Bannon!

Don’t write off Steve Bannon yet. The man is smart as a tack, and has the moral worldview the Left hasn’t had since abolition. Here he is talking about how social media empires debase “digital sovereignty”. Via:

“Central governments debase your citizenship, central banks debase your currency, and the central, technocratic state capitalism we have with Google and Facebook take your personhood, and basically take away your intellectual property, your digital sovereignty” Bannon continued.

“Right now, you’re serfs. You’re well-paid serfs, but you’re serfs. They’ve debased your currency, and so you’re continuing to underwrite debt for sovereign governments at zero interest rates, so you’re always on the spinning wheel like a little hamster, trying to get ahead,” he told the audience.

“Because they’ve destroyed the ability of thrift, of you to save, to get ahead. It’s the same thing on your digital assets, your intellectual property: They take it all for free.”

He added that Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg’s “entire business model” is based on these activities, “taking [your] data for free and monetising it, and then writing algorithms behind a wall that treat you like hamsters on a wheel.”

Barber was keen to steer the conversation to more comfortable topics, trying to suggest Bannon was an admirer of Fascist leader Benito Mussolini and proposing that U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans for a military parade in Washington D.C. made him a kind of latter-day Julius Caesar — but failed to land any telling blows.

Hold on, people.

Bannon….

is da GBFM!

It all makes sense now.

GBFM is Bannon drunk-poasting!

Read Full Post »

Cambridge Analytica And The Left’s Strange New Respect For The Social Media Menace

The latest shitlib outrage du jour is about Cambridge Analytica and their work unwittingly helping LITERALLY HITLER DRUMPPHPHPH win in 2016 through totally legal purchased access to data-mined Faceborg info for user sentiment. Suddenly, shitlibs have noticed that monopolistic social media companies have too much privacy-violating control of our personal details now that those Big Brother-esque companies and their willingness to sell user data have been exploited by Trump campaign hires instead of the Gay Mulatto campaign.

TJP recaps a surprisingly good National Cuckview article about the Left’s strange new respect for the Social Media Menace,

The moral panic over social media and the ‘misuse’ of information is ONLY about suppressing right-wing speech and taking away the tools of mass communication from people on the right.

That’s all it’s about and that’s all it’s ever been about. The Obama campaign quite literally wrote the book on social media manipulation and massive data harvesting. Nobody in the press or Silicon Valley cared, because he won.

Now that Trump won based on (largely organic) social media success, our democracy has suddenly been ‘corrupted’ by a ‘war’ of ideas and information that manipulates people into voting the wrong way.

The left had a monopoly on broadcast media for decades. They got to decide who was legitimate and who wasn’t. Then the internet came along and gave THE PEOPLE a voice — and surprise, it’s not working out so well for the left.

All these current social media recriminations are about is reestablishing the old order. Instead of the big-three broadcast networks where liberals decide what voices are heard, we’re headed into the big-three social media networks where, again, liberals decide what voices are heard.

Simply breaking up the big tech monopoly isn’t going to fix this — we need legislation binding tech monopolies to the Constitution. It’s the ONLY way we’re going to escape censorship.

Shitlibs are getting worked up over what are essentially targeted political ads because their side didn’t get to benefit from it this time. It’s a grab at maintaining their total control of the informational vertical and horizontal.

Countenance Blog writes,

I’m so old that I remember when the Democrat-left-media just LOVED the political data game.

Like, five years ago.

Exactly. I can recall the fawning articles delving into Gay Mulatto’s “big data” gurus and super savvy datanauts. It’s like the history-washing shitlib Left thinks no one remembers anything more than five minutes ago. Trump came along and his team basically co-opted lib battlefield tactics, and OUTMANEUVERED libs on their own turf! That’s gotta burn, so libs are in full hysteria mode trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes long enough to build a Fake Impeachment case against Trump. Russiahoax isn’t working, so it’s back to the well with Cambridge Analytica, and maybe Stormy Daniels as a last ditch effort.

The Big Four Socials — Goolag, Faceborg, Fapple, Twatter — along with the Biggest Technopoly, Scamazon, have to be broken up under existing anti-trust laws, and/or regulated as common carrier utilities. The shitlibs who run these companies have way too much power to censor and demonetize political opponents, (not to mention get employees like James Damore fired for speaking uncomfortable truths about the Diversity Racket). Big Data and the selling of personal user information to the highest bidder is an affront to a humanistic interpretation of civilization, and there really is a dire need to curb the power of the Dopamine Drippers and protect users’ privacy.

