The love a man feels for his family, if he loves his family, is an extension of the love he feels for himself.
In the same way the love a man feels for his race, if he loves his race, is an extension of the love he feels for himself and his family.
For this reason these two different things: Familycentric Feeling and Ethnocentric Feeling, both can be said to come from a common wellspring of healthy self-regard.
For this reason we would expect White Ethnocentrism to correlate with White Familycentrism.
But does it?
To test this proposition out I was forced to ignore polling data on individuals due to the lack of any examples of it where the Whites Respondents were broken down by their Fertility.
So instead, I tried to measure White Ethnocentrism in action by looking at how effective the White Electorate in a State was at electing Representatives who voted against the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill.
The McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill was a grave and nearly genocidal threat to the future of White People in North America. For this reason I think the more Ethnocentric the Whites in a State are, the more their Representatives would've voted against McCain-Kennedy.
Thus I'll be using the Percent of a State's Senators who voted against McCain-Kennedy in the critical Cloture Vote of June 28th, 2007 as my proxy for White Ethnocentrism:
The problem with this of course is that so many things other than the Ethnocentrism of his constituents can impact how a Senator will vote on even a bill of great racial importance.
To use just one example, Bernie Saunders (I) of Vermont comes from a State where the average White isn't Ethnocentric at all, but still voted against the Amnesty Bill because he's a committed Socialist who is against Corporations using cheap immigrant labor to drive down wages.
Also, there's the issue that this technique will fail to pick up on potentially profound within State correlations between White Ethnocentrism and White Fertility.
And finally, there's that Senators may better reflect elite opinion in their States than the feelings of the White Masses that voted for them. For example one of the Senators from Utah voted for Amnesty, not for the sake of reflecting the will of the common people in his State, but rather to mollify the Mestizo Convert Hungry Elites running the Mormon Church.
Still, I haven't yet been able to find a better way of estimating White Ethnocentrism, so this will have to do for now.
My proxy for White Familycentrism will be the Total Non-Hispanic White Fertility Rates for the different States, which I got from this site:
Here are the Average White TFRs for States organized by the Number of the State's Senators that voted against McCain-Kennedy:
N White TFR
2 Senators Against 19 1.92
1 Senators Against 17 1.90
0 Senators Against 14 1.71
As can be seen, the drop off in White Fertility from States where at least one Senator voted against Amnesty to States where neither Senator voted against it is statistically significant, as the Mann-Whitney test of the significance of difference between two means gives a P Value of only .000001.
This is a gap of 1.91 for the 36 States where at least one Senator voted against Amnesty versus 1.71 for the 14 States where neither Senator voted against Amnesty.
This must be accounted a large and important difference, as it's just barely smaller than the gap of 1.92 and 1.67 found between the the top 36 States by White Total Fertility Rate and the 14 States with the lowest White Total Fertility Rates.
And remarkably, if it wasn't for West Virginia and Virginia having slightly lower White TFRs than New Jersey, there wouldn't have been any overlap at all in White TFR between the 2 Senators against Amnesty and 2 Senators for Amnesty States.
This is a very strong effect considering what an imperfect correlate of White Ethnocentrism we used, and considering all the correlation there must be on the level of individuals between White Ethnocentrism and White Fertility that the study ignored.
Also it is worth noting something to show the potential evolutionary importance of a gap in TFR between 1.92 on one hand and 1.71 on the other:
If 100 Whites have a TFR of 1.90 they'll have 90.25 Grandchildren, while if 100 Whites have a TFR of 1.71 they'll only have 73.10 Grandchildren.
That's a difference of 23% in number of Grandchildren ancestored by the two groups.
Also, 100 Whites with a TFR of 1.90 would have 66.48 Tenth Generation Descendants, while 100 Whites with a TFR of 1.71 would have only 20.88 Tenth Generation Descendants.
That's a difference greater than a factor of three.
Read more...