White Murder Rates by U.S. State, 1960 (vs. 2010)

What are the White homicide rates by U.S. state? Steve Sailer wonders. It is trickier than you’d think: The U.S. government does not separate Hispanics from Whites for purposes of counting crime. Hispanics commit more murders, and this inflates the apparent ‘White’ murder rate.

One Sailer commenter, who uses the handle “Perspective”, provides a link to 1960 data, which I reproduce in table form below.

Usefuless of 1960 Data
Using 1960 data greatly mitigates the ‘Hispanic inflation’ problem that befuddles inquiry into White crime rates today. The USA was less than 4% Hispanic in 1960, with most then concentrated in the states bordering Mexico. Most states’ White murder-rate figures for 1960 will not be affected at all by ‘Hispanic inflation’. This may be as clear a view as we’ll get of “murder rates for Whites by state”. Upper-Midwest and New-England Whites are amazingly peaceful.

Comparisons to Today
Audacious Epigone attempted to calculate White murder rates by state in the 2000s. With caveats that these are not apple-to-apple comparisons (methods of data collection/reporting may differ, and the Hispanic-Inflation issue, and the trickier but fascinating issue of advances in trauma medicine 1960-2010, see the discussion about trauma medicine in “Observations”, below) here is a table of the data from 1960, along with AE’s for the 2000s.

The table is ranked from the states with most-dangerous Whites in 1960 to the state with the least-dangerous Whites in 1960. Below the table are some observations, analysis, and thoughts.

.
White Murder Rates By State, 1960

. . Rank, 1960	. . State	White Murder Rate in 1960 (White homicides per 100k Whites) (CDC)	. Rate, 2000s (Epigone)
1	Alaska	7.2	4.1 (-3.1)
2	Nevada	6.4	6.6 (+0.2)
3	Nex Mexico	5.8	6.6 (+1.0)
4	Kentucky	5.7	2.7 (-3.0)
5	Texas	5.0	4.4 (-0.6)
6	Alabama	4.8	2.9 (-1.9)
7	Arizona	4.8	6.4 (+1.6)
8	Georgia	4.6	2.7 (-1.9)
9	South Carolina	4.4	3.5 (-0.9)
10	Tennessee	4.2	3.5 (-0.7)
11	North Carolina	4.1	2.9 (-1.2)
12	District of Columbia	4.1	12.4 (+8.3)
13	Florida	3.9	??? (+???)
14	Virginia	3.8	2.4 (-1.4)
15	Colorado	3.8	2.9 (-0.9)
16	Arkansas	3.8	3.0 (-0.8)
17	West Virginia	3.7	3.1 (-0.6)
18	Oklahoma	3.7	4.5 (+0.8)
19	Mississippi	3.5	2.2 (-1.3)
20	Wyoming	3.4	2.5 (-0.9)
21	Louisiana	3.3	3.4 (+0.1)
22	California	3.3	5.8 (+2.5)
23	Montana	3.3	1.8 (-1.5)
24	Missouri	3.0	1.8 (-1.5)
–	USA Whites Overall	2.7	???
25	Illinois	2.5	1.3 (-1.2)
26	Maryland	2.4	3.5 (+1.1)
27	Delaware	2.2	1.7 (-0.5)
28	Washington state	2.2	2.4 (+0.2)
29	Indiana	2.0	2.4 (+0.4)
30	Michigan	2.0	2.2 (+0.2)
31	Oregon	2.0	2.0 (Same)
32	New York	2.0	2.4 (+0.4)
33	Idaho	2.0	2.1 (+0.1)
34	Hawaii	1.9	3.6 (+1.7)
35	Ohio	1.9	1.7 (-0.2)
36	Kansas	1.9	2.5 (+0.6)
37	Maine	1.8	1.6 (-0.2)
38	Utah	1.7	1.6 (-0.1)
39	Nebraska	1.4	1.2 (-0.2)
40	South Dakota	1.4	1.2 (-0.2)
41	Pennsylvania	1.4	2.2 (+0.8)
42	New Jersey	1.4	2.3 (+0.9)
43	Wisconsin	1.4	1.3 (-0.1)
44	Rhode Island	1.3	1.8 (+0.5)
45	Minnesota	1.2	0.9 (-0.3)
46	New Hampshire	1.2	0.9 (-0.3)
47	Connecticut	1.1	2.0 (+0.9)
48	Massachusetts	1.1	1.7 (+0.6)
49	Iowa	1.1	1.1 (Same)
50	Vermont	0.9	1.6 (+0.7)
51	North Dakota	0.8	1.2 (+0.4)

.

_____________________________________________________

Data Source: Thanks to a Steve Sailer commenter named “Perspective” for the PDF. The document is called “Homicide in the United States, 1950-1964” (published in 1967 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Data is from Table 2, which is page 19 of the PDF (marked as p.14 on the original document).
_____________________________________________________

Observations

– What do the Japan of 1960 and the White-America of 1960 have in common? Among other things, perhaps, their murder-rates, which were almost exactly the same in 1960. (White-Americans: 2.7, Japan: 2.8). Japan’s has since declined to ~1.0, where it has been for the past twenty years.

Tim Scott, National Leader in the Multicultacracy

TIM SCOTT, National Leader, 2013-?

NPR: “The choice is full of firsts — Scott will be the only African-American in the Senate, the first black Republican in the Senate in decades, and only the second since Reconstruction. The one-term congressman immediately becomes a national figure”.