If it takes Cambridge Analytica to focus shitlib minds on the Social Media Menace, then so be it; just make sure your local indignant lib is continually reminded that regulating the socials means his tribe won’t be able to exploit them for narrative control or electoral profit any longer like they’ve been doing.

Unrelated, but too funny to wait for an appropriate post:

Read Full Post »

The Fat Chick Tax

A fat tax has been seriously discussed on various platforms for years, usually supported by the premise that fat craps cost society a lot of money in higher health insurance premiums, mitigation overhead, and the daily annoyances of dealing with fatties in public spaces, making room for them, avoiding their stank, and spending mental energy looking away from their disgusting blobbiness while trying to suppress the retch reflex.

A well-meaning but nutritionally misguided fat tax (which taxed foods high in saturated fat) was even tried in Denmark, with positive results (the tax was later scrapped due to open borders…not kidding).

But what if I were to tell you that a Fat Chick Tax makes a lot more sense than a sex-blind generic fat tax? Tucked into a great post on macro-sexonomics (which reads a lot like Heartiste posts) from the blogger who calls himself Giovanni Dannato, the justification behind the Fat Chick Tax:

When most men rarely see higher than a 6.5 in public who isn’t flagrantly anti-social, their morale and motivation is sapped and the scale of sexual market value is drastically distorted in favor of those obese and plain women who stay behind.

While men will always get thirsty enough to settle for whatever they can find, they aren’t as willing to sacrifice as they would be if access to potential mates were more equitable. Once the girls they could approach are repulsive enough compared to anime porn, enthusiasm for the chase goes into a downward spiral.

For every low-status nerd who is willing to date a fat woman, there is another who ends up a celibate omega. This creates millions of bare branches with no roots or prospects in the social order, a state of affairs which makes steadily increasing agitation against the establishment inevitable.

Even those men who still succeed with women know they could be doing a lot better.  Without any real status or bargaining leverage they are struggling with long term relationships and family formation.  They have no more stake in the present state of affairs than do incels.

Just as illegal immigration and offshoring push down wages for everyone, most men see their sexual market payoff reduced by relentless demand inflation.
To put it in perspective, we all know how an influx of millions of pretty young women would be received by the matriarchy.

The overwhelming thirst caused by the hyper-inflationary collapse of the sexual market has played a significant role in the death of civic life. […] Clearly, a society that wants to persist under modern conditions must acknowledge the importance of balancing the sexual market for the sake of cohesion and stability. […]

A main point here is when we objectively rate beauty in a new inegalitarian age we can incorporate it into policy. A special tax on obese women for instance would tacitly acknowledge they are reneging on their side of the social contract by depriving society of the beauty that motivates male participation and helps sustain a workable balance of power between the sexes.

Similar penalties might apply to disfigurative piercings or tattoos.

Congregating in a few neighborhoods in a few cities could be dis-incentivized by removing feminist laws that make it easier for women to get nice white collar jobs they can’t get fired from and imposing special taxes on certain places of residence for single females.

These kinds of measures would obviously trigger massive female opposition, but if women as a whole tried living within a stable balance of power rather than an extractive matriarchy, they might actually like it.

The modren post-America sexual market is horribly skewed against men and their interests, and this as noted is a recipe for revolution. Giovanni is essentially recapitulating the same themes CH touched upon in posts like “Obesity to blame for Game“…

Game has been refined, taught and embraced by men in direct proportion to the shrinking pool of attractive thin girls. As the reduced supply of skinny chicks have seen their sexual market value skyrocket, they have adjusted by pricing their pussy out of reach for the average guy. In return, men have sought solutions to this new challenge in the rapidly advancing science of seduction. Where simple courtship worked in the past, it is no longer effective against the deep bunker defenses of the in-demand slender woman.

There has always been an evolutionary arms race between men and women in the quest for sex but now, for the first time in human history, the sheer numbers of fat chicks — in concert with the increase of financially independent women — is accelerating this arms race so fast that many people can’t cope and drop out. The tools of seduction for men become better by the day and the women counter with more impenetrable defenses. The tension is palpable. The whining and bitching is cacophonic. Distrust and dating blogs are at record highs.

