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

.

_____________________________________________________

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.

– Hispanic-Inflation of the 2000s figures from Audacious Epigone. Hispanic-Inflation is apparent and significant in many states in AE’s data, especially California. It is not realistic to believe that California Whites have gotten so much more prone to murder since 1960. Is it? The same for Arizona and New Mexico? All are states with soaring Hispanic populations. The government data AE uses, then, is a bit ‘corrupt’ (not trustworthy) for our purposes, except for places like Vermont, which have no Hispanic population.

– Wild West Legacy: The top of the 1960 list is dominated by then-new states, in which that rugged settler spirit was not yet a distant memory. Alaska (49th state admitted), Arizona (48th state), and New Mexico (47th state) rank highly, along with Nevada (essentially a sparsely-settled wasteland before the Hoover Dam was built in the 1930s — How much of Nevada’s murder rate emanates from Las Vegas would be interesting to know). Arizona, we will recall, in 1960 produced the ‘extremist’ libertarian-conservative Barry Goldwater for president; Arizona in 2008 produced the luekwarm loser McCain.

– Does a Wild West Legacy Live On into the 2010s? I have no idea. The numbers are now significantly inflated by Hispanics in most of these states. In Alaska’s case, the legacy still lives on but has faded substantially. Alaska is now 6% Hispanic, probably not enough to skew the numbers much. Its White murder-rate was #1 in 1960, and is down to #8 in AE’s analysis. Its per capita rate has nearly been cut in half since 1960.

– Are White-Americans more violent than their racial cousins in Europe? Michael Moore’s 2002 documentary, “Bowling for Columbine”, in synopsis by Steve Sailer: “Racist white rednecks in the sticks want guns because they have [unfounded] racist fears of urban blacks”. The USA’s overall murder rate has been an order of magnitude or more higher than other Western nations’ for a long time, due of Nonwhite crime. However, even American-Whites commit more murders than the English do. In 1960, U.S.-Whites committed 2.7 murders per 100,000 population, while Nonwhites committed 25.5. England’s rate was reportedly 0.6 in 1960, a figure seen only in the safest of American states. All but five of our states at least doubled that rate, and 37 tripled it or more. About half quadrupled it, and our states with the most dangerous Whites in 1960 were ten-times as likely to commit murder than English Whites of 1960. Maybe the better question is, why was 1950s England so safe?

– Have We Gotten More Peaceful? Or, “The Dramatic Advances in Trauma Medicine” Many states not afflicted by Hispanic-Inflation saw declines in their murder-rates. Does this mean we are getting more peaceful, generally? The excellent blogger Jehu, at Chariot of Reaction, has frequently made the point that “a point in the murder-rate isn’t what it used to be”. Advances in medicine mean that many more people now survive assaults. In the past, victims died at higher rates, resulting in higher “murder” rates. Jehu implies that accounting for improved treatment should greatly influence our view of whether levels of violence has declined or gone up. See his post The Homicide Narrative. See especially this graphic on the lethality of assault by year, and this one applying those numbers to the homicide rate: the top line is what the homicide rates would be if keeping steady the death-rates-from-assault that held in 1960. This means that, if levels of violent assault held exactly even across time, the “murder-rate” of 2010 would be ~33% its 1960 level; the other victims of violence would all survive today, the research says. Has this expected decline occurred among Whites? No. Even in states in which Hispanic-Inflation is not a factor in AE’s 2000s numbers, this has not occurred. Whites of today do seem to be more violent than their parents or grandparents were in 1960, but not by very much. By how much? 2.7/3=0.9, so, applying this parameter, the White rate ought to be 0.9 today if the level of violence were the same. Hispanic-inflation makes it hard to say what White-America’s true murder-rate is, but it seems White-Americans are probably a bit more than twice as prone to murder today as they were in 1960. However, one could argue that the improvements in access to and quality of trauma medicine have more substantially benefited Nonwhites (a reasonably assumption). Let’s say that, to account for the relatively-lesser gains in improved trauma medicine attained by Whites since 1960, we’d expect 66% (rather than 33%) of 1960′s murder-rate for the 2000s given an equal level of violence. In this case, the White “violence rate” has actually maintained steady in some states, has increased in others, not even considering those with obvious Hispanic inflation. This is now straying into the realm of conjecture, though, so I’ll move on.

– The Age Factor — Young men commit the lion’s share of a society’s murders. That has been true probably for all of human history. A society with a bigger share of its people being young men will have more murders. As a society ages and there are relatively fewer young men, won’t its murder rate “per 100,000 population” necessarily go down? What is the share of the White population which is male age 18 to 45 in 1960 vs. 2010? If the share of young-men is lower in 2010 than it was in 1960 (it must be), the murder-rate should be expected to be lower, too. If it isn’t, it means society is actually slightly more dangerous.

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

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.

Incidentally, this U.S. Senate seat was recently contested by Alvin Greene in 2010.

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
There is some discussion here about why Episcopalians are so much more liberal than other Protestants. “Elite groups who vote less heavily Republican, such as Episcopalians…, tend to find aspiring to belong to the core of America déclassé. “

Lutherans
There is a popular notion that Lutherans in the USA are particularly liberal. However, both in the South (see above) and in the Northeast, Whites who self-identified as Lutherans were among the most pro-Romney of all.

Catholics
According to the Reuters exit poll, White-Catholics in Louisiana voted 5-to-1 for Romney, about the same vote-share as the White-Baptists. “Catholics in the South” are not a monolithic group: Those Cajuns are very different from the ancestrally Ellis-Islander Catholics, i.e. “Yankee transplants”, who are probably the bulk of Catholics in the South. White-Catholics in Virginia, for example, “only” voted 56% for Romney — far below the White average in the South (and below the 70% for White-Protestants in Virginia). Perhaps a majority of White-Catholics in Virginia live in Northern Virginia, which is a defacto part of the Northeast Corridor, as its Whites are almost entirely from somewhere else (“transplants”). (And hence the logic to exclude Florida from this analysis entirely).

Whites of No Religion
It surprises me how strongly this group of White Southerners supported Obama — nearly as strongly as support by “No-Religion”-Whites for Obama in the liberal Northeast. A lazy (but probably at-least-partly-correct) explanation would be that this 8% of the Southern electorate is heavily drawn from non-Southern-origin internal White migrants, again. However, maybe a better explanation is that religion matters more in the South, and so, declaring oneself an atheist on a form (such as on this exit poll response form) is a bolder statement than it is anywhere else in the USA. Thus, to some extent this 8% of the South’s electorate may form a self-selecting group of misfits (see here, e.g.), which tends to also mean ethnomasochists.

Other Religions
I’m not sure what these “other religions” are, but I suspect in the South a certain share of non-denominational evangelical Christians will not be satisfied with the choices given for Christian affiliation, and will answer as “Other Religion”. One commenter at Steve Sailer’s has some other ideas on what “other religions” could mean. This group is dramatically more conservative relative to the overall White vote of its region than “Other-Religion”-Whites in the Northeast are.

The Solid South: Slipping
In the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, there was no region of the USA whose electoral votes were deemed as safe for the Republicans as the ex-Confederate states. Look at the overall result for this region in 2012, though: Only 55.4% of votes cast were for Romney. In an era of the curious “inevitable natural phenomenon” of population replacement, 55% can tip to 45% within a decade or two. Yes, Whites in the South are still voting 70%+ for the White-Republican, but serious structural faults have appeared in the Solid South’s electoral wall: (To say nothing of Florida), Virginia and North Carolina are now “swing states”, both having gone for Obama in 2008, and Virginia going for him again in 2012. (Excluding VA and NC, the region went 57.4% for Romney) — This comes down to the dual trends of more Northern transplants (Hunter Wallace was upset about this earlier this month) and to a lesser extent, more Nonwhite immigration. The big prize is Texas, of course, with its 38 electoral votes. The anti-White Left presents a compelling case that Texas will become a “swing state” by perhaps as early as the 2020s.

– — –
In the Northeast, the core-American population is outnumbered and outvoted. It is not, yet, in the South, but it may be one day. Core-Americans are not welcome in the Obama coalition — only aggrieved minorities, please — and core-Americans increasingly know it. What, next?

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

Nonwhite Bloc Voting, Again
In these eight states, only 12% of Nonwhites voted for Romney, according to the Reuters exit poll, against 87% for Obama. The Nonwhite vote in these states was a suffocating 71-to-10 for Obama. Nationally, the Nonwhite vote was ‘only’ 5-to-1 for Obama.

Episcopalians for Obama
Among all religiously-identified White subgroups polled by Reuters in the Northeast, only the Episcopalians clearly favored Obama. More on this later.

“Other Religions” For Obama
Who were these “Other Religion” Whites? They were five to six percent of the entire voting public (or one 1 of every 13 Whites), and they favored Obama by about as much as Jews did. Is “Other Religion” largely a code for “spiritual, but not religious“? That is my best guess.

The Outnumbered White-American Core
Romney got only 45% of the White vote in the Northeast, and lost New York’s and every New England state’s White vote (see map). We think of the Northeast as very liberal, but we can actually see that if one removes Jews, “Other Religions”, and self-declared Atheists from the White count, Romney wins even the liberal Northeast’s White vote. With those groups attached, the White vote in those states is depressed to only 45%. Steve Sailer is right, this election was about Core-America vs. Fringe-America. What happens when the fringe outnumbers the core?

Is the Northeast Only 21% White-Protestant?!
The Northeast, the cradle of Yankee culture, had ~16.5 million votes cast, and only 21.3% were cast by self-identified White-Protestants, according to the Reuters exit poll. Can it really be that White-Protestants are outnumbered by others by a hefty 37-to-10 margin in the Northeast? Four things suggest to me that this exit-poll may undercount White-Protestants: (1) Our bizarre electoral college system disincentivizes voting in ‘solid blue’ and ‘solid red’ states. Many non-politically-involved conservative Whites in places like Massachusetts may simply abstain from voting, because “there is just no point”; we all know to whom Massachusetts’ electoral votes would go to before the campaign even began — This kind of thinking may affect Northeast conservatives (heavily White-Protestants) more than others; (2) There has been much discussion about how many Whites stayed home on election day. Whatever the source of this apathy, it must have affected White-Protestants (the core of the Republican party) more than other Whites. (3) Catholics tend to identify with their church even when they are totally irreligious, hence the phrase “lapsed Catholic”. Who’s ever heard of a “lapsed Lutheran”, for example? — So this figure of 32% of voters in the Northeast being “Catholic” suggests to me that this is pretty comprehensive, and includes a great portion even of the White “cultural Catholics”. If you forced the 12% of “No Religion” Whites to choose a church, and forced the 5-6% of “Other-Religion” Whites to choose a church, a great majority would probably end up identifying as one kind or another of Protestant. This, alone, would add 10 to 15 percentage points to the White-Protestant population share. (4) Persons of mixed religious background are less likely to identify as Protestants in the Northeast — because Protestantism is less-dynamic, and is sort of a cultural whipping boy: Either White-Protestants are the aloof ultra-rich, or redneck creationists somewhere down south. If a Northeasterner has three Colonial-Yankee-ancestry great-grandparents (of Protestant affiliation) and five Catholic Ellis-Island ancestors, nine times out of ten the person will identify as a Catholic, but his/her ancestral stock is actually 37.5% Yankee-Protestant! We can say that, culturally, being a White-Protestant is a “recessive trait”. So, if we are interested in overall ancestral-stock (rather than current identification), we’d have to bump up the White-Protestant figure a few points to account for that. — These four factors lead me to believe that the true ‘White-Protestant’ figure, if they self-identified the way Catholics and Jews do, would be over 30% in the Northeast today, maybe in the neighborhood of 35% or possibly even reaching 40%. Less among the young.