David Woodward [a Clemson University Professor]: “I think he [Tim Scott] represents an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind somebody who could be a national leader.”

A national leader!

An obscure, one-term Congressman. A graduate of a third-rate university (his alma-mater, Charleston Southern, ranks 15th of the 20 colleges in South Carolina in terms of enrolled-student SAT scores — the average attendee did not even manage 500 per section on the SAT).

NIKKI HALEY [Nee Nimrata Kaur Randhawa], Champion of Minority Advancement

Why did Governor Haley appoint this man?

Nikki Haley [Governor of SC]:
“It is very important to me, as a minority female, that Congressman Scott earned this seat. He earned this seat, for the person that he is.”

There you have it. She very nearly said it explicitly there, didn’t she, that she appointed him because he is Black and for essentially no other reason. It’s the way the winds of the Grand Old Party are blowing.

Racial and Religious Breakdown of the 2012 Vote in the South

It was an ethnic (or ethno-social) census-via-ballot-box, in some ways. The USA’s 2012 presidential election, that is.

This is especially true among Nonwhites, but it can also be true among Whites. For instance, only 2% of married White Baptist men in the Deep South voted for Obama, according to the Reuters exit poll. Romney won that group 50-to-1.

These kinds of demographic analyses are fascinating, and incredibly important. In the Northeast, Romney won comfortably, nearly 3-to-2, among non-Episcopalian White-Protestants, despite getting only 38% of the overall vote.

Here is the racial and religious breakdown for the Southern states:

(Data is from here. I exclude Florida because even its White population has become so…’distinct’ from internal migration, that it would obscure any patterns).

Commentary

Ethnic bloc voting
White Baptists and ‘Other Protestants’ went most strongly for Romney, as would be expected from Steve Sailer’s Core-vs.Fringe theory — the Baptist church is seen as a core church of the White-South. White-Baptists and “Other-Protestants” voted for Romney at about the rate Nonwhites voted for Obama. (Both were nearly 6-to-1 for the candidate of their race in the South).

Episcopalians, again

Racial and Religious Breakdown of the 2012 Vote in the Northeast

Steve Sailer broke down the national share of the vote Romney got in 2012 among Whites, by religious self-identification:

From Reuters’ poll of 40,000+ voters, let’s look at Romney’s share of the two party vote among white people by different religious self-identifications:

Mormon 89%
Baptist 79%
Other Protestant 75%
Methodist 66%
Presbyterian 65%
Lutheran 60%
All Whites 58%
Catholic 57%
Episcopal 55%
Other Religion 51%
Jewish 34%
None 32%

The apparent lackluster support for Romney among Episcopalians had many commenters speculating about why that would be. Before we “put the cart before the horse” too much, I wrote: “It would be interesting to run this analysis limited to one region or one state, to offset the effects of regionalism“. By this I meant that Episcopalians’ apparent pro-Obama stance may be an artifact of their being heavily-drawn from the liberal Northeast.

Using the same source Sailer uses, which is this, I produced one attempt at such a ‘control’ analysis, above. I limited the analysis to eight contiguous and somewhat-similar states: the six states of New England, along with New York, and New Jersey. (Note that this uses a slightly different methodology than Sailer uses — he cuts third-party votes out of the analysis — [Romney-%]/([Obama-%]+[Romney-%]). I did not omit third-party votes: Mine are the share of votes out of all votes cast. To discount third-party voters, add a point to each of the Romney-vote figures for the various racial-religious groups Northeast).

Commentary and Analysis

Why Asians Voted 3-to-1 for Obama: “It’s the Coolness, Stupid”

Asians are the per-capita wealthiest racial-group in the USA, and in 2012 Obama was clearly the “tax the rich” candidate. Yet Obama easily won the Asian vote, by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin. How can one explain Asians’ enthusiasm for a candidate so totally-contrary to their economic interest?

On the one hand, it is tempting to quote Lee Kwan Yew again in this case…

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests or social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion”

…and wash one’s hands of the matter.

On the other hand, the case of the Asians deserves a closer look, in light of their so-called “model minority” status in the USA, and their increasing importance in world affairs generally. An excellent analysis of the “Asians for Obama” phenomenon, one that makes a lot of sense to me, was written by an anonymous commenter at Steve Sailer’s [I have added a title, I hope the anon will forgive me]:

Asians for Obama: It’s the ‘Coolness’, Stupid

There are only two ways that parties can win over the electorate: plainly giving them what they want OR being associated with ‘correct values’ or ‘hip image’. Dems won the Blacks by giving them welfare, government jobs, and ‘affirmative action’. Dems also won Hispanics by offering welfare and amnesty. Now, Dems didn’t do much for Asians and indeed didn’t even reach out to Asians, so why did Asians go with Dems? Because for Asians, the Democratic Party is ASSOCIATED with cool, hip, and attractive things.

A lot of Asian-Americans are well-educated, which means they’re well-indoctrinated by the teachings of leftist/radical/decadent/liberal/whatever Jewish or gay professors who dominate the academia. Asians also love pop culture. Asians tend to be more respectful of authority, and it just so happens that most of the top institutions are dominated by liberals. And so, Asians come to associate liberalism with good, correct, wonderful, hip, and moral stuff. So, even if Democrats don’t reach out to Asians directly, many Asians feel that the Democratic party is the place of the cool and hip. They go over to the Democrats on their own.

