about: the future. Single White women have apparently forgotten what the future of their homeland should resemble, or that a future even exists.

***

Update: jackmcg makes a good point about that anomalously high married Jewish men vote share for Trump.

Jewish men didn’t vote majority Trump. Lol. Please.

Most Jewish men will claim they are ATHEIST or NON-RELIGIOUS in these polls.

Sure, religiously identifying Jewish men voted slightly majority Trump. 58% is still paltry though.

This happens all the time, yo. An exit poll that shows Jews voted pro-White ALWAYS leads back atheist Jews claiming they’re not Jews.

Yes, the “married Jewish men” demographic is misleading because it’s probably capturing those Jewish men who still identify as Jewish, rather than as unaffiliated, atheist, or non-religious. This means that data point is likely a snapshot of Orthodox Jewish support for Trump, which was already well-known. The problem is that, though they have a higher birth rate than secular Jews, Orthodox Jews are a minority of Jews in America, and an even smaller influence culturally. Overall Jewish secular support, both married and unmarried, is heavily tilted toward thecunt and her Democreep Party. Secular Jews really do vote like Puerto Ricans and live like WASPs.

The quadumvirate of nation-destroying demographics is therefore: Jews, single White women, homos, and nonWhites. As it ever was (except in Israel).

And don’t expect this trend to reverse or even slow down. As long as the White marriage rate continues falling and the age of first marriage continues rising, the numbers of single White bitterbitches in the population will explode, and with their growing numerical electoral power the decline and death of America is sure to follow.

Make America Great Again (MAGA) should be closely paired with Who Bitch This Is (WBTI), if we seek the salvation of our country.

Read Full Post »

What Life Is Like For A Handsome Man With No Game

This comment by Les Saunders, Protestant rings true. I’ve seen so many similar cases that there should be a term to describe men who look like womanizers on paper, but who are paper tigers in practice.

Being tall and handsome simply isn’t enough. Well, I suppose it will get you some play but it’s not the be-all end-all. I’m tall and handsome, but had weak game in my 20s. My physical attributes meant I didn’t starve and probably got me a number of 02:00am drunk hookups at da club that a short, homely fellow wouldn’t.

However – I’ll tell you about a good buddy of mine in university. 6’0″, better-looking and -built than me.  Had absolutely zero game. Think he got laid once in 4 years of school by some fat redhead in our dorm who I turned down.  Once, after graduating, a whole bunch of us  gathered in the countryside at a buddy’s parents farm for a weekend of games, drinking, and pig-roasting. A good, old-stock Canadian gathering. A female friend of a friend, a lovely natural blonde haired, slim lass, let it be known that she would bang the retiring buddy of mine. He completely buckled. I saw him freeze up, shift nervously, and stammer, “I can’t do it.”  A few lads and I tried to strong-arm him into going to her tent, but nothing doing. We speculated that he was gay, but I lived with the guy for over a year, and I honestly believe he simply has zero game and zero confidence. His mother was quite a stern and forbidding figure in his life. To this day, 12 years after graduation, he still lives at home, commutes into the city to work, and is thoroughly single.

The moral of the story? Being tall and handsome isn’t everything. Not even close. I’ve seen many shorter, less attractive men hook up with quite attractive women over the years. To be fair, I’ve seen many of the same type of men hook up with fat, homely women, and this is what you’d expect.

What do we all want? Hotter, younger, tighter. To get that you need to be, above all, interesting. That can mean being an asshole with a motorcycle, being a musician, or having game. Tall and handsome gives you some breathing room if you’re a little short in the charisma department, but not a hell of a lot. I’m a tall and handsome guy, but the best lays I’ve got over the years had far more to do with upping my charisma and zfg/keep ploughing attitude than walking into a place and having girls throw themselves at me based on looks alone.

By the way, Ukraine continues to be interesting. Girls here are sexy as hell and receptive to being approached – it’s normal here. I’m staying in a suburban area so they don’t get any foreigners here (100% Ukrainian here) and they practically cream their pants when I speak English.  Why is that? Because, as adduced above, being a White native English speaker is interesting, and interesting is what sets hearts and pussies alight. It just might be a poosy paradise here.

It’s been said before at this raw truth retreat, so I’m not saying anything new here, but a usefully attenuated guideline to male SMV and predicted success with women would run in this order, from highest to lowest:

Tall, handsome, sociable man with Game
>>
Average looking, sociable man of average height with Game
>>>>>
Tall, handsome, introverted man with no Game
>>>
Average looking, introverted man with no Game
>
Extremely ugly and disfigured man with Game
>>>>>
Extremely ugly and disfigured man with no Game

Anyone who thinks there’s something controversial in the above hierarchy of male mate value has, in my opinion, never lived a day in his life.