If just 20% of fat chicks lost weight relations between the sexes would start to noticeably improve. And there would be more happiness in the world, because a skinny girl with hunger pangs is happier than a fat girl with a sheepdog and peanut butter.

…and in posts like “Game. obesity, and men dropping out“:

In short, no sociological theory into sex, marriage and family trends is complete without a long, hard look at female hypergamy, the one biomechanical force to rule them all, and its intersection with economic realities. The science is out there; when women become financially empowered, they begin to choose men based on criteria other than their ability to provide.

But that’s not all that Murray, et al are missing. I’m here to tell Murray and others perusing his findings that there is another, MASSIVE factor at work skewing the sexual market, and one that, just as unsurprisingly, gets almost no attention from the PC-soaked punditariat: female obesity.

Imagine you are an unmarried working class dude recently unemployed. You look around you and marvel at a sea of grotesquely misshapen fat women, rolls upon rolls of undulating flesh hiding stores of cheesy poofs, porky hellion spawn trailing their wakes, chins resting atop chins, bloated diabetic cankles stomping the Walmartian grounds like lumbering elephants. In some towns, close to 40% of the available single women are clinically OBESE.

This is obesity folks, not just overweight. Overweight women are physically repulsive, but obesity renders them monstrous. To clarify this assertion for the modern indoctrinated female reader: an obese woman is as sexually undesirable to men as a jobless, charmless, humorless, enfeebled, dull man is sexually undesirable to women.

So back to our realistic scenario: Our typical unmarried working class man surveys his cellulite-blasted kingdom (and it does not matter how fat he, himself, is, for fat men and thin men alike prefer the exquisite sight of slender female bodies), and he makes a quick hindbrain calculation. Does he bust his ass in a crappy service sector job doing women’s work for a shot at legally bound long-term commitment to a shuffling shoggoth dragging the bastard spawn of a hundred alpha males in tow, or does he say “fuck it” and turn to video games and porn featuring hot, thin chicks for his status and dopamine fix?

You see where this is heading. It’s entirely reasonable, and expected, that a lot of men would drop out of the intensified competition for the few remaining childless slender babes in a world full of fat asses, single moms, and fat assed single moms. And even among the small contingent of sexually appealing women, they make enough in government and HR paychecks to cover expenses plus gifts for their Skittles Men. What working stiff beta provider can compete on those terms?

A Fat Chick Tax would go a long way to bringing balance back to the force — bringing Truth & Beauty to a swellscape scarred by Lies & Ugliness — and in so doing return to White Men, the creators and maintainers of civilization, the motivation to keep sacrificing for the Good.

Read Full Post »

Adoration

The look of admiration, which in women is the same as the look of love. Thus, adoration, the coupling of admiration with love.

PS Stormy Daniels alluded on-air in 2007 that Trump was “the best sex she ever had”. Reminder that this was when Trump was in his 60s, and she was a porn whore who had taken untold numbers of cock to all of her holes. Add her to the list of Trump’s lovers who have said the same about his bedroom prowess. (Also add to the list of Trump qualities that drive shitlibs insane with rage and envy.)

FYI if you are a powerful man with a dominating personality and a ZFG attitude, it won’t matter if you’re 60 and out of shape….porn stars will feel like they’ve had their world rocked in bed with you.

PPS An excellent forum-form essay by Harry Dexter Whyte on the Trump-Mueller shit show and the rusty, road-worn shitlib outrage machine that fails against the force of nature in the White House.

There is no end in sight, the charges are dubious and unanswerable, the media reaction is unhinged and extreme, the potential punishment is completely over the top (execute him! the second generation “Russian” immigrant insists).

The Trump-Russia hysteria, and the Mueller investigation it has produced and sustained, has all the hallmarks of the s**tlib outrage machine. It’s interesting to note that they behave the exact same way when going after some random guy on Twitter for wrongthink. Of course the difference here is that they are trying this approach on the most adept politician of the last fifty years.

The comparison works on another level too. Ultimately what’s at stake here is speech. What Trump has said. The charges now being levied against him rely on uncharitable interpretations of his words to Comey and patently absurd interpretations of US law. Twisting and turning the most innocuous phrase into the gravest offense is a s**tlib specialty. They do it all the time!