After all, aspiring Asians soon learn that most successful Jews and Whites are Democrats and socially liberal. Asians are status seekers, and so they naturally follow along. Asians tend to be conformists, and they will readily conform to whatever the prevailing ideology or attitude is. If Asians attend elite schools, they will soak up the attitudes and values of their professors and Jewish peers. Also, Asians are sick of the lame and wimpy ‘model minority’ tag. It implies they are loyal dogs rather than cool uppity rebels like Blacks. And so, Asians don’t wanna be tagged with conservatism. Depending on the prevailing authority, Asians are the quickest to become leftist or rightist.

I find this a reasonable, well-rounded, and compelling explanation for Asian voting patterns in 2012.

Another Sailer commenter, fnn, writes:

Asians come to the US and they are smart enough to quickly discover that being anti-white is essential part of hegemonic ideology of US ruling class. They instinctively know it is best for their future in the US to conform to hegemonic ideology that says that good Whites are religiously committed to self-extinction and others should

Will there ever be a White President of the USA again?

2012 General Election
Nonwhites: 30% of voters — 5-to-1 for Obama
Whites: 70% of voters — Over 3-to-2 for Romney

The Republican Party is in trouble. Nonwhite racial bloc-voting and increasing Nonwhite vote-share are increasingly-insurmountable. Everyone’s talking about it: From the explicitly anti-White Left (as here), to the more-mainstream Left (as here), the apolitical center (as here), and well across into the domains of the aracial Right (as here), and the racialist Right (as here).

Given these conditions, “Will there ever be a White president of the USA again?” is a relevant question to ask.

The Last White President
The Republicans will nominate Nonwhites to head future presidential tickets. This is already being discussed. Picking that boring-plain-old White running mate, Paul Ryan, was Romney’s big mistake, they’re whispering. Being a boring-plain-old White man himself was Romney’s other mistake.

Republicans in 2016 and thereafter will want to try to buy Nonwhite votes — which (as we’ve seen in ’08 and ’12) will bloc-vote against any White-Republican. Thus, no “non-Hispanic Whites” need apply. A Nonwhite Republican may even succeed in buying sufficient Nonwhite votes to win. Who knows? — But the point is that White men, running as Republicans, are very likely to be (from here on out) effectively barred from the position of President of the United States.

There may still be a White-Democrat elected (though, increasingly, only pretty-explicit White-ethnomasochists would be able to take the reins of Obama’s anti-White electoral coalition). Remember, though, that by this point, the Democratic party itself may well be majority-Nonwhite. The diverse Democrats will demand a diverse candidate, and racial-politics will dominate the Democratic primaries — which we already saw in 2008, and which, in turn, is why there is no President Hillary Clinton.

Thus, for the duration of the lifespan of the political-entity known as the ‘USA’ as it exists today, Whites may well be defacto barred from the White House on racial grounds.

A ‘Great White Hope’: An Explicit Appeal to Whites as Whites

Liberty Caucus Fared Mostly Well in 2012 Elections

A previous post profiled the 11 members of Liberty Caucus, a group of representatives of traditional “Norman-Rockwell” America, whose membership has displayed strong pro-Western and pro-American tendencies, and even racialist sympathies.

How did they fare in 2012?
Despite the triumph of Barack Hussein Obama’s anti-White coalition in the presidential election, the nationalistic-oriented White-core of the Republican Party generally did quite well, as it did in 2010.

Eleven men began the year as active members of Liberty Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. Seven were reelected in the 2012 General Election and will serve through 2014. Four will no longer be in the House.

Of the four departing members:
–One ran for U.S. Senate and won [Flake, AZ]
–One ran for U.S. Senate and lost [Rehberg, MT]
–One ‘lost’ (see below) his House race [Bartlett, MD]
–One is retiring [Ron Paul].

Of the replacements for these four departing Representatives, three are political newcomers who seem to be very similar to those they replaced. I have also briefly profiled them below.

Relatedly, the pro-traditional-America lobby group NumbersUSA has listed 40 hardline immigration-restrictionists who won seats in the next Congress. All but two who ran for reelection won (and those two are both in the recount process now); six are entering for the first time, a net increase of four to six seats for the “immigration restriction bloc”. These 40 to 42 Congressmen now constitute 17-18% of the new Republican majority in the House. Many of the names on the linked-to list are also members of Liberty Caucus.
.

Liberty Caucus — Election 2012 Results

Roscoe Bartlett: Loses House seat [MD-6] — Redistricted out of office.

38% Bartlett
59% Delaney
[Full Maryland results]

Why would this ten-term Congressman suddenly lose his seat by such a steep margin? Answer:

It’s Revenge Against YOU: The 2012 Election in One Graphic

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests or social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion” –Lee Kwan Yew [Former Prime Minister of multiracial Singapore (1959-1990) and critic of democracy]

From the Exit Poll for the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, as presented by CNN.

Nonwhites: 30% of voters — 5-to-1 for Obama
Whites: 70% of voters — 3-to-2 for Romney

(Various technical notes and discussion: Race is definitely the most salient division of the electorate here. Breakdowns by age, education, and economic position were much more even, overall; young, old, rich, poor, college-educated, blue-collar, white-collar… every type of White favored Romney; every type of Nonwhite favored Obama. / I classify Jewish voters, 2% of the electorate [70% for Obama this time, 80% in '08] as ‘Nonwhites’ to derive the above. As Dr. Kevin MacDonald points out, they are “a critical component of the new hostile elite”. We can debate to what extent Jews are ‘White’, but in terms of voting-behavior there is just no question: they are Nonwhite. They famously “live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans”. / Subtracting Jews’ strong margin for Obama [despite Obama's hostility to Israel] we find non-Jewish Whites supporting Romney by over 3-to-2, a decisive win for Romney. / Among only White-Protestants, Romney wins ~70%, says the same exit poll. [See here for breakdowns by race and religion in '00, '04, '08, '12] / Remove gays (35-to-10 for Obama) from any of these metrics, and you can bump the Romney margin up a few points. / In summary, as Steve Sailer noted, the closer one is to the “core of America”, the more likely one was to vote Romney).