Bottom line, no matter your looks and height, or lack thereof, having male charisma is always better than not having charisma in the sexual market zero sum plunderdome for romance, love, and a genetic stake in the future.

I have personally witnessed so many good-looking men get BLOWN THE FUCK OUT by less handsome men with BIGGER BALLS and NIMBLER TONGUES that I came to write this blog partly to deliver to the world the truths that I saw unfold almost daily in the dating and mating trenches of our modern sexual market. And yet there are still some who prefer the safe space of pretty lies where black-pilling passivity and inaction are rationalized as moral imperatives…..how predictable.

Read Full Post »

The Trump Effect, Huckabee Edition

Hoping @POTUS tells Hawaii judge what Andrew Jackson told overreaching court-"I'll ignore it and let the court enforce their order."

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) March 15, 2017

FYI the shitlib reactions in the Twatter timeline of Huckabee’s tweet are priceless; so much libhurt. And it’s all libhurt, because Twatter has surreptitiously changed their algorithm so that any follower tweets supporting shitlords are demoted to the bottom of the feed, while lib goons are at the top.

The libs are being pushed to the brink, evident by the growing loudness and screechiness of their anti-White hysteria. The job now should be to kick their shitlib ids right over the cliff’s edge and send them hurtling to their ego deaths, or preparing to take up arms. Either way, they lose.

PS All indications are that the US is careening towards another Constitutional crisis, and this one is gonna be a doozy.

Read Full Post »

The Woe Of The Ugly Woman

This is a sad story. I don’t intend any mean-spiritedness by telling you all this story. My shiv is sheathed. My purpose in passing along this real life anecdote is to expose the heartlessness of the sexual market so that you and those you love can know the monster who stalks you till the end. You won’t defeat this monster, but you can avoid accidentally stepping into its maw before your time.

A lanky White woman hit on me once. She was thin, but ugly. At the time, I rebuffed her plausibly-concealed solicitation. Over the months that followed, I would see her occasionally, here and there, around our itty bitty city, usually alone or working at a service job. The months turned into a few years. Still, I would catch glimpses of her every so often, working different low-pay service jobs.

I left the city, but my travels would take me back there sometimes, for month-long stays. Again, and weirdly coincidental, I saw her about town. And again, she was working in the service industry. Job-hopping from one middling wage outpost to another had become her lifestyle. Still ugly, but now older too.

In all these incidental path-crossings, I’d sometimes catch a look of recognition sweep across her face, but not always. I nonetheless pretended not to recognize her.

I would always feel sad when I saw her, because I knew if she were more attractive her life would be very different. A man of means would have scooped her up years ago, rescued her from that wage slave crush of unmarried despair, and given her the life so many women dream about as little girls. The house, the yard, the children, the comfort, the sense that the future is safe and secured and she is loved….all of it would have been hers if the God of Biomechanics had been more generous to her when the spark of life was breathed into her earthly story.

No pretty girl suffers the indignities of the callous job market for long. Men value female beauty so much they will bend metal with their minds if it can give them a hot girlfriend or wife. To rescue a fetching minx from soulkilling drudgery and sweep her into the good life is in fact many men’s fantasy.

If the woman of my anecdote were prettier, she could be that happy effervescent lady from the suburbs who picks up her coffee and pities the poor sub-prime ugly woman behind the counter taking her payment.

In the final abacus, sometimes all the difference between hell and heaven is a few millimeters of facial bone structure.

I can never stop forgetting this banal, gutter-bound ugly truth, which is why, even in my sincerest moments of heavenward yearning, I’m compelled to scoff at anything greater than this dirty muck which shackles us.

Read Full Post »

Mutti Merkel Goes To Washington

German Chancellor and High Priestess of Anti-White Virtue Signaling, childless hag Angela Merkel, is going to Washington to meet the God-Emperor and, hopefully, take another one of his rhetorical shivs to her flabby fraüface.

Merkel and GayMulatto are neck and neck in the running for Most Treasonous Leader of a Western nation since Abraham Lincoln. There’s a theory floating around the shivosphere that Merkel essentially opened the floodgates to hordes of rapefugee filth because she mortally feared the bad press she would get if she sent in German troops to stop the first wave of muslim invaders at the border.

I can believe that. An old woman with no genetic lineage to care for and who is forgotten and ignored by her nation’s men has caught a deathly case of the feelz and wants more than anything to avoid ostracism by the cowardly cucks braying at the center of her social universe.

What a cünt. This is why you don’t entrust your nation’s survival to a childless lonely old woman. She’s more liable to send your people to the brink of extinction on an emotional wave of moral peacocking than she is to sagely steward the nation and preserve its character.

If Germany and the German people disappear from the face of the earth, it will be an enormous evil of incalculable loss, but it will have been ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF GERMANS.

They can stop their suicide spiral. They just need the will.

Deus Vult

or Deus Excusat.

