I hypothesize that opposition to the EU is one proxy for opposition to non-White invasion. UKIP is a good example of a party whose only memorable position besides Brexit is opposition to immigration.
On the other hand, Poland, a country where one MEPs called lazy immigrants human trash, is also the second most pro-EU. Of course, it's an outlier in this respect, because it views EU membership as offering security from Russia. Therefore, immigration is blamed specifically on Merkel and the Germans, who are nonsensically divorced from the blameless EU.
On the other side of the pond, the age group which Trump does the best with is 45-64.
My second hypothesis is that below age 40, people are not wise, they don't have experience, they are idealistic and choose social signalling over reality. Above age 65, people start to become delusional and think Marco Rubio is a nice young man. They've lost skin in the game and only care about social security. They have exited the working class, are retired, care less about competing with non-Whites for employment and more about finding cheap Mexican maids and landscapers. They are not willing to fight against the forces of darkness.
Evidence has come out that year of birth influences party affiliation not according to my theory of peak wisdom / minimal senility, but because of contemporary political events which occur between ages 14 and 24. 45, 69 years olds are 55% Republican, while 61 year olds are 51% Democrat. 48 year olds are 56% Republican, and that dips down to 49% Republican at age 61, but then goes up again to 55% at age 69. Therefore political affiliation is influenced by the events of a generation, and not best explained with a linear correlated by age.
Yet I would still maintain that political decisions are still more influenced by the way an individual makes risk-taking decisions, which is both biological and hereditary in nature. The brain changes over time:
“If we believe that we’re hardwired for our political views, then it’s really easy for me to discount in you in a conversation. ‘Oh, you’re just a conservative because you have a red brain,’ or ‘Oh, you’re a liberal because you have a blue brain,’” Schreiber explains. “But that’s just not the case. The brain changes. The brain is dynamic.”
From the data on Trump and UKIP, it seems that peak redpill comes between ages 45 and 55.
One counter example might be seen in Greece's Golden Dawn, which is gaining a heavy percentage of voters 18-24. But that's a revolutionary situation. At the end of the day, if a revolution is necessary, voting will be superfluous. Ostensibly, the democratic process is only suited to non-revolutionary periods, which are best navigated by the 45-55 crowd.
Additionally, Trump leads with veterans. Maybe Heinlein was right.
I propose a thought experiment: if we wanted to increase the voting share of White males between the ages of 45 and 55 without explicitly banning women, or young people (age is just a number, goy), or old people, or non-Whites (social construct, Goy), what proxies could we use to achieve this?
I propose five additional restrictions on suffrage which would have a similar effect to banning women, young people, old people, and non-White from voting:
In order to be eligible to vote, you must:
(1) complete 4 years of military service as an officer;
(2) you must be married with three or more healthy children;
(3) you must never access social security or welfare funds;
(4) you must not divorce;
(5) you must never commit a misdemeanor or felony;
(6) you must not be descended from any man who has not yet satisfied rules (1) or (2), or who has broken rule (3), (4), or (5).
(7) you must not be descended from any woman who has not yet satisfied rule (2), or who has broken rules (3), (4), or (5).
(1) Requires that you be over the age of 21.
Additionally, (1) favors non-Hispanic Whites (labeled NH white), who are 75% of the officer class. Additionally, since only 22% of officers are female, this would drastically decrease the female vote.
(2) also has a (((disparate impact))).
Only 64% of Blacks have ever been married, as opposed to 84% of Whites.
Divorce is most common among 20-24 year olds, and living together prior to getting married can increase the chance of getting divorced by as much as 40%. Divorce decreases with education.
For (2), I had trouble finding the average age of third child, but the average age of first child spans between 18 in Africa, to 31 in Greece. The average age of first marriage for males is the highest in Sweden (34.3), and the lowest for females is 17.7 in Niger. The average American woman waits 2.5 years before having another child, so we can assume that the average age of voter eligibility would be at a minimum 20.7 (for R-selecting females) and at a maximum average of 39.3 (for K-selecting males).
Rules (6) and (7) would make voting hereditary: that is to say, if one of your parents became ineligible to vote because of a felony, because of dependence on social services, or because of divorce, you would lose your right to vote. Voters can only be descended from voters.
What if my voting restrictions had been implemented in 1776? None of them technically discriminate against women or non-Whites (>implying women are equal officers to men, >implying equal divorce and crime rates). But these restrictions would, in effect, create an elite caste of people who would be directly descended from the original enlisted men of the continental army and their wives.
The maximum number of men enlisted in the continental army was no more than 231,771. There were up to 70,000 casualties. Of the remaining 160,000, no more than 20%, or 32,000, would have been officers. These officers then would need to have three children and not commit any crimes to pass on the right to vote to their children. Assuming a 75 fold increase in population between 1784 and 2016 of 4 million to 300 million, the current voting population would be 2,400,000, or slightly less than 1% of the population. Yet a proportion of the population increase between 1784 and 2016 has not been due to births, but due to immigration.
We can get an idea of the "non-continental" growth rate by looking at non-continental stock, like Catholics. In 1790, the total U.S. Catholic population was probably less than 5%. Given that the total population was 3,900,000, Catholics would represent no more than 20,000. Today, Catholics are 20% of the population, or 60,000,000. Therefore, between 1790 and 2016, there has been a 30,000 fold increase in the number of Catholics.
Once you subtract Catholics and "Black church" Christians, you have 44% of Americans in 2016 who are Protestant Christians, and 23% who are non-religious. Let's assume that all of these, 67%, are descended from founding continental stock (fallacious, but let's try it.) That means that from a population of nearly 4 million in 1790, the founding stock has increased to 200 million, or an increase of 50 fold (significantly less than 75 fold). This gives us the total number of eligible voters today as up to 1.6 million.
But we can also assume that many men would not necessarily complete military service, or have three or more healthy children, and that many men would commit felonies or misdemeanors.
Let's assume there are 6896 "continental" births per year for the last 232 years. Of these births, only 50% are male. Of the remaining 3448, 25% eventually become divorced, or commit a crime, or do not complete military service. This means that, assuming uniform population growth every year (which again is a terrible model), we would end up with, at most, 599,952 eligible voters today. They would probably vote themselves aristocratic privileges and become a degenerate elite. But that might be better than (((jews))).