Defacto White Disenfranchisement
Romney got as much of the White vote as Reagan, whose victories in the 1980s were considered landslides. Overwhelming (5-to-1) support for Obama among Nonwhites, who now constitute 30% of the voting-public, put Obama over the top. That’s the story of this election.

Even the big Republican talking-heads are saying it openly: “It’s not a traditional America anymore,” says Bill O’Reilly. “The White Establishment is now the minority…”

.
The Obama Fringe and the Romney Core
A VDARE author calls it “Obama’s Anti-White Coalition” (which is a blunter way of saying what Steve Sailer said: “Obama’s is an absurd coalition. It can be motivated only by exacerbating the bitterness of its members toward people fortunate enough to be closer to the heart of America”). Let’s be honest: it is precisely an ‘anti-White’ coalition. To many Nonwhite Americans, 2012 was simply a referendum on whether they wanted a White president or one who looks and thinks like this:

Ancestry of Liberty Caucus Members: Voices From (For) the USA’s “Ethnic Core”

The Republican Party has had a genuine and formal dissident political bloc for the past 11 years, led by the indefatigable Ron Paul, called “Liberty Caucus”. It has been, officially and ostensibly, a strict-libertarian caucus. Considered individually, though, its membership displays clear pro-Western and even Racialist sympathies.

Virgil Goode

“We need to stop illegal immigration totally, and reduce legal immigration, and end the diversity visas policy. I fear [for] the next century…if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.” Those are the words of former Congressman and Liberty Caucus member Virgil Goode, who is now running for president as the nominee of the Constitution Party (which is seen by some as an thinly-veiled White-“Voelkisch” party). Another former member of Liberty Caucus is Conressman Tom Tancredo, known for his open stance against non-Western immigration, and his tireless efforts on behalf of ending open immigration policies. A current member, Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, recently gave a magnanimous on-air interview to James Edwards, the only openly-Racialist radio-host on the AM radio waves that I know of in the USA. (James Edwards and his team officially describe themselves as “paleoconservative”, but also frequently use the term “pro-White” in reference to themselves). Congressman Jones did not grovel-for-forgiveness about the appearance when opponents attacked him for it, as many others would have done.

Ancestral Origins of Liberty Caucus Members

As it turns out, Liberty Caucus might as well be called the “Ethnic-Core-American Caucus”: Not only is every member “White”, but there is hardly a trace of anything ancestrally-outisde-NW-Europe. Most of the members are of Colonial-stock; all but one are of Protestant background, the other being Mormon; hardly a trace can be seen of Ellis Island. (A single member, Bill Posey, has partial-Jewish ancestry, but of a special kind [see his entry below]).

This in an age, remember, in which none of the nominees for President or Vice President are White-Protestants, an age in which the Supreme Court has exactly zero White-Protestants, in which Congress is about only about half White-Protestant [535 seats in Congress, 304 are Protestants, but 40 or so of those are Black, so it is 264/535 = ~50%].

Current members of Liberty Caucus (together forming five percent of the current Republican House membership, and about 15% of the influential “Tea-Party-Wing” of the Republicans) are:

Roscoe Bartlett, James (“Jimmy”) Duncan, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Scott Garrett, Walter B. Jones, Jack Kingston, Jeff Miller, Ron Paul, Bill Posey, Denny Rehberg.

Below is a quick personal profile of each current member, with focus on what is known of each man’s ancestry. The main source is Ancestry.com. Some of this is, necessarily, educated-supposition, which I have noted where applicable.

Bartlett

Roscoe Bartlett [Ahnentafel]
Born in 1926 in Kentucky; Seventh-Day Adventist; has represented a rural-heavy Western-Maryland district since 1993. Grandparents’ surnames (born 1830s-1850s): Bartlett, Gatewood, Minnick, [Unknown, born in England]. Ancestrally, then, he is very likely 75% Colonial-American, 25% English (one grandmother immigrated in 1880). Ten children.

Duncan

Jimmy Duncan. Born in 1947 in Tennessee; Presbyterian; has represented the region around Knoxville in East-Tennessee since 1988. According to his wiki, some of his ancestors were in East-Tennessee in 1861, and as he himself was also born in Tennessee, he is probably of heavily or totally “Tennessee ancestry”, and thus likely to be of all, or nearly-all, Colonial-Stock. He is a co-chairman of the “Congressional Friends of Scotland Caucus”, an obvious clue to distant ancestry.

Flake

Jeff Flake [Ahnentafel]
Born in 1962 in Arizona; Mormon; and based on a review of the surnames available in his ancestral tree (Flake, Hendrickson, Hock, Packer), he is probably of typical Mormon-ancestry: part-Colonial-American, part-later-British, perhaps a bit Scandinavian (based on the Hendrickson surname). He is certainly descended, at least patrilineally, from Mormon Pioneer stock). In 2012, Flake is a candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona. Five children.
.
.