Baptists and Lutherans
Romney had his strongest support in the Northeast among Baptists and Lutherans, neither of which is associated with the Northeast in the popular imagination. Lutherans, especially, were much more pro-Romney in the Northeast than in the USA as a whole. (They were only two points above the USA’s overall White average in Sailer’s analysis, but Northeast-Lutherans were +13 above the Northeast-White average). Why? I am not sure.

Episcopalians
Finally, in answer to my original question: In Sailer’s analysis, Episcopalians were three points below the White average, nationally. In the Northeast, though, their vote-share is equal to the White average. (Both are 45%). Some of the “Liberal Episcopalian” thing is attributable to region, then. Episcopalians are heavily northeastern — but in the Northeast itself, they are no more liberal than the typical White. / Still, clearly the Episcopalians are more liberal than other White churchgoers. Former Episcopalian Anti-Gnostic says that the Episcopal Church “is currently tearing itself apart between orthodox Christianity and unitarian-universalism”, as can be seen in the endorsement of openly-gay/”practicing homosexuals” serving as priests in their church as of a few years ago. This kind of leftward move must incentivize liberal elements to stay in the church and conservatives to leave.

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 agree.

Commenter peterike writes:

Why is anyone surprised by the Asian vote? Asians are super status conscious. In other words, they are basically SWPL voters. They may not know jack about any actual political issues, but they know exactly who the cooler candidate is, and that’s who they vote for.

In addition, young Asians that go to American schools actually pay attention, so they eagerly soak up the Gramscian propaganda they are fed. Liberals are made, not born. And Asians, being good little learners, listen to what they are told. My bet is that 95% of the Asians in the 18-25 demo that voted for Obama did so because of the “Republican war on women.”

The American Conservative article on Asian support for Obama notes that “57.5 percent of employed Asian-Americans who are 25 or older have an academic degree, a proportion that is 60 percent higher than among whites and more than twice that of blacks.”

Peterike sums up:

Asians will never vote majority Republican. Not that it matters anyway, because we will never again have a Republican President.

This is reminiscent of the message of my recent post “Will There Ever be a White President of the USA Again?“

An anonymous commenter at the same Steve Sailer thread writes:

Understand why Jews go 2-1 Democrat [actually 4-to-1 in 2008, and 25-to-10 in 2012 --Hail], despite being the wealthiest demographic, and you’ll understand why Asians are the same.

Hint: It has nothing to do with Israel.

This is the point I was trying to make to Staffan here. Still, I don’t believe that Asian support for the Democrat Obama is quite the same as Jewish support — the latter of which is clearly ethnic in motivation. I think the original mini-essay reproduced in this post, far above (“It’s the coolness, stupid”), is a more compelling, fuller picture.

Finally, a commenter named Felix speculates about the future, trying to reconcile Asian support for Obama with economic reality, by imagining a future race-based taxation system (something I had never considered, but actually seems somewhat plausible to be a reality a generation from now):

The question is, what do the Asians think is the end game? They are allying themselves with American society’s leeches (NAMs) against its productive component, which consists of whites and-ironically-Asians themselves. Somebody is going to have to pay for all the gimmedats. It makes little sense for the country’s wealthiest racial group to vote for a party who’s main policy is wealth transfer from rich groups to poor groups.

The only way way this can possibly work for Asians is if at some future point when whites have become politically all but utterly irrelevant, tax is collected not only based on income but also race. When the democrats (or whatever other name the future dominant party may go by) can win power with 0% of the white vote, it’s not hard to imagine them instituting differential taxation based on race, whereby whites pay taxes not just according to what they earn but also according to their “past sins.” Under such a system Asians could escape the brunt of the financial punishment from being a part of a wealth transference society. I’m not sure though whether their voting patterns stem from such far-sighted strategizing or just retardedness.

“It’s the coolness, stupid” is an alternative title to this entry. An alternative to that alternative-title could be to replace the comma with a slash and add an ‘-ity’ at the end (thus becoming “It’s the coolness/stupidity”).

In other words, Asians ostensibly vote for Obama because that’s the hip thing to do, but actually it is just a manifestation of short-sighted stupidity (‘retardedness’, in the wording of Felix, directly above), as Obama will certainly hurt their economic interests.

Are Asians that short-sighted? I don’t think it is realistic to think so. What other explanation do we have? We thus come back full circle to Lee Kwan Yew: Many Asians probably voted against Romney because he was White, just like five out of every six Nonwhite voters did, and just like the USA has been training its people to do for decades. To some extent, Asians are doing what they were trained to do, what all Americans have been trained to do to some extent, by the process of socialization in the late-20th-century and early 21st-century USA.

Single White Women Under 35 For Obama
Some are saying that Obama’s strong showing among [single] White women is a major cause for concern. (Obama beat Romney 55%-43% among straight never-married White women, age 18-34 — though Obama lost this age-group of White women overall, 48%-50%). I say, rather, that this is a case of mistaking the symptom for the cause.

“Depending on the prevailing authority, Asians are the quickest to become leftist or rightist“, the reposted essay above says. Women are also definite political “followers”, tending, more-so than men, to just parrot what they think is the dominant, dynamic, or establishment view, what seems ‘cool’ or strong at the time. Change the Ruling Ideology, and women will become partisans on behalf of the new one.

In a very different political situation, in 1920s and early 1930s Spain, the left-wing in Spain was strongly opposed to giving women the right to vote, fearing enfranchised women would just vote for right-wing patriarchal parties (which they did, more than men), because they’d been taught to. That is what they were socialized to believe was the dynamic (‘cool’, if you will) and proper political orientation. Culture changes first. Politics follows.

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
The only possibility I can see for the above to be untrue is if Whites nationally start ethnic-bloc-voting more explicitly, as they have always done in the Deep South. This would mean a transformation of the Republican Party along the lines David Duke would have liked to have seen 20 years ago. I don’t see it as likely.

Dick Morris tries to make an alternative case for Republican rejuvenation:

Morris says:

[After discussing the overwhelming Nonwhite margin for Obama] “Barack Obama will dig himself into a political grave…A recession is coming…in 2013 and into 2014, and by the time the bye-elections come in 2014, we will have quite enough of a Democratic Senate, and quite enough or Mr. Obama. [The coming recession] will finally make clear to all of the Democrats, all of the single people, all of the young people, and all of the minorities who voted for Obama, that they made a mistake.“

Morris is smart, and knows politics, but his appraisal here just doesn’t quite sound rational. Blacks and other Nonwhites aren’t just going to start voting for clean-shaven and articulate White-Protestants over Nonwhites like B.H. Obama because of any economic squeeze, no matter how sharply-pinching or long-in-duration that “squeeze” may be. (See the quotation from Lee Kwan Yew at the top of this post).

Youtube commenter “tullius43” points this out to Dick Morris:

I disagree [with the message in the above video]. I no longer think the Democratic base is interested in economic reality. Obama’s free handouts shield them from that reality and he will continue to do so until the country is all but destroyed.

(Interestingly, Romney himself made the news by echoing the above — Obama’s Nonwhite base was motivated by thinly-veiled racial redistributionism, says Romney).

Dick Morris actually must realize the emptiness of his own words above, for about the same time he was producing that clip, he was penning this:

The Campaign Made No Difference [By Dick Morris]

Demographic voting is the new norm in America. You vote based on who you are, not where you live or how well each campaign has articulated its case. 93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. [Note: Romney won every age grouping of Whites, though --Hail]. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters. A president who was elected and re-elected through identity politics has brought about a state of affairs where demographic voting determines the outcome. Our votes are predictable based on our race, ethnicity, age, and marital status well before anybody does any campaigning.
…
It is bad enough that America is now divided into red and blue states. It is divided into red and blue people as well, based not on their opinions, but on their demographics.

Reaching Racially-Naive Whites
If people are voting based on demographics, why are something like one-in-three White-gentile heterosexuals still voting for Obama?

The answer is that, though a hard-core of Whites is explicitly-ethnomasochistic (and these people are irretrievably lost), mostly it comes down to the tens of millions of racially-naive Whites.

How to reach racially-naive Whites in (e.g.) the Midwest? Pat Buchanan says to be more economically-nationalist: the image (which still resounds with some, and which happens to be mostly true) of Republicans as pro-multinational-corporations and anti-working-man…hurts.

Ultimately, though, an electoral alternative to the current system seems unlikely. I get the feeling that a lot of White-Americans today are actually ready (and, in some cases, eager) for a….post-USA North America.

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: Maryland, at state-level, is controlled by Democrats. Western Maryland (Bartlett’s core region) is solidly part of ‘Greater Appalachia‘, though, and strongly Republican. After the 2010 Census, all states “redistricted” to balance out and account for population shifts, the new districts being contested as of the 2012 elections. The Maryland-Democrats decided to try to knock out Bartlett — and thus the new 6th district includes a significant share from the left-wing Washington-DC suburbs. ‘Appalachian Maryland’ is left without Congressional representation.

Bartlett, Delaney Face Off In Maryland’s Redistricted 6th District [Source]
Maryland’s controversial congressional redistricting scheme… has been derided by critics as overly partisan…

Bartlett’s 6th Congressional District, which included western Maryland and north-central sections of the state west of Baltimore, was redrawn to include more Democratic-leaning portions of Montgomery County [part of Washington DC metro area].

Jimmy Duncan: Retains House seat [TN-2]

75% Duncan
21% Goodale
[Full Tennessee results]

Jeff Flake: Ran for U.S. Senate in Arizona: Wins

For U.S. Senate [AZ]
50% Flake
46% Carmona
[Full Arizona results]

In Flake’s old House district: [AZ-6]
62% Schweikert (Republican)
33% Jette (Democrat)

Flake’s replacement, David Schweikert, is considered a hardliner on Immigration Restriction (“True Reformer”) by NumbersUSA, which celebrated his victory.

Trent Franks: Retains House seat [AZ-8]

64% Franks
35% Scharer
[Full Arizona results]

Scott Garrett: Retains House seat [NJ-5]

56% Garrett
42% Gussen
[Full New Jersey results]

Walter B. Jones: Retains House seat [NC-3]

63% Jones
37% Anderson
[Full North Carolina results]

Despite a campaign of villification against Jones due to his appearance on The Political Cesspool with James Edwards, Keith Alexander, and Eddie Miller, he enjoyed a comfortable victory. His constituents are largely rural-Whites (his district is 78% White and 47% rural), who seem unbothered by accusations from the extreme-Left.

Jack Kingston: Retains House seat [GA-1]

63% Kingston
37% Messinger
[Full Georgia results]

Jeff Miller: Retains House seat [FL-1]

70% Miller
27% Bryan
[Full Florida results]

Ron Paul: Retiring from Congress

In Ron Paul’s old district [TX-12]:
54% Weber (Republican)
45% Lampson (Democrat)
[Full Texas results]

The irreplaceable Ron Paul is thus replaced by Randy Weber, who is brand-new to Congress. What kind of man is he? Weber is 59, seems to have deep roots in Texas, and was endorsed by Ron Paul. Weber has also boasted of having been endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough stance on illegal immigration. (Note that Arpaio was himself reelected).

Bill Posey: Retains House seat [FL-8]

59% Posey
38% Roberts
[Full Florida results]

Denny Rehberg: Ran for U.S. Senate: Loses

For U.S. Senate [Montana]
49% Tester
45% Rehberg
[Full Montana results]

Notice that Democrat Tester won with without a majority of the vote — a Libertarian candidate won the rest of the vote — most of which would have gone to Rehberg, Republicans say. Alas, the U.S. electoral system is bizarre in this way; third parties are generally nothing but “spoilers”. Perot gave us Clinton; Nader gave us Bush Jr.