Again, the big difference is that the man they are attempting to slander is no ordinary man. Dain has said that freedom of speech in modern society has become the privilege of the rich and those with nothing to lose. I think that’s a profoundly truthful statement, but I also think that, as in many other areas, Trump is the exception to the rule. It is true that he is very wealthy, and it seems (to many outside observers) that he has nothing to lose, but neither of these things has been what’s saved him.

What saved him was getting elected. It was the voters who supported what he said, in anticipation of what he would do. They took him at his word, because he spoke in a blunt and frank way about issues that seriously concerned them. Had the voters not given him their support he would have been left with a ruined reputation at best, after losing the primaries, and possible prison time at worst, after losing the general election. The stakes were high and the victory was narrow but he overcame the odds. That is what is so enraging about him for some people and so impressive about him for others.

All this is to say that Trump’s speech is a Janus coin – simultaneously appalling and delighting people. It produces such a dichotomous reaction that it becomes almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about it, the divide being so stark. And when it comes to accusations of obstruction of justice, the same issue arises. For some people he clearly obstructed (and by implication must be guilty of something else even if we can’t prove it!) and for others he simply spoke reasonably to his subordinate (who, like the weasel he is, “recorded” every conversation he had with his boss).

The question, then, is when Mueller looks at what Trump says what side of the Janus coin does he see? Given everything we know, I highly doubt his interpretation is kind. Indeed, it is a testament to the lasting power of the cuckservative mindset that people like Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy still act as the Mueller investigation is some high-handed, fair-minded, truth-seeking enterprise.

But Trump is smart enough to see the investigation for what it is. This will undoubtedly inform his decision making, and at some point he will have to take drastic action. Shitlibs may think it is reasonable to keep this investigation going for the next three years but I can’t imagine Trump will stand for that. Inasmuch as anyone can divine his future plans (a folly that journalists continue to fruitlessly engage in) I think that much is clear. If the shitlibs force his hand he will not hesitate.

Kebab saving robot has a good follow-up:

I can’t wait for the day that things finally turn around and the investigations start pointing the other way.

Huma Abedin committed actual crimes. This is a confirmed fact. Those emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop are all the evidence needed to convict. The only reason she hasn’t been prosecuted so far is “prosecutorial discretion”/corruption.

James Comey committed actual crimes. Every time he anonymously leaked classified information he committed a crime.

Hillary Clinton took money from Russian groups for her “charity” while delivering their favored policies via the state department.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Why the f**k is the only investigation in Washington pointed at Trump?

The legislative branch won’t pull the trigger because it would feel too much like winning, but I expect Trump is eventually going to turn the prosecutions around on his enemies.

The IG report is expected to drop soon. Trump may be waiting for that to give him cover to fire Mueller (which would be the predictable move), or he, being Trump, may strike now, inciting Democrats and their fanatic shitlib base to anti-America apoplexy, only to have his judgment confirmed by the IG report that is released shortly after.

Read Full Post »

Neocons, Free Trade, Open Borders (Choose Any Three)

Ted Colt notices,

One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!

If your Alt-Right brand isn’t “anti-semitic” then you’re not alt-right

I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.

Free Trade is practically a euphemism for Open Borders. The underlying motivation of the neocons and their useful signalers is One World Deracination. Neocon Globalists love free trade because they love open borders, cheap dispensable labor, and a terrorformed society that restricts the ability of Whites to act as a bloc and petition for their own interests. Arguing from the relatively benign premise of free trade allows the shift to “free movement of labor” rhetoric, which is the real goal of the Nation Wreckers.

Most fortunately for the Nation Saviors, “free trade” has become justifiably saddled with negative connotations, so this neocon sleight of rhetoric no longer works as well as it once did (there are still GOPe cuck hold-outs, but they’ll bend the knee to Trumpism in due time). Tariffs, for example, are immensely popular, and support cuts across voter demos. The latest poll has 80% of Americans supporting Trump’s tariffs.

Neocon Globalists pull more than their weight, but they aren’t acting alone. The universalist strain runs deep in neoliberal Gentile Whites.

Ovidiu Stoica notices,

It is a continuation of the liberal project of modernity which started in the 18th century but got trapped inside the national state because of nationalism. The goal is universal individualism and contractual only relations between individuals- no non-commercial (not chosen) community ties&bonds which would limit the individual.