Franks

Trent Franks [Ahnentafel]
Born in 1957 in Colorado; Southern-Baptist; has represented an Arizona district since 2003; on his father’s side, he is of Colonial ancestry all over the map — some from New England, some from the Carolinas, some on the frontier in the early 1800s (Tennessee). His mother’s origin is a mystery: The only information I can find is that her name was ‘Juanita’, no maiden name is given. She is listed as being “from” Briggsdale, Colorado (whether or not that means “born in” is anyone’s guess), and published a novel called “An Echo of a Dream”. (That she published a novel and was likely born in Colorado suggests exotic ancestry is unlikely. Although ‘Juanita’ sounds exotic today, SSS reports that it was one of the 100-most-common given names for baby-girls born in the early-20th-century, peaking at #48 in 1924. In the 21st century, it is no longer in the top-1000.) Trent Franks worked for the Pat Buchanan campaigns of the 1990s.

Garrett

Scott Garrett. Born in 1959 in Bergen County, New Jersey; Member of the Lafayette Federated Church (Protestant); represented a New Jersey district since 2003; his surname is of English origin, but I cannot locate anything else on his specific ancestors. Based on his membership in a Protestant church, his English-surname, and his appearance, NW-European ancestry being predominant is certain, and Colonial-ancestry is likely. Wife Mary Ellen, and two daughters, Jennifer and Brittany.

Jones

Walter B. Jones
Born in 1943 in North Carolina; Born Baptist, now a Catholic; has represented an eastern North Carolina district since 1993; “the son of former US representative Walter Sr. (1913–1992), and Dot Long Jones (1914–1984)”. Jones is a lifelong resident of Farmville, a suburb of Greenville, North Carolina. Specific information on ancestry is unknown, but given that he has two parents born in pre-World-War-One North Carolina, he is likely of Colonial-ancestry. Appeared on dissident-Right-Wing radio show, The Political Cesspool, in 2012.

Kingston

Jack Kingston
Born in 1955 in Bryan, Texas; Episcopalian; Congressman from Georgia since 1993; the son of Martha Ann (née Heddens) and Albert James Kingston, Jr. His further ancestry is not available online, but many signs point to his being all or nearly-all NW-European, and probably heavily (if not all) Colonial-Stock.

Miller

Jeff Miller
Born in 1959 in St. Petersburg, Florida; Methodist; has represented the 1st District, encompassing Florida’s panhandle, since 2001, when he took over from populist Joe Scarborough. I hesitate to speculate on his ancestry without any real clues, other than his Baptist affiliation, which (of course) suggests Colonial ancestry. I will say that the man’s face, somehow, bespeaks the dusty fief of a small-town Deep-South sheriff. Sure enough, his official biography notes that he once served as a deputy sheriff.

Paul

Ron Paul [Ahnentafel]
Born in 1935 in Pennsylvania; Raised Lutheran, now Baptist; has represented a Texas Congressional district in the late-1970s through mid-1980s, then again from 1997 to the present. His ancestry is 87.5% German, 12.5% Irish. See The Ancestry of Ron Paul, the “German Candidate” for a complete analysis of his ancestry and other background information.

Posey

Bill Posey [Ahnentafel]
Born in 1947 in Washington, DC; Methodist; has represented a Florida district since 2009. His ancestry is at least 1/4 Russian-Jewish (two Jewish great-grandparents entered the USA, probably in the mid 1880s, from Russia), and very likely 1/2 Jewish, depending on whether his grandfather, surnamed “Tohl”, was Jewish or not — Google suggests that it is. The other half of his ancestry seems to be solidly Colonial-American: All ancestors on his father’s side were born in the Virginia-DC-Maryland region, with Anglo names, circa 1860. Bill Posey’s background is remarkably similar to Barry Goldwater’s: Both are of half Jewish ancestry and half Colonial-American ancestry; in both cases, their Jewish ancestors arrived early (before Jews became a major population element of northern-urban USA) [Goldwater's arrived in the 1850s]; in both cases, their Jewish ancestors married-into Protestant families and converted; in both cases, their politics were/are strongly “pro-American”. Bill Clinton on Barry Goldwater: “He was truly an American original. I never knew anybody like him.” Another noted figure on the “extreme right” fitting this mold is the prolific Lawrence Auster.

Rehberg

Denny Rehberg [Ahnentafel]
Born in 1955 in Billings, Montana; Episcopalian; “a fifth-generation rancher” in Montana, which suggests pioneer stock — According to this, his great-grandfather was born in Montana in 1873, making him probably one of the first Whites born in that future-state. (There were only about 20,000 Whites in Montana in 1873, the Census suggests. His ancestry is only known firmly for his father’s father’s branch: Which is half-German and half-Irish/Scottish. The surnames known for the other branches are: Herman and Cooley. Nothing in his background suggests anything other than NW-European ancestry. Rehberg is running for U.S. Senate in Montana in 2012.
.
.
.
Analysis

Liberty Caucus: A Hard-“Core” of the Tea Party

Romney Most Popular in Kenya

International Romney vs. Obama survey finds Romney
with highest level of support in…Kenya. (Weekly Standard).

If you ask the man on the street, “In which foreign country do you think Romney has the highest level of support?”, Kenya is about the last country in the world one would expect to hear. Yet that is what the global survey found. (Measured another way, though, Romney is actually most popular in Pakistan, the only place surveyed in which he would win the election outright. Caveat: 75% or so of Pakistanis would abstain from voting in that two-way race).