In Rehberg’s old House district: [MT-At-Large]
53% Daines (Republican)
43% Gillan (Democrat)

What sort of man is Rehberg’s House replacement? A newcomer to political office with a business background and a freemarket orientation, Steve Daines is a man who is in-touch with his ancestral roots. The first thing he wrote on his “Meet Steve” page concerns his pride in his Norwegian ancestor who was one of the earliest White settlers in Montana.

The loss of Rehberg is the most-serious defeat for Liberty Caucus. What is next for him? He is considerably wealthy, so he can remain in politics if he wants to.

With Ron Paul retiring, what’s next for Liberty Caucus?

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:

Nonwhites obviously prefer, and in fact are aggressively in-favor of, a Nonwhite president over (what is seen as) a quintessential WASP, regardless of any and all other factors. See the quotation by Lee Kwan Yew above. And speaking of which, why would Asians (the per-capita wealthiest group in the USA), vote so overwhelmingly, nearly 3-to-1, for the Democrat, rather than for the ‘pro-rich’ Republican? That just makes no sense. The richest group voted strongly for the “tax the rich” party! If you are unaware of the racial angle, that is, it makes no sense. It is perfectly clear with the race angle.

(Why are Nonwhites so ‘racialized’? Much is basic tribalism, but there is something else, too. This is tangential, but suffice it to say that much of the social-apparatus in today’s USA, especially the institutions which socialize children [schools], and entertainment [Hollywood], inculcates in Nonwhites “a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity” against Whites, to use the words of the postracial president. See “Beware of the White Crime Wave” for more of a treatment on this subject).

– — – –

Shock and Disillusionment
This election was a traumatic shock to many, many Whites, who feel that their country has slipped away. Variations on “I don’t feel like this is my country anymore” can be seen by the million in every corner of the Internet, around millions of kitchen tables, at the proverbial water-cooler, and in the recesses of perhaps a hundred million minds.

It is good to get such a wake-up-call. Gregory Hood writes to those shell-shocked:

Take a good, hard look at those Obama victory rallies. They are celebrating your dispossession, your displacement from the country your ancestors built. They don’t even disguise their hatred. And even though you don’t think in terms of race, they do.

Michael Moore called it a victory over hate. Howard Fineman gloated that America was turning it’s back on tradition, and thank God. Twitter erupted with black voters screeching in triumph, bragging that America belongs to them now.

Even the President of the United States said “voting is the best revenge.” Revenge for what? Aren’t we all in this together? Doesn’t this country belong to all of us?

Do you get it yet? It’s revenge against you — for existing. It’s revenge for “racism,” for conservatism, for success, for being strong, and proud and accomplished. It’s vengeance against the America that once was. They have their revenge for the fact that your country existed. Barack Obama is President of these states united, and was re-elected because, not in spite of the fact that he despises everything America was.

From “Memo to White Male Republicans” by Gregory Hood

Today, it so happens, is November 11th — Armistice Day, the day World War One ended in 1918. Many of the men who were under arms for the USA that day, if teleported to the present, would refuse to serve. They would not recognize this is as their country, and would probably — on the whole — be hostile to it.

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

Liberty Caucus, as a political-bloc, was a forerunner of the Tea Party, the movement that gave the Republicans the energy to win a substantial victory in the 2010 Congressional elections. We can actually say that Liberty Caucus forms a hard-core of the Tea Party movement.

Michelle Bachmann

The Tea Party has its own caucus, led by nationalist-oriented Michelle Bachmann, a woman with deep roots in the Upper-Midwest of the USA, who is of 100% Norwegian ancestry (and, actually, all branches of her family seem to have arrived in the USA from Norway in the 1860s and 1870s, when the Upper-Midwest was still a near-frontier society). She is an active Lutheran in what is probably the most conservative large-Lutheran-church in the world today, the USA’s WELS. (Incidentally, she shares Lutheran heritage with Ron Paul himself; see Ron Paul’s Ancestry. One hears little about Lutherans in the USA, they being neither loud nor self-aggrandizing by nature, but something close to 1-in-10 American-Whites are of at-least-nominal Lutheran background).

Origin of Liberty Caucus

In the November 2010 elections, the Republican Party won 56% of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, taking over control from the Democrats. Something approaching one-third of the Republicans in the new Congress were seen to be aligned with the Tea Party.

The Tea Party, of course, was a White-American political movement ostensibly favoring limited government, but actually (“implicitly”) energized by the kind of White frustration and angst represented by Sam Francis — It seemed like the “Middle American Radicals” Dr. Francis predicted had arrived in force.

The Tea Party can best be seen “explicitly” as a mushrooming of the Ron-Paul-Wing of the Republican party. The energy, political-apparatus, and animating-politics of the Tea Party seems to have originated in Ron Paul’s 2007-2008 presidential campaign, and thus with Ron Paul himself. It was the Ron Paul campaign that declared December 17th, 2007, “a new Tea Party” — millions of dollars flowed into the Paul campaign on that day. The Big-Media was stunned.

The Tea Party was not necessarily Ron Paul’s creation, but that the Tea Party could exist at all required something like the Ron-Paul-Wing of the Republican Party to have existed in the first place. Mass movements do not come out of nothing. “The army was kept in the field” in various forms over the years, with Ron Paul (and thus Liberty Caucus) an important element in that torch-bearing.

Both Ron Paul’s Liberty Caucus, and the wider Tea Party, are said to draw inspiration from two historical 20th-century Republican traditions: (1) The so-called “Robert Taft Wing” of the mid-20th-century Republican Party, which involved strong opposition to expansion of U.S. federal government power and the emerging U.S. welfare state, but not really focused on social conservatism or foreign affairs [the "isolationists" were led by Taft]; (2) The Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964 (the legacy of which a great many Republicans today claim as their own), which was libertarian but also socially-conservative and hawkishly anti-Communist. Goldwater lost the battle, the conventional wisdom goes, but won the war: Republicans, from Reagan on, generally espouse his values.

The Legacy of Liberty Lobby

Liberty Lobby must also been seen as an inspiration for Liberty Caucus (and the latter’s larger manifestation in the form of the Tea Party). They are similarly-named, but ostensibly-very-different. Liberty Lobby was a racialist-populist organization founded in the 1950s, the influence of which lasted through the 1990s. It did a lot of things, and published a newspaper called the “Spotlight” in the 1970s and 1980s, the circulation of which reached 330,000 in the early 1980s.

The early Tea Party was something genuinely grassroots: The kind of anger that bubbled to the surface could not have been inspired solely by libertarian ideals of limited government.

Liberty Lobby was founded by the prolific American Racialist organizer and publisher Willis Carto, and carried the torch of the post-1945 dissident White-“Voelkisch”-Right in the USA for many years. (Willis Carto is still alive today, and in his 80s is still publishing: “American Free Press” and the “Barnes Review” are his two current publications).

Although I don’t think we can say Liberty Lobby directly inspired Liberty Caucus, at least the two “drew water from the same springs”: Both appeal naturally to the USA’s ethnic-core. The author of a recent biography on Carto, Professor George Michael, has mused that some of the 2007-2008 Ron Paul movement’s energy and momentum will have come from the remnants of Liberty Lobby. The union of the dissident Right (former “Spotlight” readers and Liberty Lobby supporters) with various other bases of support produced the Ron Paul phenomenon. Professor Michael also notes that Carto has ceaselessly promoted Paul for years.

Conclusion
I believe that the ancestral analysis above shows that Liberty Caucus itself, and the broader Tea-Party by extension, is obviously at least an “Ethnic-Core-American” movement. Looking at the ancestral pool of the current Liberty Caucus members collectively, the total of non-NW-European ancestry that I can find is ~4.5% (via Congressman Posey’s partial-Jewish ancestry) [0.5/11 members]. All indications are that the other 95.5% ancestral-stock is NW-European.

Given that Liberty Caucus is much more NW-European-Protestant (and Colonial-American) than average for Congress or even for the Republicans today, one must either believe that this is due to one of two things: (1) Coincidence, (2) that this political-bloc is a proxy for Core-American ethnic-politics.

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:

“The Luo are intelligent but lazy,” [Obama's relatives] would say. Or “The Kikuyu are money-grubbing but industrious.” Or “The Kalenjins — well, you can see what’s happened to the country since they took over.”

Hearing my aunts traffic in such stereotypes, I would try to explain to them the error of their ways. [At this point, Obama has spent a little less than two weeks in his life in Africa --Sailer's comment] “It’s thinking like that that holds us back,” I would say. “We’re all part of one tribe. The black tribe. The human tribe. Look what tribalism has done to places like Nigeria or Liberia.”

And Jane would say, “Ah, those West Africans are all crazy anyway. You know they used to be cannibals, don’t you?”

So, why does Obama win only 66-18 in Kenya: Probably just about everyone in Kenya knows that Barack Hussein Obama Senior was a Nilotic of the Luo tribe. If Obama Jr. has near-unanimous support among Kenya’s Nilotics, that would suggest that only half of Kenya’s Bantus support the half-Nilotic Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Proposed Ethnic Breakdown:
Kenya’s Nilotics: 100% Support Obama
Kenya’s Bantu-Negroids: 50% Support Obama, 25% Support Romney, 25% Oppose both

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 the victims of the May ‘68’ers who wanted to liberate themselves from tradition, from knowledge and authority in education. But they only accomplished to liberate themselves from their responsibilities.

We reject your history books to re-gather our memories.

We no longer believe that “Khader” could ever be our brother, we have stopped believing in a Global Village and the Family of Man.

We discovered that we have roots, ancestry and therefore a future.

Our heritage is our land, our blood, our identity. We are the heirs to our own future.

We turned off the TV to march the streets.

We painted our slogans on the walls, cried through loudspeakers for “youth in power”, and flew our Lambda flags high.

The Lambda, painted on proud Spartans’ shields, is our symbol.

Don’t you understand what this means? We will not back down, we will not give in.

We are sick and tired of your cowardice.

You are from the years of post-war prosperity, retirement benefits, S.O.S Racism and “diversity”, sexual liberation, and a bag of rice from Bernard Kouchner.

We are 25 percent unemployment, social debt, multicultural collapse and an explosion of anti-white racism. We are broken families, and young French soldiers dying in Afghanistan.

You won’t buy us with a condescending look, a state-paid job of misery, and a pat on the shoulder.

We don’t need your youth-policies. Youth IS our policy.

Don’t think this is simply a manifesto. It is a declaration of war.

You are of yesterday, we are of tomorrow.

We are Génération Identitaire.

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:

Mitt Romney’s father and grandfather received in 1938 a little under $10,000 from the Mexican government in settlement of their longstanding lawsuit over the loss of their property in Mexico in 1912.

Their loss of property. Note, too, that their $10,000 settlement amounts to $163,400 in 2012 dollars, according to this tool.
.

The Legacy of 1912 — in Mitt Romney’s Mind in 2012
It seems safe to say that the Romneys of 1912 left Mexico neither “voluntarily” (strictly), nor amicably. Their story reminds me of what happened to Germans east of Oder-Neisse in 1945. No one hesitates to say they were ‘expelled’, despite not being escorted out by authorities (as there were none). Anyway, whatever your verb of choice for the event: Romney knows his roots, and he evidently especially admires his father. He will know that Anti-White Rage impelled angry Hispanics to harass his father’s boyhood community, ultimately forcing his father away from his birthplace for the rest of his life. We can understand, from this, that Romney is much less likely to be arm-flailingly pro-Hispanic, at heart, as are so many other Big Republicans now. Remember self-deportation?