Pure transactionalism is, ironically, dehumanizing of the individual, because we didn’t evolve in a social vacuum. There are those who would like us atomized and vacuum-sealed, but they don’t have the majority’s interests at heart, so it’s smart to dismiss their agitations as the effluvium of tribal spite, and to stop pretending they are worth heeding and that they know what’s best for us.

Twinkie notices,

I think Amy Chua is right in one way – the condition she describes may be objectively true. But she is wrong in another way. Some groups (e.g. Jews, blacks) could never be the majority and, yet, for some reason appear to harbor an irrational hostility toward the existing majority. Therefore, given the choice between living under that majority comfortably and stably or Balkanizing the society so their relative power improves vis-à-vis that majority, despite the increase in general instability, they seem to favor policies that lead to the latter.

For me, not only is the dominant Angl0-American culture (and the native white majority that enables it) appealing and desirable, it is also objectively beneficial for non- and part-whites who live in it, so it’s also in the interests of non-whites to want to maintain the native white majority.

So I find the political behaviors of these groups irrational, short-sighted, and quite incomprehensible.

Why? is a great question, and “social status striving” left to stew in a cauldron of envy and in-group favoritism is the answer. Status striving to feed an insatiable ego is a powerful force, powerful enough in some successful but implacably resentful minority groups to convince them to destroy the country they live in to spite the majority. As well, this particular group (and others who have evolved a similar temperament) may be better able to handle the societal instability their spite creates, and so for them the increase in their relative power vis-à-vis the shrinking majority is worth the comparatively smaller decrease in their well-being caused by the consequences of their monstrous Babelic creation.

PS Svigor has a great comment on this important topic. His other comments in that thread are worth reading, too (the same can’t be said for Fred Reed’s post which inspired Svigor’s thrashing of him).

***

Commenter Watson notices,

“It’s Okay to be White”

“My Borders, My Choice”

We should have one for trade. Maybe, “Don’t Trade Away our Wealth”. Or something else.

Even AFL-CIO gave a statement strongly in favor of Trump’s tariffs. Imagine that, a liberal-dominated institution strongly favoring a Trump policy:

“”For years, we have called attention to the predatory practices of some steel exporting countries. Such practices hurt working people and cheat companies that produce in the U.S. We applaud the administration’s efforts today to fix this problem.”

“Some steel exporting countries.”

Context: China produces 53% of the world’s aluminum and 49% of the world’s steel. (There was a time when most of the world’s aluminum came from Rhodesia, before that nation was destroyed.) Is half the world’s steel located in China? Of course not, it’s spread across the world. But their government finances the mining so they can dump prices in order to bankrupt Western steel producers. And they cut costs to a level where they every year have mines caving in and killing people.

AFL-CIO knows this. Everyone knows this. Politicians who pretend not to know are simply traitors, and that’s not an exaggeration.

There’s a nationalist issue here aside from saving business for economic reasons. And that’s this: Control of production = control of policy. Example: Nations are afraid of officially recognizing that Taiwan is a country because they don’t want to lose trade with China.

China knows that production is power, so they demand that those who export to China have to build factories … in China. Where they are easily controlled in future confrontations. (And also give jobs to Chinese.) How about we demand the same? “No, that would be a blow against free trade! Except when China does it!”

For liberals and cuckservatives who want to oppose Trump, this tariff policy would be a very foolish hill to die on. It’s much like the Black players who refuse to stand for the flag: Trump identified an issue where he can win easily.

Control production, control policy. That should be a go-to Maul-Right meme. And Watson is right; the preponderance of our ruling elite are traitors, in the very traditional sense of the word and with all that it retributively implies.

Commenter meistergedanken’s friend notices,

A friend of mine wrote on FB:
“I already pay thousands of dollars more to live in the suburbs instead of the pleasantly-scaled, walkable mill town nearby. Why? Because the mill that supported the town closed after NAFTA and is now a dangerous slum. I pay more in gas and vehicle wear-and-tear because I can’t walk to anything. I drive all around town for work, groceries, hardware, church, and school. Utility upkeep–including roads, sewers, electrical, cable, etc.–costs more because the supply lines are spread over hundreds more acres of sprawl.