Why is Romney so relatively popular in Kenya?
Romney’s NW-European ancestry makes him a non-entity to ethnic consciousness in Kenya, except perhaps for lingering anti-White feeling of the oldest of Kenyans, who remember the 1950s and British rule. So it is (almost certainly) not that they like Romney, but that they dislike Obama.

Why in the world would Kenyans dislike Obama? Obama’s father’s is Kenyan, right?! Something strange is going on, inexplicable without more background information.

The short answer is that Kenya is a multi-ethnic society, and many Kenyans dislike Obama Sr.’s tribe.

It is best to point to what Steve Sailer wrote some years ago:

The reason Obama is just about as dark in skin tone as the average African-American even though he is nearly three times as white genetically is because the Luo are darker than most other Africans. Obama describes the crowd at a Nairobi nightclub (p. 364) as comprised of:

“… tall, ink-black Luos and short, brown Kikuyus, Kamba and Meru and Kalenjin…”

Obama’s Luo tribe are one of the tall, thin, very dark “elongated Nilotic” groups who originated in the Southern Sudan. They are rather like their relatives, the famously tall Dinka and Nuer, only not quite as much. In contrast, most Africans today (and almost all African-Americans) are primarily descended from the “Bantu expansion” that originated in the Nigeria-Cameroon area of West Africa.

So, Obama is half-East-African Nilotic, and half NW-European (likely) CroMagnid-Atlantid, via his mother.

Turning to Kenya’s ethnoracial situation:

Language remains the major feature that distinguishes tribal affiliation. For two thirds of all Kenyans, the common language is of Bantu origin. Only three percent of the population are Cushite-speaking Kenyans although they occupy the largest geographic area. The reminder of the population speak Nilotic languages. These three language structures successfully bind together a diverse country of more than 40 different ethnic groups.

These are general proxies for racial-stock: 66% Bantu-Negroids (similar to the darker American-Blacks), 31% Nilotic (tall and thin), 3% Other.

Nilotics and Bantus often don’t get along (The tall-and-thin Tutsi of Rwanda are ethnic-Nilotics). In Kenya, it’s the same: “Ever since Kenyan independence in 1963, Kenyan politics have been characterized by ethnic tensions and rivalry between the larger groups, devolving into ethnic violence in the 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis.” (Wiki ). Sailer has documented that Obama was shocked, on one of his trips to Kenya, to discover a lack of pan-Black racial solidarity against Whites, as exists in the West:

France Reaches 30% Diversity Among Newborns; Native Youth Get Angry

What share of France’s population is “diverse”, as the term is used today (i.e., non-European by ancestry)? People wonder, and — actually — it’s a bit of a mystery. Reliable racial data for France is hard to come by.

An anonymous reader sends this:

Although censuses on ethnicity are forbidden in France, the ethnic
origin of newborn babies in France can be derived indirectly from
national medical data on the prevalence of sickle cell disease which is
mostly peculiar to non-Europeans.

The results are shocking: in 2007, 28.45% of all newborn babies have at
least one parent originating from Africa (incl. North Africa), Middle East,
India or the Caribbean (see PDF attached). Fig. 1 has a break-down for all
French regions; note that in the Ile de France, basically Paris, 55.68%
newborns are of non-White origin. Box 1 gives the ethnic makeup of the
at-risk population (it also includes populations from some minor South
European states).

Share of Newborns in France deemed at-risk for sickle cell anemia, 2007. From “Neonatal screening for sickle cell disease in France” (Bardakdjian-Michau et al 2008).

According to Wikipedia, the national share rose to 31.5% in 2010. [PDF]

Share of Newborns in France tested for sickle cell anemia, 2010,
based on parents’ ancestry. From “Le dépistage néonatal de la
drépanocytose en France” (Bardakdjian-Michau 2012).

Note that immigrants from other world regions like East Asians or
Latinos are not even in included in these percentages, so the actual
percentage of non-White newborns in France is even higher.

This looks bad.

As best I can tell from the wording of the study, 28.45% of babies in all of France (including overseas possessions) were deemed at-risk by health authorities based on their racial ancestry in 2007, and so were tested. Overseas-France has 4% of the official population of the French republic. The ‘Overseas French’, almost exclusively Nonwhite, produce 5% of the babies. But we already knew France had Nonwhite overseas possessions.

In terms of mainland France only, then, in 2007 about 25% of total births were deemed at-risk for sickle-cell (explicitly based on parents’ racial stock). (Mainland-only figure is derived by: [28.45-5]/95 to remove Overseas-French from the count).

Update and Correction: The 28.45% applies only to babies in mainland France. When including babies born to French overseas possessions (~100% Nonwhite), the figure for “France” would become ~33% in 2007. ([28.45+5]/105). The figure for mainland France rose to 31.5% in 2010, which means ~36% for all of France, incorporating overseas possessions.
.

From 28.5% to 31.5% in Three Years?
Why was there a three point jump in the share of newborns tested for sickle-cell anemia between 2007 and 2010? Was there:

(a) Some substantial change in the methodology health authorities use? Or,

(b) Did White fertility fall significantly in the global recession, with Nonwhite fertility much less affected? The latter seems more reasonable to me. Although, in the USA’s case, the recession more strongly affected Nonwhite fertility than White fertility (See: USA’s Fertility Rates by Race, 1980-2010).