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.

In reality, of course, a civilization on such a downward spiral would be replaced by something more virile, long before numbers can contract as dramatically as is outlined in the preceding paragraph.

Götterdämmerung
Is it possible for a culture to pull itself out of very-low fertility? If not, then we are living in the twilight of many European and East-Asian cultures (as we have known them). If they still exist, nominally, in two centuries, they may be populated by very-different people. (“The future belongs to those who show up for it”).

Whether a mass repopulation is possible without severely negative consequences is up for debate. As the Dr. Sam Francis, a former Washington Times columnist with racialist sympathies, famously wrote:

“The civilization that we as Whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”

Breaking Out of the Low-Fertility Trap
Is this any precedent for a modern, advanced economy breaking out of low-fertility? There is the Baby Boom, but that is nearly 70 years gone, now.

More recently, TFRs rose quite dramatically for Westerners in the late 1980s, and early 1990s, which I like to attribute to civilizational self-confidence. The Cold War was coming to an end, with the Western system victorious.

Take a look at the graph [from USA's Fertility Rates by Race, 1980-2010]

Conventional wisdom, though, is that fertility responds to economic conditions. In a shallow sense, this is true. Looking at the graph again, though, we see that White fertility has hardly budged despite the sluggish economy of the late 2000s, and seems to have been hardly affected by the boom years of the 1990s, or by previous recent recessions. It has been within the narrow band of ~1.8 to ~1.9 for nearing a quarter century, now.

What this suggests to me is that cultural optimism promotes a higher TFR among modern people, more than anything else.

Speaking of which, Iwe know of one other, controversial, instance in which a low-TFR was dramatically raised in a short period of time:

[From here].

A 0.4-TFR-point jump in a single year(!), 1934 over 1933. (A +1.0-TFR in seven years). Did the German economy dramatically improve the day Hitler took power? No — But, by all accounts of the period, ‘civilizational optimism’ did take hold. That is the only reasonable explanation of the Nazi Baby Boom. On the flip side: As a consequence of the fiery defeat of that regime in the 1940s, future generations of German-speakers have been far less willing to have babies.

____________________________
The future belongs
to those who
show up for it.

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 (down from ~1.7 before the recession). [White-Female-Fertility (x) Share of those births to White fathers = 1.79* 0.9].

Late-1980s Optimism: All groups saw a fertility rise in the late 1980s (See Western Civilizational Pride, 1986-2002“), which by the early-to-mid 1990s had receded for Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Amerindians, but — curiously — remained for Whites. White fertility was boosted by a respectable ~15% in the years straddling the fall of Communism, and it held onto that gain, remarkably consistently, through the 1990s and 2000s.

The Housing Bubble: All the Nonwhite groups saw a noticeable rise in fertility in the mid-2000s. This was the era of the “Housing Bubble”, which was caused by government-mandated cheap housing loans primarily to Nonwhites, as Steve Sailer has pointed out. (And which ultimately caused the recession). Whites, too, saw a small bump in the mid-2000s, but theirs was the miniscule.

Late 2000s Recession: All the temporary gains driven by the Housing Bubble were given back, and then some, by the soft economy of the past five years. The USA’s recession technically began at the end of 2007, so we would assume fewer babies would have been born in 2008, which is true. Indeed, 2007 was a high-water-mark year for USA fertility in the 21st century thus far, across all racial groups. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, we have seen declining fertility, particularly dramatic for Hispanics.

Hispanics: A casual glance at this graph may suggest that something big is underway within the Hispanic community in the USA. Actually, Hispanics may have been at the 2.3-2.4 TFR range by the early-2010s anyway, if not for the subprime-mortgage initiative boosting their TFR for a while. (One can clearly see a ‘bubble’ in their TFR line — It is easy to imagine a gradual slide from their 2.6-2.7 range of the late 1990s to the 2.3-2.4 by the late 2000s. In other words, Hispanic TFR has now settled into where it would have been without the federal subsidy on Nonwhite Affordable Family Creation (NAFC — it might as well have an acronym). Also something to consider if that high-fertility Hispanic recent-immigrant women, which have always lifted Hispanic fertility rates, probably stayed home, especially in 2009 and 2010 — when economic news was bleakest.

American Indians: Nothing in this chart is as dramatic as the collapse of American-Indian fertility, from a respectable 2.2 in 1990 to a weak 1.4 in 2010. I cannot explain this.

Data Source
National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 61, tables 4 and 8. (Published in 2012).

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, the decline in abortion, modern nationalist parties in Europe emerging in their embryonic stages. Those in the communist-bloc rose up in voelkisch pride, and this created a feedback loop among their European brethren to the West. It was in the late 1980s and early 1990s that Holocaust Revisionism reached its peak — with semi-annual international conferences, journals, a flurry of publications, and high-profile criminal trials — and essentially won the argument (although respectable opinion would not allow the record to be officially corrected).

But all these aside, look especially at The USA’s total fertility rates by race in the 1980s through the 2000s. Beginning with those conceived in 1986, all races saw an upswing (with Gorbachev now on the scene, and the increasing realization that the USSR was a bit of a paper-tiger after all — optimism was allowed to flower once again). In the case of White-Americans, the End-of-the-Cold-War fertility rise has actually not abated: It lifted fertility by 15%, and it stayed there.

“Ever since roughly 1890, Mormons have been trying to compensate for the weirdness of their founding era by closely emulating mainstream middle class white American culture (which hasn’t been that hard for them since they tended to start out as mainstream Northwest Europeans). [...] Now, a representative (indeed, exemplary) Mormon [see here on Romney's ancestry --Hail] is trying [...] to lead his people to the ultimate symbolic level of acceptance, the Presidency.“

A question of high importance when analyzing the Mormon future — and more importantly, the future of White-America in general — is not whether Mormons can elect one of their own to the presidency, but the question of fertility, and trends therein, and specifically what the Mormon TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is. At the risk of stating the obvious: If Mormons have far more children than non-Mormons, then logically, Mormons will form a larger and larger share of the U.S. population, and if we recklessly extrapolate into the 22nd century, could mean that what is left of White-America could be Mormon.

Mormon Fertility History
1850s to 1890s: ~8.0 children per woman
1970s: 4.4 children per woman [Mormons in Utah only]
1980s: 3.3 children per woman
1990s: 3.0 children per woman

Keep in mind that this has always been way above the general White-American fertility rate, which since the 1970s has been below 2.0.

Mormon Fertility Today
What is Mormon fertility in the 2010s? I cannot locate any information on current Mormon-specific fertility. If anyone has it, please leave a comment. I think a reasonable guess can be made, though: We know that Utah’s state TFR was 2.6 children per woman in the late 2000s. Utah is now only 62% Mormon (down from ~70%, which it had been from the 1890s through the 1980s). Assuming non-Mormon Utahns have a typical-national 2.0 TFR today (a reasonable supposition from the literature on Utah fertility history), that would mean Mormon-Utahns have a ~3.0 TFR in the late 2000s, as well.

If this is representative of all Mormons, we can say that Mormon fertility has settled into being a stable at ~3.0, with no signs of moving.

Mormon Ascent Amid White Decline
If White-Mormon fertility remains a consistent 3.0, each successive Mormon generation will be 143% the size of its parent generation (given a 2.1 replacement TFR), making for steady growth. Meanwhile, as general White-American fertility continues to languish in the 1.6 to 1.7 range, each successive non-Mormon White generation will be something around ~80% as large as its parent generation.

According to wiki, there are 5.2 million White-Mormons in the USA today. There are about 192 million White non-Mormons.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume no conversions, steady TFRs as described above (that is to say, TFRs as they are today), generations of the same length for both groups, and identical lifespans. (Note that Mormons have children earlier, so these figures are going to be on the conservative side).

Now:
192.0 million White Non-Mormons @ 1.67 TFR
5.2 million White Mormons @ 3.0 TFR

After One Generation:
153.6 million White Non-Mormons
7.4 million White Mormons [4.6% of U.S. Whites]

After Two Generations:
122.9 million White Non-Mormons
10.6 million White Mormons [8.0% of U.S. Whites]

After Three Generations:
98.3 million White Non-Mormons
15.2 million White Mormons [13.4% of U.S. Whites]

After Four Generations:
78.6 million White Non-Mormons
21.7 million White Mormons [21.7% of U.S. Whites]

Such long-term projections are, of course, worthless. What can be said with certainty is that Mormons will continue to grow as a share of White-America, if they can retain such a robust TFR (and avoid large-scale defection from their church, I suppose). Can they?

Similar projections are made for the Amish (7 million Amish by 2050), who have a sky-high TFR (~6.0). Even if the Amish TFR falls after a while, the may well wind up with similar population numbers as the Mormons — perhaps each ‘fringe religion’ exceeding 10% of the White-American population by some point near the end of the present century.

Demography remains destiny.

Update:
The commenter MW says that apostasy may sap Mormon growth, which seems likely. On the other hand, that Mormons still in the church can maintain a 3.0 TFR in this hypermodern society is astonishing, and suggests that, years from now, as White ranks begin to seriously contract from decades of subreplacement fertility, other Whites may be attracted to convert to Mormonism, seeing it as a dynamic outpost of a disappearing White-America. On the third hand, may we be wrong to suppose Mormonism will continue to be quintessentially ‘White’ (NW European)? The church is already 16% Nonwhite in the USA. Comments addressing any of these points are welcome.

[For the record: I have no connection to Mormonism. Although of NW-European-descent, I am a Protestant].

* The “absolute nuclear” family type is both liberal and unequal. Children are totally emancipated, forming independent families of their own. The inheritance usually goes to one child, often a son.

* The “egalitarian nuclear” family type is both liberal and equal. Children are as emancipated and independent as in the previous type, but equal division of the inheritance encourages stronger parent-children relations before the passing of the parents.

* The “stem” family type is both authoritarian and unequal. Several generations live under one roof, with one child marrying to continue the line. The other children remain unmarried at home, or leave to get married.

* The “incomplete stem” family is as above, but with slightly more equal inheritance rules — an intermediate with the last family type.

* The “communitarian” family is both authoritarian and equal. All sons can marry and bring their wives into the ancestral home. The family inheritance is divided equitably among all children.

Is there a connection between family-inheritance type and fertility in today’s Europe? Have a look:


[Map from Eurostat]

How does “family type” affect fertility?
I have a hard time seeing seeing any strong correlation. More precise data would help. Certainly other factors seem more important, political, cultural, economic. German fertility is low across the board, across two family-type zones. Nevertheless, other ‘Stem Family’ regions have more robust fertility. Germans are clearly still very nationally — perhaps better-to-say ‘civilizationally’ — pessimistic, a legacy of defeat decades ago and demonization ever since.

A more suitable question would be, “all else equal, how does ‘family-type’ affect fertility?” Inheritance is a major part of this ‘family-type’ concept, and the question of inheritance and fertility was first brought to my attention by the commenter Rollory in a post about France’s low-fertility 1800s.

A casual analysis: Looking at Netherlands alone (all are part of Dutch culture), it seems Absolute Nuclear regions out-breed Stem Family regions. The highest-fertility department in France seems to be mostly Absolute Nuclear. The highest-fertility region of Scotland is Absolute Nuclear.

Why would “Absolute Nuclear” produce highest fertility?