I pay more in taxes because people on the lower end of the intelligence distribution curve no longer have a source of stable, adequate employment. The schools require more resources to manage malnourished and emotionally damaged children from broken homes–well, that comes out of my property tax too. I give more time and money to local charity to help my community cope with waves of drug addiction and homelessness. I’m told that this endless, crushing social illness affecting every corner of American society is just part of the price we pay for living in a global economy.

That it’s all part of the price of “free” trade.

So I’ve always wondered what, then, is the price of protectionism? Surely if I’m willing to pay all this just to keep my shelves lined with unlimited Chinese plastic, the cost of tariffs must be truly backbreaking.

Wait, what? It’s three cents per beer can? Three fucking cents?”

Globalism is evil. Globalist cheerleaders are full of malice for Heritage America. And now we know. The curtain is finally pulled back.

williamk notices what rick the strapon within refuses to notice,

strapon: “US consumers paying more for things”

No proof this actually happens. Prices are set to maximize PROFIT. Raising production costs doesn’t automatically raise the price. If you lose more customers by raising price, price stays put, tariff or not.

Microeconomics is more complicated than “durr drumpf tariffs bad”

williamk is right and, as usual, strapon is wrong. There’s very little evidence that tariffs nontrivially raise prices on consumer goods. There is evidence that tariffs lower corporate PROFITS but what that means is a hit to stockholders and fat cat CEO take home pay. So tariffs REDUCE INCOME INEQUALITY, which you would think a shitlib goon like strapon would be all in favor of….except perhaps when it’s her nemesis Trump proposing the egalitarian policies. Strapon never misses an opportunity to remind everyone that she is disingenuous as a matter of habit.

Read Full Post »

Internet Bill Of Rights

The new robber barons are the Silicon Valley technopoly overlords. Today’s Standard Oil and Ma Bell are Goolag, Faceborg, Twatter, and Fapple. These anti-American pro-censorship leftoid behemoths must either be broken up or regulated as common carrier utilities.

To that end, everyone reading here must go right now and sign the Internet Bill of Rights petition to Congress and the White House requesting they ACT NOW to stop the menace of the Big Four and their fully converged subsidiaries like YouTube and PayPal. (h/t Steve Silver)

Internet forums and social networks which provide free access to the public are a digital place of assembly, and individuals using such methods for public communication should not be subjected to censorship due to political beliefs or differing ideas. Conservative voices on many large public website platforms are being censored, based solely on a differing opinion. Some of these platforms further employ tracking mechanisms for monitoring an individual’s digital history, which can be used to censor the individual’s public communication through various censorship practices, sometimes without knowledge or awareness. These actions directly violate personal liberty and stand at contrast with the bill of rights.

We the people demand action to bring our digital future into the light.

We will make our dissident voices heard.

Read Full Post »

Diversity + Proximity = Low Quality Of Life

Add another hatefact to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list (liberally forward to your libshit friends for cogdis hilarity!). US News editors compiled a “best state to live” ranking, but unlike previous rankings they gave more weight this go-round to scores in categories that mattered most to people, according to survey answers. (h/t Beeschelhoff)

Consequently, “Quality of Life” scores had more prominence in evaluating state livability. Quality of Life is defined as

…largely a result of their interactions with those around them,” U.S. News writes. “Studies show that when people feel socially supported, they experience greater happiness, as well as physical and mental health.”

Careful, veering close to crimethink there. (Someone page Pleasurecel so that he can update his SCALE archives with this latest confirmatory evidence.)

On this basis, the top five states with the highest quality of life were

North Dakota
Minnesota
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
South Dakota

The state with the lowest quality of life was California.

Related, the percentage share of Whites in each of those states, as of 2015:

North Dakota: 88.7%
Minnesota: 84.8%
Wisconsin: 86.5%
New Hampshire: 93.7%
South Dakota: 85.0%

California: 61.8%

It’s well-known by now to those who aren’t self-deluding that Diversity™ reduces social trust. The more racially disparate groups crammed together in geographically close quarters, the more miserable, alienated, and socially atomized everyone feels. So it’s predictable that vibrantly diverse Mexifornia would have a shitty quality of life convincing its unhappy (White) residents to flee to other states for relief, while mostly homogeneous states like New Hampshire have a good quality of life and happy residents who feel like they belong to something bigger than their buttplug collection and anime porn.

Read Full Post »