Reliability of Sickle-Cell Test as Proxy for Nonwhite Population
Some Europeans are tested for sickle-cell, too: According to the study, babies with parents from Sicily and Southern-Italy, Portugal, Greece are all tested, as well as native-French from Corsica [0.5% of France's population]. East-Asians, Latin-Americans, and other miscellaneous groups like Gypsies [as much as 0.6% of France's population] are not tested. It’s probably about safe to assume that the number of ‘extra’ Nonwhites (uncounted by the sickle-cell test) is probably nearly offset by the number of native-Europeans tested. Generously, we could say babies of native-European ancestry from the listed regions inflate the overall share by a point or two, and to derive an actual Non-European estimate from this data we ought to subtract a point or two; maybe three, at most.

In summary, this is pretty firm and non-politicized data showing that about 30% of the babies being born in mainland France in the 21st century are of non-European ancestral background, with what may be a temporary spike in the Nonwhite share during the global recession.

Accounting for Mixed-Race Babies
Some of these babies will be partially White-European by ancestry (e.g., one White-French parent and one Arab parent). Thus, the overall share of Non-European ancestral-stock among the cohort born in France in 2010 will be lower than 31.5%, if you care to think of it in that way. That is, imagining all the babies born in France to be only 100, then 68.5 (or maybe a few more — see directly above) were full White-European babies, and (let’s say) 10 were half-WhiteEuropean (=the genetic equivalent of 5 White-European babies), = a hypothetical total of 73.5% White ancestry among French babies, collectively.

– — – –

Native Backlash

Given such a downright Raspailian state of affairs, it is no surprise that one sees…this:

Génération Identitaire

We are Génération Identitaire.

We are the generation who get killed for glancing at the wrong person, for refusing someone a cigarette, or having an “attitude” that annoys someone.

We are the generation of ethnic fracture, total failure of coexistence, and forced mixing of the races.

We are the generation doubly punished: Condemned to pay into a social system so generous with strangers it becomes unsustainable for our own people.

Our generation are

Mitt Romney and the Hispanics, Or, the Ghosts of 1912

In the post about Mitt Romney’s ancestry, I wrote this:

Mitt Romney’s own father was expelled from his very birthplace, as a youth, by angry-Mexicans(!)

George Romney was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico, in 1907. His parents had moved there at the end of the 1800s. George, and the rest of his family, left Mexico in 1912, never to return. A commenter named Martin writes this:

In speaking of Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, you have a particular sentence in italics. It states: “In other words, Mitt Romney’s own father was expelled from his very birthplace, as a youth, by angry-Mexicans(!).” This is not actually true, or at least, you make it sound unnatural because you give no context.

In reality, the Mexican Revolution was raging in Chihuahua during the 1910-1915 era, and the Mormon Colonies were constantly harassed by the revolutionary forces of Salazar and others to give them all their weapons and ammunition. Yet they were strongly encouraged at the same time by the US Government to not take sides in the revolution. With so many lawless bands roaming the countryside, and with extreme jealousy of the American Mormons for the superiority of their crops, of their fruit and of their lifestyle in general, without arms the Mormons feared for their lives. On July 28, 1912 it was decided by the Mormon leader for the area, young Junius Romney, great uncle of Mitt, that the women and children must be immediately evacuated to El Paso for their safety. Additional factors also weighed heavily into the decision. The men stayed behind to try to protect their property and possessions in Mexico, but these men also left Mexico on horseback a couple weeks later.

That sounds, to me, like the Mormons were effectively expelled. The commenter says it is wrong to characterize Romney as having been ‘expelled’ from Mexico. Okay, maybe that is a strong word. I suggest, in a reply comment, that a better term would be “chased out”, which another commenter also criticizes.

.
Pictured, in 1947 (35 years after the exodus from Mexico), from left:
– George W. Romney
– Baby Mitt Romney
– Lenore LaFount Romney

How amicably did the Romneys leave Mexico? One clue comes from Steve Sailer, who writes recently:

All 10 Million Europeans: The Specter of Endless Low-Fertility

Years ago, I came across an intriguing essay. It was entitled “All 10 million Europeans”, and was about Europe’s shrinking native population.

What happens if birth rates fall permanently below death rates? …[T]here is no evidence that this [deaths exceeding births in rich countries] will ever be reversed. [...]

Perhaps a shrinking population is “normal” – as growth was once considered to be “normal”. Perhaps a shrinking population is characteristic of any planets with an advanced technology. If so, then Latvia and Estonia have also answered a theoretical question of SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The famous question, used by those who do not believe in extra-terrestrials: if there are billions of advanced civilisations, why are they not here to visit us? Look at the table of Latvian population, project it 10,000 years into the future, and you have an answer: there are not enough aliens to build a spacecraft. All those huge galactic federations in science-fiction films, with billions of billions of alien inhabitants, may simply reflect mistaken demographic theory.
.

A Specter is Haunting Europe — The Specter of Low-Fertility
The author of the above essay’s speculation seems supported by current thinking in academia. Low-fertility is a “trap” from which a modern/postmodern culture cannot escape, according to the current sociological notion.

That is, once a culture nestles into having a total fertility rate (TFR, the projected number of babies borne by a woman over her lifetime based on current birthrates) that is significantly below replacement level, and it does so ‘independently’ (other than in cases of temporary shocks like war and economic depression), that society’s cultural mores and values will have become such that its TFR cannot swing up again.