Opchanacanough 1622
Anders B. Breivik 2011
How Do We Handle the Hate?
The following was adapted from its original author, Sagverksarbetaren, at Skadi

With the terrible terrorist attack in Norway last year in recent memory, it is important to remember that Anders Behring Breivik is not only a super-racist, vicious Neo-Nazi devil who crawled up out of Hell’s bowels, but that he also represents a HATE against “The Other” — immigrants in general and Muslims in particular — that is found in society. If we are to manage and combat this HATE it may be useful to learn from other peoples in other times, and how they have handled right-wing extremism:

The ideas contained in Breivik’s manifesto (“A European Declaration of Independence”) are eerily similar to racist ideas that prevailed among some American-Indians (Native Americans) during the 1500s and 1600s, and even through to the late 1800s in certain places.

The Powhatan xenophobe and racist Opchanacanough, for example, carried out a hate-inspired massacre in his horrific terrorist attack on Jamestown, Virginia, 1622 (in which 347 people died).

That incident ignited an important debate among medicine men all over the North American continent. The talking point became “How To Deal With Domestic Right-Wing Extremism”, that is, extremism that produced hatred and enemy images in which Europeans in general, and English-Protestants in particular, were targeted, in which they were hatefully described as “occupiers” and “colonists”, etc.

I’ve been looking around in archives and museums in the United States, and have found an authentic, written recording, dating back to 1622, of a conversation between a wise medicine man and a young right-wing extremist Native American (who shared worldviews with the psychopathic terrorist Opchanacanough). I think we can draw inspiration from it, if we want to fight and combat right-wing extremism today, in Scandinavia and in Europe generally.

Here is the transcript of that conversation:

– — – — – — – –
Powhatan Confederacy
Summer 1622:

– Chief Eagle-With-the-Correct-Views, I would like to discuss a matter that deeply concerns me.

– What’s weighing on your heart, Raven-Who-Thinks-Wrongly?

– I am of the opinion that there is an ongoing European colonization of our North American continent. I am deeply concerned about the impact this may have for us in the Powhatan tribe and other Native-American tribes, and I think we should do something about the situation before it’s too late.

– …… [shocked]! You are aware, Raven-Who-Thinks-Wrongly, that you share in this opinion with Opchanacanough, who only a short while ago murdered 347 English refugees?

– Yeah, but I do not suppor…

– You use the word “colonization” and therefore apply a hate-filled rhetoric that creates enemy images. When Opchanacanough murdered all those innocent people, he was driven by a hatred, a hatred whipped up by people like you. Words are dangerous, do you not see that, Raven-Who-Thinks-Wrongly?

– Well, okay, but what do you want me to do, then, Eagle-With-the-Correct-Views? It is still ongoing, the colonization of…

– Ah, ah, ah! Now you do it again. You must not use hateful rhetoric.

– “Hateful rhetoric”? I just describe what we are facing. Have you studied the sceintific study of medicine man Hawk-Who-Talks-Too-Much? It proves that we will be a minority on our own continent within a few generations, if this immigration of Europeans continues. Not only we Powhatans will meet this fate, the Sioux, Cherokee, and Comanche tribes, and all the rest, will suffer the same fate. Do you want that?

– Hawk-Who-Talks-Too-Much is a racist Europhobe, who has been excluded from the medicine men’s council. We cannot tolerate his intolerance.

– …… [Silence]

– Any more questions?

– … But, do you not see that within a few centuries, perhaps we will live on reservations. We are going to be an oppressed minority in our own land, the Europeans will take ove…

– ♪ ♭ ♪ Ly-o-lay-ale Loya, that be racist, Ly-o-lay-ale Loya, that be racist, Ly-o-lay-ale Loya ♪ ♭ ♪

– … Uhh, what are you doing?

– I try to drive out the spirit of intolerance out of your body. If you continue to spread hatred, I am afraid I will have to contact the Powhatan Security Police (PST) so that they can keep tabs on you, so you don’t turn into a new Opchanacanough, I mean.

– …You do not present any factual arguments to refute what I say, Eagle-With-the-Correct-Views. You are just trying to scare me into silence through guilt by association.

– ENOUGH! I am so tired of your HATE. The year is 1622! I thought that these kinds of views are things of the past. “We will live on reservations in a few centuries” — What conspiratorial, insane, and HATEFUL bulls**t. The year is 1622, as I said, and we do not need inbred RTs (red trash) like you around…

– But …

– ♪ ♭ ♪ Ly-o-lay-ale Loya, racist, Ly-o-lay-ale Loya, racist, Ly-o-lay-ale Loya ♪ ♭ ♪ ….

– — – — – — – –

I note, relieved, that the Norwegians (God bless them) handle Norwegian right-wing extremism in the same way as Chief Eagle-With-the-Correct-Views handled Powhatanian right-wing extremism. If you come in contact with a person who shares Breivik’s conspiratorial worldview of “a Nonwhite Colonization of Europe”, you should inform the security authorities about his or her existence, so that the individual in question can be identified and forbidden to speak out, forbidden from spreading HATE. In exactly the same way as the young racist in the above conversation, who shared Opchanacanough’s conspiratorial worldview of “a European colonization” was treated, that is.

This is how we should deal with right-wing extremism and HATE. Learn from the Native Americans.

– — – –
See Also: How Whites Took Over America

Ron Paul is both the oldest (b.1935) and the most-German (87.5%) of the Republican presidential candidates in 2012. Perhaps it ought to be unsurprising, then, that he is also seen to be the strictest on fiscal policy.

Ethnic Ancestry
Ron Paul himself is 87.5% German (50% Hessian, 37.5% of indeterminate region in Germany) and 12.5% Irish by ancestry.

Time of Ancestors’ Arrival in the USA
Earlier, is was speculated that Ron Paul sympathizes with immigration-restrictionism — He was already 32 and about to turn 33 when immigration policy in the USA was radically altered. Effective July 1968, racial limitations to immigration into the USA were abolished. Ron Paul himself remembers the earlier USA better than any other candidate. (See Ron Paul Remembers). Santorum was only 10 when immigration laws opened up in Summer ’68; Romney was 21.

At the same time, Ron Paul himself lacks deep American ancestry. He also lacks “Ellis-Island ancestry”. His ancestors all seem to have arrived after the Civil War but before the Ellis Island wave of ~1883-1913. It is unlikely, then, that he has any of that ‘Ellis Island Nostalgia’, common among many Northeastern Whites today, including Santorum.

Religious Affiliation
Paul’s paternal great-grandparents were probably all Lutherans, the dominant form of Christianity in the Hessia of their day. Still today, Protestantism predominates in Hessia. Ron Paul himself was raised a Lutheran, though is now a Baptist. Two of his brothers became ordained Lutheran pastors. Less is known about his maternal side, but as Ron Paul’s mother married into a pious Lutheran family, it’s likely that Ron Paul’s three maternal German great-grandparents were also Protestants.

Ron Paul as a young man

Anthropologically, the consensus is that Paul displays two tendencies:
(1) Bruenn. An important population element in most of Europe, ‘Bruenn’ is a CroMagnid type, and is thus descended from the people who conquered Europe from the Neanderthals before the last Ice Age.

(2) North-Atlantid. Of partial ‘Nordish’ and partial Mesolithic or Neolithic origin. In the West-European context, ‘Neolithic’ refers to people of Mediterranean appearance who migrated to Europe around the time agriculture was spreading, and who form a minor part of the racial stock of modern Western-Europeans. North-Atlantid is a minor racial element in most of Europe, with the exception of certain areas of the British Isles, where it is more common.

Others suggest a minor (3) Alpinid influence, but this may be due to his advanced age. In the young photo posted above, Ron Paul displays no discernible Alpine influence in head shape, though he may slightly in nose shape.

– — –
Following is a synopsis of known information about Ron Paul’s grandparents and their own ancestral stories.

Ron Paul’s Grandparents [Source]
(1) Casper Paul. [100% German]. He was born August 1866 in Hohenzell, Hessia, Prussia, which became the German-Empire when Casper was four. Caspar and his family emigrated to the USA in 1880 when Casper was 14 years of age. The family settled in western Pennsylvania, a region which many of Richard Nixon’s ancestors helped settle in the early days — though the Nixons had since moved west to Ohio by the time the Pauls arrived. Casper Paul became a dairy dealer, a job he held until retirement. In 1899, he married a Pennsylvania-born woman named Sophia. Sophia’s own ancestors were from Germany, too. In fact, they were from the same rural region of Hessia in Germany as was Casper himself.

Ron Paul’s Grandparents Visit a Hyperinflationary Germany
In the early 1920s, Casper and wife Sophia visited relatives in Hessia. This was the wild, hyperinflationary Germany, culminating in the pathetic but poetic scenes of wheelbarrows-full-of-notes to buy a load of groceries. It is possible that the impression the elder Pauls got from seeing Germany’s economic chaos percolated down to a young Ron Paul, who was born in 1935, and thereby helped to shape his own views on economics. It was, after all, ‘state intervention’ that crippled the German economy, in the form of the need to inflate to pay war-reparations. A tight, more-typically-German fiscal policy would never have allowed for hyperinflation. Something that suggests that this may be true is Ron Paul’s relatively regular references to 1920s-Germany’s hyperinflation in speeches. Ron Paul himself related the story of his grandparents’ visit to 1920s-Germany to reporters in 2011. This lends credence to the idea that it does animate his politics.

(2) Sophia Ziegler. [100% German]. Born in Pennsylvania in September 1874. Her parents — Johann Georg Ziegler and Gertrude Herche — had immigrated from Germany to Western Pennsylvania in 1866. They became naturalized American citizens in 1874. Her father was born in 1844 in Kressenbach, Hessia, while her mother and her parents were all born in Wallroth, Hessia. Both are rural hamlets a few miles southwest of the city of Fulda, and not far from the birthplace of Caspar Paul.

Amazingly, then, all of Ron Paul’s paternal ancestors several generations ago lived within a few miles of each other in Hessia, despite the fact that Sophia and Casper met each other in the 1890s in Western Pennsylvania.

This map should clarify the German origins of Ron Paul’s paternal ancestors:
.

(3) Joseph J. Dumont. [50% German, 50% Irish]. Born in Pennsylvania circa 1884. Joseph J. DuMont was a book-keeper at a grocery store. His mother was born in New York to Irish parents. I find no records on his mother’s surname, so anything about her would be pure speculation. His father is listed on several censuses as being of German birth. ‘DuMont’ is, of course, an unusual name for a German, suggesting the possibility of long-ago Huguenot ancestry. Here is a map of the DuMonts currently living in Germany:

DuMont Surname Distribution in Germany, courtesy of Geogen
.

(4) Lena ?. [100% German]. Born in ? circa 1884 in Pennsylvania. Both her parents are listed by several U.S. censuses as having been born in Germany (region indeterminate).

– — – –

Which is to say the pre-1968 America.

The above is one possible half-answer to the question that people have been asking: “Is Ron Paul an implicit-nationalist?” Many seem to think so, perhaps vaguely associating his age and unorthodox politics with the norms of an America of long ago, which saw itself as an ancestrally-NW-European entity and not a “proposition nation”.

Consider the following snapshot of events:

[Ron Paul with son, circa 1965. Thanks to Blinders Removed.]

Ron Paul remembers the time before this turn began. His boyhood, adolescence, and young-manhood all occurred before the turn.

In a previous post (The Blackest Metro Areas), we see that only a small number of metropolitan areas have significant Black populations. (Specifically, of the 366 metro areas identified by Census 2010, only 22 are at least one-third Black, and 63 are over-20% Black. Only in Sumter, SC and Albany, GA do Blacks outnumber Whites, metro-wide).