That is the existential choice facing Germany, and so many other White nations of the West.

PS I’m tearing it up on Gab. If you wish to join the sadistic fun, it’s gab.ai, and the CH account is @Heartiste.

Read Full Post »

The Authoritarianism Of Academia

Huge survey of college faculty: only 12% really support #1A. Another 55% waver. And 33% strongly oppose free speech. https://t.co/LMgJwhTxrY

— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) March 9, 2017

Academia has become a training camp for petty tyrants. Universities were supposed to be arenas where the exchange of ideas, some of them taboo, could be pursued without compromise or threat of suppression. We’ve come a long way……down, baby. The majority of college faculty now either eagerly and gleefully relish the thought of silencing dissenting thinkers, or weakly acquiesce to those holding the heretic-whip. And yet these same dictatorial academics have the gall to project their witch-burning psychoses on Trump and his supporters and brand them the real authoritarians.

PS Interestingly (from an HBD-vantage), a survey of schoolchildren in 1971 found eerily similar percentages of support among them for free speech.

@primalpoly @JonHaidt wow it's almost the same as a 1971 sample of schoolchildren https://t.co/aeLfD7MFP3

— Professor Banana (@literalbanana) March 10, 2017

The origins of children’s attitudes toward freedom of dissent were investigated using questionnaire data from 1384 children in grades 5 through 9. Political socialization of attitudes toward free speech apparently does occur during late childhood and early adolescence. Most children acquire support for the abstract principle of free speech in slogan form, without learning its concrete implications. Support for free speech in concrete instances is dictated largely by the child’s attitude toward the dissenting out-group in question and only rarely by the general principle of free expression. There are indications that the child’s confidence in his ability to think divergently contributes to tolerance, presumably by reducing the personal threat posed by deviant out-groups.

More proof that shitlibs (who have almost completely overrun academia) are arrested adolescents, (and that Boomers are were the worst fucking generation ever, in any universe).

Read Full Post »

Female Privilege

A hilarious social experiment unintentionally blew up in the faces of the shitlib academics who ran it when it busted their cherished shibboleths about male privilege and misogyny. An actor and actress were recruited to replay the Presidential debates between Trump and thecunt, except the actor played as thecunt and the actress as Trump, ostensibly to confirm the biases of the liberal academic audience that only anti-woman sexism caused thecunt to lose the election.

Unfortunately for the self-congratulatory libs, their egos were stroked against the grain.

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

***

“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

***

We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.

***

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back.

Male shitlib academics are such nancyboys.

The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

Anti-reality: Male privilege.
Reality: Female privilege.

Feminists and Globohomo poz dealers want you to believe in the anti-reality of MUH MISOGYNY, when the reality is that female privilege is the incessant undercurrent of culture, derived from the fundamental premise that governs all social organization and policy: women are more reproductively valuable than are men. The Fundamental Premise — namely, the biological reality that the sexes are innately different in reproductive capacity and in the psychology that must flow from that reality — explains why, for instance, thecunt actually would have done WORSE on election day if she were a he, and Trump would have done better if he were a she.

Female privilege is getting a boost for being a woman, which is exactly what thecunt got, given how her core natural constituency — smug liberal academics — hated her male version.

The opposite of male privilege — male privation — is closer to what Trump had to overcome; a plain-talking, aggressive, masculine man will frighten away a lot of sensitive shitlib snowflakes, whereas a female version of himself would have lowered his natural antagonists’ defenses and rendered them more open to his message.

This also clues us into why Trump supporters tend to be feminine women and masculine men; both groups are more secure in their healthfully polarized sexuality and thus unlikely to be put off by a male leader behaving as an unabashedly masculine man. Masculinized shitlib females and feminized shitlib males often feel threatened by men (and women) who are closer to the SMV ideal for their sex.

I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.

Generally, people are more accepting of masculine women than feminine men (the latter are bigger traitor risks to the tribe), but neither are loved. Sexual polarity was the God of Biomechanics’ first order of business, and that means we — all of us, whether or not we admit it in heretic-burning company — prefer our women feminine and our men masculine.

I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.

Recall, as uncovered by Jonathan Haidt in his research of the moral priorities of liberals and conservatives, that libs have a more constricted moral universe and are therefore less able to understand and empathize with conservative moral considerations. Conservatives in contrast have a broader and more soundly distributed moral spectrum of concerns that one might call “adult”, (as opposed to liberals’ “juvenile morality” that focuses almost solely on harm and fairness).

I don’t expect any of these eureka moments to crack the libshit facade. The typical post-America libocrite can accommodate levels of COGDIS that would’ve left his lib-lite grandfather a quivering lump of neuroses. No, the only solution to the currently toxic shitlib insanity is a return to the kind of existential pain that can’t be mentally eaten away.

Read Full Post »