I.e.: Females raised in a very-low-fertility culture, who aspire to a quasi-aristocratic life of expensive handbags, posh coffee shops, high-heeled shoes for daily wear, postgraduate degrees, and so on, have acquired a set of cultural ‘expectations’ that simply does not include having children around. Or — if there are children — certainly not more than one or two of them. They are expensive, time-consuming, and get in the way of having fun. Women raised with this set of values will simply not, one day, just start having large families with five children, as their grandmothers may have done, regardless of what the economy is doing. Maybe some women can be persuaded to have an extra child if the government promises lavish cash payouts for them (as some countries do already). But (a) Governments can only afford so much in handouts before they start seriously burdening their own economies, and (b) These policies have tended to not increase TFRs by much where they have been implemented. [Denmark may be an exception].

A good discussion of the mechanics behind this is here: The Low Fertility Trap. There is, according to the authors, a hypothetical ‘low fertility threshold’, which may be ~1.5. No culture that has nestled into a TFR below it has ever shown it can recover to replacement fertility.

It the bluntest of possible terms: A society with sustained very-low fertility is in a death spiral. Whatever it may seem to be doing at the time, however prosperous or vibrant, a population with a sustained 1.0 TFR will decline to 10% of its original size in a mere three generations, all else equal. (1.0/2.1=.476, 1*.476*.476*.476=.108), and one percent of its original population in six generations.

You say, “a sustained 1.0 TFR is impossible”. Incorrect. South Korea already has it, or nearly so. In the past decade, South-Korean TFR, according to official data, has averaged 1.18! This will really start to pinch them in a few years. Japan’s anemic TFR is also well-known by now. Examples in Europe are also easy to come by. Even White-Americans have been below replacement fertility for the past 40 years.

Incidentally, the essay linked-to above is entitled “All 10 million Europeans”. Europe has about 730 million residents today. At a sustained 1.5 TFR, Europe’s population would start to severely contract, and would hit 10 million perhaps sometime in the latter half of the 2300s AD. At a sustained 1.0 TFR, Europe would hit 10 million in the latter part of the 2100s. At 1.0 TFR, Europe in 2400 would have just a few tens of thousands of souls, probably less than the population of the continent during the Stone Age.

The USA’s Total Fertility Rates by Race, 1980 to 2010

NOTE: This is a follow-up to a post made last year, “USA’s Total Fertility Rates by Race, 1980-2008”, the data for which ended in 2008.

The CDC recently released final fertility figures for 2010, and used Census-2010 data to update estimates for the entirety of the 2000s. I have produced the above graph, displaying the updated information broken down by race, and have included a table — below — on which that graph is based.

[Note: 'Total Fertility Rate' refers to the estimated number of children a woman can expect to have in her lifetime, based on a specific year's birth-rate. In advanced societies, 'replacement fertility' is said to be 2.1 -- to replace the mother and father, and a 0.1 'surplus' to account for retardation, death in childhood, and other factors. A modern society with a 1.05 TFR, then, would produce a child-generation half as large as the parent-generation. (1.05/2.1)]

Population Contraction (of native-born Americans): It’s humbling to think that the USA has had below replacement-fertility for the entirety of the period of this dataset. The 1970s were not fertile years, either. One must go back to 1971, actually, to find a year in which the USA had a TFR comfortably-above the replacement level of 2.1. (It was 2.26 in 1971, but quickly falling — 2.01 in 1972, and 1.88 in 1973). Forty years, and counting, of not replacing ourselves. The USA’s overall TFR flirted with exact-replacement fertility in 2006 and 2007 amid the height of the housing-bubble.

Note on ‘White’ TFR and White population contraction: A caveat is in order. Race-fertility calculations in the USA are based on race of mother. By the late 2000s, ~10% of the babies born to American White women were fathered by Nonwhite men. The American ‘White-White TFR’ (babies with two White parents) would thus be ~1.6 in 2010

Western Civilizational Pride, 1986-1992

A theory of mine, for some time now, has been that a swelling of ‘civilizational pride’ among Westerners began sometime in the late-1980s — as it became clear victory in the Cold War was at hand — and lasted through some point in the early 1990s. It created levels of optimism unseen for at twenty to thirty years prior to that, and some of the cultural-political effects of this swelling of pride are still with us today.

I was reminded of this hypothesis by a Mangan post, which pointed to a recent study of women’s vs. men’s happiness in the USA and EU over the past four decades.

Here is the USA’s graph (Dark lines are for men’s happiness, gray lines for women’s):
.
American men’s happiness was indeed clearly highest in the late 1980s. American Women’s happiness trends are erratic, all over the place really, with no distinct peak but rather a general downward trend. (They also had a “happiness bounce” in the late ’80s, though).

Some might point out that American happiness was declining by 1990, already, which does not fit with the hypothesis. To that I would say that ‘happiness’ and what I called above ‘civilizational pride’, though surely related, are not identical. Remember that the USA had a recession in the early 1990s, which would affect superficial self-reported happiness (as measured above), but perhaps not ‘civilizational pride’ as much.

The same data for the EU show the same trend more dramatically:
.

A distinct wave of happiness befell Western-Europeans, with its beginnings in 1985 or 1986, peaking in about 1989 (with the Fall of the Soviet-client communist regimes), and lasting through about 1992. The only time EU-men’s happiness was above the ’0′-line, from the early-1970s to the late-1990s, was during the years straddling 1989.

The evidence for the social effects of this phenomenon is all over the place, for those willing to look at it. A decrease in crime,