First, let’s look again at the ‘Whites’ table from the post Metropolitanization By Race:

.
152.4 million Whites live in a metropolitan area of 50,000+.
***************
Now, using the same Census 2010 data used to produce the lists “Blackest Metros” and “Whitest Metros”, we can find the following:

– 4.33 million Whites live in metros which are over 33.3% Black
– 120.9 million Whites live in metros which are less than 20% Black
– 69.2 million Whites live in metros which are less than 10% Black
– 31.4 million Whites live in metros which are less than 5% Black
– 20.0 million Whites live in metros which are less than 3% Black
***************
A further 44.4 million Whites live outside a metropolitan area, with the majority of those probably in nearly-all-white communities. (Lacking data, I will estimate that 95% of these 44.4 million non-metro Whites live in communities less than 10% Black, =42.2 million non-metro Whites live apart from Blacks).

..42.2 million Non-Metropolitan Whites
+69.2 million Metropolitan Whites
=111.4 million Total Whites Living in a Regions Under-10% Black (56.6% of the USA White Population).

Looking at places (metros and rural) with under-5% Black populations, we find that ~37% of the USA’s Whites live in one.

Few Whites Live Near Blacks
Alas, then, most American Whites do not live anywhere near any appreciable numbers of Blacks, even at the very wide scale of the metropolitan-area. Of those who do live “near” Blacks (within an hour’s traffic-free driving distance, say), they are, of course, generally segregated, with certain parts of a typical metro area heavily-Black while others are all-but-devoid of Blacks. Of those who do share a metropolitan areas with Blacks, relatively few are particularly “integrated”, to use a word by now rather quaint-sounding. Racehist cites a study which suggests that only ~4% of Whites have any Black close friends.

White Support for Obama in 2008
The above discussion can explain a lot about the workings of our Multicultacracy, and almost-certainly explains the election of Barack H. Obama.

Americans remember what a surreal time the 2008 Democratic primary season was. One commentator, David Sirota, implicitly divided the Democratic Primary electorate into three camps:
(1) Blacks
(2) Whites who live around Blacks
(3) Whites who do not live around Blacks

Group (1), of course, went overwhelmingly for B.H.Obama.
Group (2) went heavily against Obama.
Group (3) went marginally for Obama.

Thus, Obama won two types of states,
a.) Heavily-Black (Southern) states in which Blacks were often the majority of voters in the Democratic primary (as in South Carolina, where 12 Blacks voted for every 10 Whites who voted), and
b.) States with next-to-no Blacks, e.g. Idaho, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Utah.

Obama lost almost every single state in between; that is, in which Blacks were a significant share of population but in which Whites were still a strong-enough majority that the Black Vote couldn’t simply steamroll Obama to victory. This will make more sense in visual form. I take the visual from the place I originally found it, Electoral-Vote.com:

The Race Chasm, 2008 Democratic Primary. By David Sirota.

In other words, the election of Obama, that supreme triumph for Blacks worldwide (as it was played at the time), depended on Whites. On Whites who were totally naive about Blacks; Whites who had never dealt with Blacks; Whites who did not live near Blacks; whites whose image of Blacks was shaped a lot more from the TV and so on than personal interaction.

Thus, we see something rather…odd. Namely: The integrity, dynamism, and viability of our Multicultacracy itself is dependent upon, heavily dependent upon, enough of the native population not experiencing it. All sorts of things are only possible in that way. The poetic capstone to this phenomenon was Obama’s election in 2008: Voting patterns bear out that he only won the votes of Whites who live far, far away from Blacks.

In the simplest terms:
The American Multicultacracy needs enough Whites to not experience it to survive.

—————————-
Looking at the USA’s 366 metro areas with over 50,000 residents, we see that:
– 1 is majority Black [0.3% of US metro areas]
– 22 are at least one-third Black (all in the Deep South) [6% of US metro areas]
*******
– 303 are less than 20% Black [83% of US metro areas]
– 221 are less than 10% Black [60% of metro areas]
– 105 are less than 3% Black [29% of metro areas]
—————————-

USA’s Metro Areas (2010), by
% of Metro Area Population that is Black
52.1% Albany, GA
47.8% Pine Bluff, AR
47.7% Jackson, MS
46.9% Sumter, SC
45.7% Memphis, TN-MS-AR
44.7% Rocky Mount, NC
43.5% Macon, GA
42.5% Montgomery, AL
41.4% Florence, SC
40.4% Columbus, GA-AL
39.1% Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA
38.9% Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
36.3% Fayetteville, NC
35.6% Baton Rouge, LA
35.4% Monroe, LA
35.3% Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC
34.6% Mobile, AL
34.4% Greenville, NC
34.0% New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
34.0% Valdosta, GA
33.9% Savannah, GA
33.8% Tuscaloosa, AL
33.2% Columbia, SC
32.7% Danville, VA
32.5% Tallahassee, FL
32.4% Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
32.2% Jackson, TN
31.4% Goldsboro, NC
31.3% Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC
29.8% Richmond, VA
29.6% Alexandria, LA
28.7% Baltimore-Towson, MD
28.6% Warner Robins, GA
28.3% Hattiesburg, MS
28.2% Birmingham-Hoover, AL
28.0% Salisbury, MD
27.7% Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC
27.1% Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
26.7% Lafayette, LA
25.8% Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
25.5% Greensboro-High Point, NC
24.6% Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
24.3% Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR
24.0% Dover, DE
24.0% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
24.0% Lake Charles, LA
23.5% Brunswick, GA
23.1% Dothan, AL
22.8% Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
22.7% Auburn-Opelika, AL
22.2% Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR
21.8% Jacksonville, FL
21.7% Huntsville, AL
21.0% Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
20.8% Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
20.7% Flint, MI
20.6% Anniston-Oxford, AL
20.6% Spartanburg, SC
20.3% Winston-Salem, NC
20.3% Trenton-Ewing, NJ
20.2% Raleigh-Cary, NC
20.2% Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ
20.1% Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
19.6% Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
19.6% Pascagoula, MS
19.5% Athens-Clarke County, GA
19.4% Gainesville, FL
19.3% Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
19.0% Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI
18.8% Burlington, NC
18.4% St. Louis, MO-IL \3
18.3% Clarksville, TN-KY
17.9% Tyler, TX
17.8% New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
17.5% Lynchburg, VA
17.5% Lawton, OK
17.4% Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
17.4% Longview, TX
17.2% Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
17.0% Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL
16.8% Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
16.7% Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC
16.3% Decatur, IL
16.3% Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA
16.2% Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL
16.1% Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ
16.0% Anderson, SC
15.6% Jacksonville, NC
15.3% Niles-Benton Harbor, MI
15.2% Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN
15.1% Kankakee-Bradley, IL
15.1% Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
15.1% Gadsden, AL
15.0% Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
15.0% Dayton, OH
14.9% Columbus, OH
14.8% Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL
14.8% Waco, TX
14.7% Vallejo-Fairfield, CA
14.5% Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI
14.4% Port St. Lucie, FL
14.2% Rome, GA
14.2% Wilmington, NC
13.9% Chattanooga, TN-GA
13.7% Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN
13.4% Toledo, OH
13.4% Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC
13.0% Danville, IL
12.8% Roanoke, VA
12.7% New Haven-Milford, CT
12.7% Ann Arbor, MI
12.5% Kansas City, MO-KS
12.5% Charlottesville, VA
12.3% Ocala, FL
12.3% Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL
12.2% Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
12.1% Akron, OH
12.0% Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN
11.9% College Station-Bryan, TX
11.9% Lima, OH
11.9% Jonesboro, AR
11.8% Decatur, AL
11.8% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
11.6% Rochester, NY
11.5% South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI
11.4% Palm Coast, FL
11.1% Racine, WI
11.1% Springfield, IL
10.9% Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
10.9% Battle Creek, MI
10.9% Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
10.8% Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL
10.8% Michigan City-La Porte, IN
10.8% Lexington-Fayette, KY
10.8% Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
10.8% Champaign-Urbana, IL
10.6% Elizabethtown, KY
10.6% Rockford, IL
10.5% Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL
10.5% Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
10.4% Oklahoma City, OK
10.2% Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
10.1% Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY
10.1% Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL
10.0% Fort Wayne, IN
9.4% Mansfield, OH
9.3% Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL
9.3% Kalamazoo-Portage, MI
9.2% Wichita Falls, TX
9.1% Columbia, MO
9.1% Peoria, IL
9.0% Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL
8.9% Lansing-East Lansing, MI
8.8% Springfield, OH
8.7% Manhattan, KS
8.6% Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL
8.6% Sandusky, OH
8.4% Tulsa, OK
8.4% San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
8.4% Pittsburgh, PA
8.3% Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
8.3% Bowling Green, KY
8.3% Anderson, IN
8.1% Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI
8.1% Syracuse, NY
8.0% Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
7.9% Jackson, MI
7.9% Hot Springs, AR
7.9% Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
7.7% Wichita, KS
7.7% Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
7.6% Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
7.6% Stockton, CA
7.4% Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA
7.4% Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
7.4% Abilene, TX
7.4% Lubbock, TX
7.4% Gainesville, GA
7.4% Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
7.4% Jefferson City, MO
7.3% Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
7.3% Bloomington-Normal, IL
7.2% Hanford-Corcoran, CA
7.2% Erie, PA
7.1% Canton-Massillon, OH
7.1% Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA
7.1% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
6.9% Muncie, IN
6.9% Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC
6.8% Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL
6.7% Springfield, MA
6.6% Cumberland, MD-WV
6.6% Midland, TX
6.6% Elmira, NY
6.6% San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX
6.6% Naples-Marco Island, FL
6.6% North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL
6.6% Topeka, KS
6.4% Knoxville, TN
6.2% Evansville, IN-KY
6.1% Amarillo, TX
6.0% Colorado Springs, CO
6.0% Kingston, NY
5.9% Sherman-Denison, TX
5.8% Kokomo, IN
5.8% Bakersfield-Delano, CA
5.8% Norwich-New London, CT
5.7% Elkhart-Goshen, IN
5.7% Punta Gorda, FL
5.6% Victoria, TX
5.6% York-Hanover, PA
5.6% Denver-Aurora- Broomfield, CO \2
5.6% Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
5.3% Fresno, CA
5.1% St. Joseph, MO-KS
5.1% Utica-Rome, NY
5.1% San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
5.0% Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ
5.0% Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
5.0% Janesville, WI
4.9% Reading, PA
4.9% Winchester, VA-WV
4.9% Terre Haute, IN
4.9% Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA
4.8% Charleston, WV
4.7% Ocean City, NJ
4.7% Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA
4.6% Madison, WI
4.5% Fairbanks, AK
4.5% Asheville, NC
4.5% Williamsport, PA
4.5% Odessa, TX
4.5% Anchorage, AK
4.3% Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA
4.2% Iowa City, IA
4.2% Worcester, MA
4.1% Owensboro, KY
4.0% Ithaca, NY
4.0% San Angelo, TX
4.0% Binghamton, NY
3.9% Lawrence, KS
3.9% Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
3.9% Merced, CA
3.8% Rochester, MN
3.7% Cleveland, TN
3.7% Lancaster, PA
3.7% Madera-Chowchilla, CA
3.6% Fort Smith, AR-OK
3.6% Johnstown, PA
3.6% Lewiston-Auburn, ME
3.5% Corpus Christi, TX
3.5% Lafayette, IN
3.5% Harrisonburg, VA
3.5% Tucson, AZ
3.4% Cedar Rapids, IA
3.3% Lincoln, NE
3.3% El Centro, CA
3.1% Salinas, CA
3.1% El Paso, TX
3.1% Wheeling, WV-OH
3.0% Morgantown, WV
3.0% Sioux Falls, SD
3.0% State College, PA
2.9% Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA
2.9% Modesto, CA
2.9% St. Cloud, MN
2.9% Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
2.9% Dalton, GA
2.8% Johnson City, TN
2.7% Albuquerque, NM
2.7% Pittsfield, MA
2.7% Dubuque, IA
2.7% Morristown, TN
2.7% Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
2.7% Olympia, WA
2.6% San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
2.6% Yuba City, CA
2.6% Bremerton-Silverdale, WA
2.5% Cheyenne, WY
2.5% Mankato-North Mankato, MN
2.5% Ames, IA
2.4% Bloomington, IN
2.3% Reno-Sparks, NV
2.2% Lebanon, PA
2.2% Sioux City, IA-NE-SD
2.1% Manchester-Nashua, NH
2.1% San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA
2.1% Monroe, MI
2.0% Napa, CA
2.0% Honolulu, HI
2.0% Fargo, ND-MN
2.0% Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA
2.0% Pueblo, CO
2.0% Springfield, MO
2.0% Yuma, AZ
1.9% Glens Falls, NY
1.9% Carson City, NV
1.9% Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO
1.9% Barnstable Town, MA
1.9% Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA
1.8% Oshkosh-Neenah, WI
1.8% Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA
1.8% Green Bay, WI
1.8% Columbus, IN
1.7% Grand Forks, ND-MN
1.7% Spokane, WA
1.7% Las Cruces, NM
1.7% Altoona, PA
1.7% Burlington-South Burlington, VT
1.6% Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME
1.6% Chico, CA
1.6% Bay City, MI
1.6% Visalia-Porterville, CA
1.6% Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA
1.5% Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA
1.5% Sheboygan, WI
1.5% Salt Lake City, UT
1.5% Holland-Grand Haven, MI
1.5% Joplin, MO
1.3% Duluth, MN-WI
1.3% Fond du Lac, WI
1.3% La Crosse, WI-MN
1.3% Ogden-Clearfield, UT
1.2% Eau Claire, WI
1.2% Great Falls, MT
1.2% Flagstaff, AZ
1.1% Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
1.1% Rapid City, SD
1.1% Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH
1.0% Yakima, WA
1.0% Salem, OR
1.0% Eugene-Springfield, OR
1.0% Bellingham, WA
1.0% Greeley, CO
0.9% Corvallis, OR
0.9% Boise City-Nampa, ID
0.9% Casper, WY
0.9% Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ
0.9% Santa Fe, NM
0.9% Redding, CA
0.9% Boulder, CO
0.9% Appleton, WI
0.8% Fort Collins-Loveland, CO
0.8% Bangor, ME
0.7% Medford, OR
0.7% Pocatello, ID
0.7% Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA
0.6% Grand Junction, CO
0.6% Billings, MT
0.6% Wausau, WI
0.6% Longview, WA
0.6% St. George, UT
0.6% Logan, UT-ID
0.6% Bismarck, ND
0.6% Prescott, AZ
0.6% Farmington, NM
0.6% McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX
0.5% Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
0.5% Laredo, TX
0.5% Idaho Falls, ID
0.5% Provo-Orem, UT
0.4% Bend, OR
0.4% Missoula, MT
0.3% Coeur d’Alene, ID
0.3% Lewiston, ID-WA
0.3% Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA

Data Source: The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Population “Table 23: Metropolitan Statistical Areas–Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin”

“Pittsburgh is cool now”, asserts an article discussed by Steve Sailer.

Sailer says that Pittsburgh’s non-diversity works in its favor.

In so doing, Sailer is making an implicit reference to the mechanics behind the widely-mocked term ‘vibrant’, which, as a code for ‘Nonwhite’, implies that Whites lack cultural ‘vibrancy’ (whatever that means, exactly). Pittsburgh shows, yet again, that this is wrong.

The 2010 census found 51 metro areas in the USA with over one million residents. “Cool” Pittsburgh is, in fact — by a wide margin — the whitest of them all. The full list:
.

List of USA’s Metro Areas by White Share of Population (2010)

.

_____________________________________________________

Data Source: The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Population “Table 23: Metropolitan Statistical Areas–Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin”
_____________________________________________________

These 51 metropolitan areas of one-million-plus residents have a cumulative total of:
— 90.0 million Whites (or 45.7% of total Whites in the USA).
— 77.1 million Nonwhites (or 68.9% of total Nonwhites in the USA).

See USA Metropolitanization by Race for more.
_____________________________________________________

Newt Gingrich (Birth name Newton Leroy McPherson). Born Harrisburg PA, June 1943. (Pastor Manning asserts, tongue-in-cheek, that Newt had a part-Black father, as his birth middle-name is ‘Leroy’. It’s true that the name ‘Leroy’ has been a Black name for generations now. Baby Newt, though, was named after his mother’s [white] father, born 1890. See below.)

Newt Gingrich’s Parents (Source).
(1) Newton Searles McPherson. Born PA, Feb 1923 (born to ‘non-martial liaison’)
(2) Kathleen Daugherty. Born PA, Nov 1925. [Age 16 at son's conception in Sept '42].

Newt Gingrich’s Grandparents
(1) Robert Nelson Kerstetter. Born PA, Aug 1888. [Married to another woman at conception of son in '22].
(2) Louise S. McPherson. Born PA, Aug 1905. [Age 16 at conception of son in May '22]. Later married a man named Kepner: Illegitimate son did not take his name.
(3) Jacob Leroy Daugherty. Born PA, ca.1890.
(4) Ethel M. Hendricks. Born PA, ca.1896.

For what it’s worth, all of Newt’s great-grandparents appear to have been born in Pennsylvania between the late 1840s and 1870s. There are many holes in the genealogy beyond that, making an ancestral summary similar to Mitt Romney‘s impossible.

To summarize:
(1) Newt’s mother, Kathleen Daugherty, was pregnant with him at age 16. His 19-year-old biological father, Newton Searles McPherson, was nowhere to be found after Newt was born. There was apparently a very-short-lived marriage and a quick divorce. The unwed-teen mother, with baby Newt in tow, married a man named Gingrich a few years later.

(2) Newt’s father, Newton Searles McPherson, was himself conceived in a “non-marital liaison” between a 33-year-old man and a 16-year old girl. The pair did not marry, and it is likely the 33-year-old man was already married. (I cannot confirm this, but odds are strong, given marriage-rates at the time). This would even be scandalous today, of course, but was truly a bottom-of-the-barrel occurrence in the 1920s, when Newton Searles McPherson (Newt’s father) was born. Among Whites, the share of births to unmarried mothers was under 2% in the 1930s, according to statistics compiled by Vincent Clark.

Both of Newt’s parents were of weak moral character. Indeed, they were in the bottom 2%(!) if one were to quantify morality using the illegitimacy rate. (See also a previous post discussing the USA’s White Illegitimacy rate, 1940-2010.)

.
‘The Newt Method For Success in Romance’
We have all heard the pattern, common among Urban-Blacks and Newt himself: (1) Find a woman, begin an sexual affair with her (sometimes politely called “taking a mistress”), (2) Leave your present woman-partner for the ‘mistress’ (including if you are married. Including also, in Newt’s case, if the wife is terminally-cancer-ridden). (3) Repeat. (4) Repeat. If Newt were of a younger generation, or not in politics, he would probably not even bother with the marriages. He appears to be a high-IQ version of the ‘cad’ archetype.

A photo of Newt, his first wife (Jackie), and daughters in 1976:
.

The woman was Newt’s teacher in high school, seven years his senior. This means she was 40 already in this picture and Newt was 33. After several affairs, he would drop this woman a few years later for a younger one.

Newt on why he wanted a divorce from Jackie:

Newt Gingrich:
“She [Jackie] is not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.” Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. “Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals.” NYTimes.com 11/24/1994

Ouch.

Falling Apples and Trees
A detailed analysis of Mitt Romney’s ancestry reveals that he is descended from basically moral people (discounting the cases of polygamy during the early Mormon period). No illegitimacy. No “non-marital liaisons” between teen girls and middle-aged men. No, instead we find generations of hard working men and women. Trials and tribulations overcome. Romney’s ancestors’ stories are quite remarkable.

Compare to Newt Gingrich: He has a reputation for undisciplined recklessness in politics: “It was an idea a minute” during his time leading the Republicans, but “it was an idea a minute, no discipline, no ability to be able to pull things together.” (Source). This is reminiscent of the general lack of moral discipline he has displayed in life, which itself is lifted from the pages of his ancestors’ lives.

Alas, we see again that if one is looking for a rotten apple, one ought look near a rotten apple-tree.

The typical White-American is aware of his own particular ancestry, to some extent or another. Most people are, consciously or otherwise, animated by such knowledge. It thus makes sense to analyze the ancestries of aspirant politicians.

For this purpose, I profile, below, each of Republican Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents, based on the excellent genealogical research of William Reitwiesner. I previously examined Richard Nixon’s ancestry in a similar way, finding that Nixon was of 100%-Colonial-extraction, which may shed light on his politics. (Nixon’s ancestors’ stories are fascinating. Here from the earliest Colonial days, pushing the frontier right behind Daniel Boone in the late 1700s; he even had a direct ancestor die at Gettysburg in July 1863. How much more ‘Americana’ can it get?)

• Synopsis off Mitt Romney’s Ancestry
• Most of his ancestral stock consists of early converts to Mormonism from Britain (most from Northwest-England and Scotland) who were impelled to the USA from the 1830s to the 1850s, settling directly in Mormon communities.
• Colonial-Yankees account for 27% of Romney’s ancestral stock.
• 12.5% (one-eighth) of his ancestral stock comes from Northern-Germany.
• Many of Romney’s ancestors who were then-living participated in the dramatic 1846-7 Mormon Exodus from Illinois to Utah.
• All of Romney’s ancestral lines end up in Utah by the 1880s.
• Some went to Mexico at the end of the 1800s, but were expelled in 1912, and went back to Utah.

– — –

Mitt Romney: Ethnic Ancestry Summary
40.6% England — Mostly Northwest England, partly W.Midlands.
18.8% Scotland
26.6% Colonial-Yankee
12.5% North-German
1.5-3% French, Acadian and possible Huguenot (see entries #5 and #7 far below)

– — –

_____________________________________________
Mitt Romney’s Parents

(1) George Wilcken Romney. He was born in 1907 in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico, where his parents had married in 1895. All such colonies were raided, harassed, and forced to close by Mexican bandits-cum-revolutionaries in the early 1910s, their residents fleeing back to the USA. In other words, Mitt Romney’s own father was expelled from his very birthplace, as a youth, by angry-Mexicans(!). G.W.Romney married in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1931, and went on to great deeds in business and politics.
(2) Lenore LaFount. She was born in 1908 in Utah.

.
Pictured, in 1947, from left:
– George W. Romney [37.5% Scottish, 25% English, 25% German, 12.5% Colonial-Yankee]
– Baby Mitt Romney
– Lenore LaFount Romney [56.2% English, 40.6% Colonial-Yankee, 3.1% Acadian (see entry #7), 0-3% Huguenot (see entry #5)]

The same people in 1962, the year George Romney was elected governor of Michigan and appeared on the cover of Time:
.

– — – –
Now, most people’s animating-ancestral-awareness extends back, in my opinion, three generations — to the persons of their great-grandparents, such that when one knows of specific ancestors very far beyond that, it becomes trivia, rather than significant for one’s worldview-formation and identity-formation — which is what we are interested in here. This being the case, let us examine in some depth the eight great-grandparents of Republican candidate Willard Mitt Romney (b.1947), their ethnic origins, their personal backgrounds, and their life experiences. Photos are included where available, from here or findagrave.com unless otherwise noted.
– — – –

Mitt Romney’s Great-Grandparents [w/ Summary of Each Individual's Ethnic-Ancestry]

(1) Miles Park Romney. [100% English Ancestry]. He was born in 1843 in the Mormon settlement of Nauvoo, Illinois. (Lincoln was not far away at the time, practicing law and getting his start in politics.) “Great-Grandpa Romney’s” birthplace of Nauvoo has an interesting history, which as a non-Mormon, I was not aware of: In the Summer of 1839, it was naught but a small frontierish-town on the Mississippi River, probably something like Mark Twain described in his novels. Joseph Smith and his supporters, chased out of everywhere else, purchase the town in late 1839. Smith rules it as a quasi-theocracy, and invites all Mormons in North America and further afield to come on over. Rumors of polygamy (which were true), among other things, enraged local ‘traditional Christians’. Five years of uninterrupted antagonism between the Mormons and local (then-)frontier Protestants, culminated in the vigilante killing of Joseph Smith in 1844. The Mormons then decide to abandon Nauvoo for Utah, which was well-and-truly empty. Miles Park Romney would have thus participated in the Mormon exodus of 1846-7, but would have been too young to remember much of it. He married in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1862. This is a well-documented line: Both this man’s parents were born in rural Lancaster County, Northwest England, midway between Liverpool and the Scottish border, and all his ancestors going further back are from northwest England. His family were early converts to Mormonism, if they were in Nauvoo already in 1843. Miles P. Romney went on, in later adult life, to found one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico on which his grandson George P. Romney, was born in 1907. An extended biography of Miles Park Romney is available here.

Miles Park Romney

(2) Hannah Hood Hill. [100% Scottish]. She was born in 1842 in Tosoronto Township, in what would become Simcoe County, Ontario, Canada. This woman was born the year before the region of her birth was officially organized as a county by Canada, and therefore she might be called ‘pioneer-stock’ (although this may be a stretch), or at least settler-stock, rather than ‘immigrant stock’ (implying one who moves into an established urban area, taking advantage of what has already been set up by others). All four of her grandparents were born in Scotland, and made the move to British-Canada in the 1810s and 1820s. Her family converted to Mormonism and participated in the 1846-7 westward trek. Her mother died on the westward trail in 1847. She married in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1862.

Hannah Hood Hill Romney

(3) Helaman Pratt. [50% Colonial-Yankee, 50% Scottish.] This man was, poetically, born in 1846 in a covered wagon while his family was ‘on the westward march’, the Mormon Exodus from the eastern-USA. His birthplace is recorded as “off the trail in Iowa”. That mystique loses some of its appeal, to those of us who are not Mormons, when we learn that his mother was one his father’s several wives. His father was an early Mormon leader named Parley Parker Pratt. Helaman Pratt was married in Utah in 1874. His father (Parley Parker Pratt) was of entirely Connecticut-Yankee stock, going deep back into the early Colonial era, while his mother was born in Scotland.

Helaman Pratt

(4) Anna Johanna Dorothy (“Dora”) Wilcken. [100% Northern-German]. She was born in 1854 in near the city of Luebeck, in Holstein, Northern-Germany. Her parents, married in that region of Northern-Germany in 1853, are both buried in Utah. Her father, Carl Heinrich Wilcken, was apparently something of an adventurer. Despite having a young wife and child, in early 1857 he went abroad, with vague ambitions to make it to Argentina. In the Spring of 1857, a 25-year-old Carl found himself out of money in New York City, though, and joined the U.S. Army, as it was a reliable source of income. He was well used to army life, having served in the Prussian Army as a teenager. Carl was trained and sent west with the Army that summer to keep an eye on the Mormons. He thus took part in the ‘Mormon War’. For nebulous reasons, he deserted the Federal Army in the Fall to join the Mormon militia. He converted to Mormonism, and went on to achieve a degree of prestige in Utah society, serving as a bodyguard for two Mormon leaders. Carl sent for his German wife and daughter (Dora) in 1860. The prestige Carl achieved is reflected in the fact that his daughter, Dora, married the son of Mormon leader Parley Parket Pratt (see #3 above). (More information on Carl Wilcken, including an excerpt from a short memoir he wrote, is available here). In terms of Dora’s ancestry: We know that all of her great-grandparents were in Northern-Germany in year 1800, all living in rural areas, so there is no hint of anything exotic. Some of her ancestors were born near Luebeck, some near Schwerin, some near Kiel. Recall that George W. Romney (Mitt’s father) has the middle name Wilcken, which is this woman’s maiden name, suggesting a particular affinity for this line on behalf of George’s mother, perhaps again reinforcing the notion that Carl was held in high esteem. [See the comments for a discussion of whether Dora Wilcken, born near the then-poorly-defined Danish-German border, could have been Danish or part-Danish].

Carl Heinrich (Carl Henry) Wilcken

(5) Robert Arthur LaFount. [100% English, possibly 1-12% French]. He was born in 1856 in Belbroughton, County Worcester (‘West Midlands’ region), England. He married in Birmingham, England, in 1879. Information on this line is not as detailed as that for some others. As best as can be ascertained, though, all of Robert LaFount’s ancestors were born in England going back several generations. The Birmingham connection might have implied a possible Irish-origin for at least some of his ancestors, due to the heavy Irish immigration to the industrial cities of Northern-England at the time. That this is almost surely not the case here is seen by the fact that his ancestors all have English surnames like Edwards, Brett, and Bateman. The name ‘LaFount’ itself, of course, sounds French. The ultimate French origin for this paternal line was not particularly recent. The paternal line seems to have been in England in the early 1800s. Information on when exactly this ‘LaFount’ line entered England is missing, but there are two possibilities: (a) The original LaFount was a post-1789-Revolution political refugee from France, who married an Englishwoman, and all of his subsequent descendants did likewise. This speculative scenario would make Robert A. LaFount himself most likely 1/8th [12.5%] French, the rest English. The other possibility: (b) The original LaFount was a French Huguenot-Protestant refugee who came earlier, perhaps in the Huguenot wave of around 1700, when 50,000 Huguenots expatriated to England. In this case, if all the subsequent marriages in this line were with English girls, Robert A. LaFount would be only marginally French by ethnic-ancestry, perhaps 3.1% [1/32nd] at most, and likely less. I find (b) more compelling. Why? Because we find that the marriage between Robert’s parents was conducted in the rural hamlet of ‘Great Witley’, County Worcester, in 1855, hardly where one would expect the grandson of an exiled French aristocrat to marry. NOTE on Huguenot Ancestry: Minor Huguenot ancestry is probably present in most English people by this point. The other lines in this Robert A. LaFount’s own deep-ancestry — all with English surnames going back three generations — may very well have a Huguenot or two five or six generations back, but the records are not complete for them, so it is unclear. The same is true for any of the English lines in this genealogy. Minor-Huguenot ancestry has become part of the basic ancestral-stock of the native-English. For this reason, it is probably best to simply subsume such minor Huguenot ancestry within the category of ‘English’, as we tend to do for ‘American Colonial Stock’. /// It is likely that the English couple, Robert Arthur LaFount and wife Emily Ethel Hewitt (see below), converted to Mormonism around the time of their marriage in 1879 (which was conducted in England), and immigrated to Utah in the 1880s, in their mid to late 20s. Their son, Mitt Romney’s grandfather Harold LaFount, was born in Birmingham, England in 1880, and married in Utah in 1903. Both Robert Arthur LaFount and Emily Hewitt died in Utah.

(6) Emily Ethel Hewitt. [probably 100% English]. She was born in 1861 in Birmingham, England. See the entry above on Robert A. LaFount for more information on her life-trajectory. Detailed ancestry information for this person is lacking, including the birthplaces of her parents. She herself was born in Birmingham. Her parents’ typically-English names (Thomas Samuel Hewitt, Elizabeth Booth) suggest that she was of unmixed English-ancestry, though this cannot be confirmed very far back. What is confirmed is that Robert Arthur LaFount and wife Emily had a son, Harold Arundel LaFount (1880-1952). A photo of the couple’s son, Mitt Romney’s grandfather (source), is included below.

Harold Arundel LaFount,
Son of #5 and #6

(7) Charles Edward Robison. [87.5% Colonial-Yankee, 12.5% Acadian]. He was born in 1845 in the Mormon colony in Illinois called Nauvoo, two years after Miles Park Romney, #1 above. (See the entry for M.P.Romney, above, for more on the story of Nauvoo). Charles Robinson’s parents were married at Nauvoo on Christmas Day 1839, making them among the very first Mormons to be married in the emerging world capital of Mormonism of the early to mid 1840s. (Nauvoo was only established as a Mormon settlement in the last months of 1839, after which is began to be flooded with Mormons fleeing from the east). Both of Charles Robison’s parents were of Colonial-Yankee stock, though among his ancestors we do find, three generations back, one Huguenot Acadian (Of the French-Colonial population that became the Lousiana Cajuns) [Thanks to commenter flieralls for this correction], making Charles Robinson one-eighth ‘French’. In general, one subsumes partial-French-Huguenot-ancestry into the label ‘Colonial Stock’. (After all, who would ever call Paul Revere ‘French’?). Perhaps the same could be done with Acadians, but for the sake of precision, I have split it here. /// The Mormon westward trek began in Spring 1846, only a few months after Charles Edward Robison was born. He was married in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1865, and died in 1883 on a mission to South Carolina.

Charles Edward Robison

(8) Rosetta Mary Berry. [75% Colonial-Yankee, 25% English]. She was born in 1843 in Albion, Michigan. According to an historical account by Frank Passic, an Albion, Michigan historian, Rosetta’s uncle converted to Mormonism in the 1840s, but remained in Michigan. In a religious fervor, the uncle took his family west with a secondary wave of Mormons in 1850, but died on the way. Though the uncle died en-route, Rosetta’s aunt did not. Rosetta’s parents must have bee influenced by the zealous uncle, as they too end up going west while Rosetta is very young. In 1865, while the U.S. Civil War is winding down in the east, Rosetta married. Ancestrally, three of her four ancestral branches are of Colonial-Yankee stock, while the fourth comes from Lancashire, Northwest England. (Photo courtesy of Frank Passic).

Rosetta Mary Berry

– — – — – — –
– — – — – — –

Q. What can Mitt Romney’s ancestral-stock tell us about his personal identity, his worldview, his animating sympathies, potential historical grievances? All of these would clearly influence what kind of leader he would be.

Some thoughts:
Mitt Romney is 100% Northwestern-European by ancestry. Our era is one in which a clear minority of babies now being born in the USA are of Northwestern-European-ancestry. A super-majority were when Mitt Romney was born and as he was growing up. This allows for the possibility that Mitt Romney harbors Voelkisch sympathies, as a man who has witnessed such a dramatic reversal of demographic fortunes in so short a time.

On the related but separate question of ‘Americanism’: only a minority of Mitt’s ancestors were in the USA in 1776. More significantly still, perhaps, is that none of Mitt’s ancestors participated in the U.S. Civil War in any way. Though seven of the eight branches of his family profiled above were in North America by 1861, they were far off in Utah, and sat out the conflict. His own father even deserted from the American Army in 1857 while stationed on the Mormon Frontier! (I don’t hold the “desertion” against Carl Wilcken as such, but it does show he did not have any strong loyalty to ‘the USA’).

One could further argue that Utah was not a ‘true’ part of the USA until at least a generation after Appomattox, maybe two. Utah statehood came only in 1896, a few years after Mormon leaders formally decreed an end to polygamy. (The Mormon aspect to all this is a bit beyond me, and I don’t know what to make of it).

Considering the above, one could even ask the question “To what extent does Romney see himself as ‘deeply-American’…?”