Wednesday, January 04, 2017

United against free speech

The following graph shows the percentages of adults under 40 years old--the cohort that shapes the zeitgeist--who are opposed to allowing a racist to speak publicly, by political orientation and over time:

Note: Y-axis runs from 20% to 50% in the graphic

We're increasingly a nation united when it comes to stamping out HateSpeech! in the public square. This petition on is something putative moderates at The Hill and True Conservatives at National Review are presumably on board with.

Given the runaway inflation in what constitutes racism (specifically that blacks are "inferior" in the context of this GSS question) since the seventies--to the point that tens of millions of Americans now believe voting for the winning presidential candidate is evidence of it--we might expect support for a blanket restriction on it to have lessened over time.

To the contrary, it appears we're a decade or two away from an outright majority opposing the first amendment. If you're relying on centuries-old parchment to hold the line against civilizational collapse, you're clinging to straws while drowning.

On the other hand, this data only runs through 2014. There's plenty of reason to think that 2016 is the year everything changed. When the GSS releases results from the Current Year just ended it will be interesting to see if we're able to detect a reversal in the trend towards restricting free speech.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, YEAR(1970-1979,1980-1989,1990-1999,2000-2009,2010-2014), AGE(18-39), POLVIEWS(1-3,4,5-7)


Feryl said...

Huh. When the GOP was the party of the upper class and Western libertarians in the 60's and 70's, they weren't sensitive to racism accusations. As soon as the Reagan revolution caused many race realist proles and middle middle class people in the South/Midwest/Mid-Atlantic to switch from Dem to Republican (on 80's Pres. tickets anyway), the remaining cultural elites in the GOP started pearl clutching to their fellow elites about distancing themselves from the Bircher crowd. It would seem too that the GOP voting proles and youths themselves became reluctant to publicy acknowledge race realism as striving and PC made such things unfashionable. Perhaps if poppa Bush had run in 1980, we wouldn't have seen the same surge in GOP populist sentiment and the cultural elites would've been more comfortable staying in the GOP.

More evidence too that moderates are smug pansies. It seems these people would rather concern themselves with the terms of discourse than actually get their hands dirty.

The revolt staged by Trump to allow race realists and nativists to essentially take over the GOP base will kick the remaining liberaltarian elites out of the GOP if they don't get a clue that it's not the 80's or 90's anymore. Non-TrueCons who voted for Trump don't really give a damn about the capital gains tax, or federal sanctions against pot, or supply-side economics. We care about protecting ourselves, our families (including one's "extended" family e.g. one's ethnicity), our workplaces, and our neighborhoods from criminals, immigrants, and terrorists.

Fascinating too that nativist populist sentiment seems to consistently run from Upstate NY/the Italian boroughs of NYC in the Northeast, to the Florida Panhandle in the Southeast, to the Great Lakes in the Northwest, and diminishes as you go further west although Arizona and Texas offer us some support.

Feryl said...

Also, some TrueCons are being tone-deaf by boasting about the Dem's pre-later 70's KKK allegiance. Guys, the Dems were the prole party (including Southern nativists) from the 40's-60's. The GOP drew closer to the proles in the 70's and 80's, but by the 90's the growth in elitism and striving meant that neither party wanted to be the prole party anymore. Now that Trumpism means to reduce the most outrageous striving by elites and immigrants, the GOP can assume the populist mantle for perhaps the next 3-4 decades while the dwindling cultural elitists continue to suffer from attrition as defying wishes of metalhead-Americans proves to be a ticket to irrelevancy in great swathes of America.

Black Death said...

I wonder about this. "Moderates" are the most interested in banning "hate speech," while "conservatives" and "liberals" are almost equally less enthusiastic. Really? It seems all the blather about this comes from the progressives, who just want to forbid the expression of ideas they don't like.

Anyway, here's some pretty nasty stuff about Jews and Israel from our friends, the Palestinians. Some of this offal would have drawn approving comments from Julius Streicher. Yet this is what they teach their kids. I wonder if would like to get this stuff banned from Twitter. It certainly looks Nazi to me. If not, why not? Or are only certain Nazis evil?

Audacious Epigone said...


Right, they don't care about capital gains and supply-side economics but they're not necessarily hostile to them, either. Trump's MARS base will work with the elites on the things they care about if the liberalterian (great term) elite will reciprocate. The elites reflexively refuse to do so because they disdain the dirt people. We'll see how many of them stubbornly refuse to accept the new reality and how many humble themselves a little.

Black Death,

A couple of things to keep in mind--women are more likely to be moderate and people of modest intelligence tend to be moderate. Both of these broad groups are more likely to favor restricting speech than men and high IQ people are, respectively. A lot of moderates aren't necessarily politically moderate, they're simply apolitical and don't know how else to describe themselves on the liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum.

I assume that question about some Nazis being more equal than others is rhetorical!

Dan said...

"If you're relying on centuries-old parchment to hold the line against civilizational collapse, you're clinging to straws while drowning."

At least when it comes to the First Amendment I am optimistic. Regular people don't obsess over the written law like this but judges and lawyers do.

What has been the difference for being allowed to own guns in America versus, say, the UK or Australia? I would argue that it is only the Second Amendment. And yet what a difference it has made!

The same applies with speech. Westboro Baptist church was found to have the right to protest by screaming gay slurs at the funerals of fallen soldiers. That was an 8-1 win at the Supreme Court, even though it was the most offensive speech imaginable, offending all sides:

(1) Offended lefties by hating on gays.
(2) Offended patriots by disrupting the funerals of fallen soldiers.
(3) Offended religious people with 'God hates fags'
(4) Offended polite people with crudeness
(5) Offended educated people with redneck-ness
(6) Offended anyone who has lost a loved one
(7) Seems to be close to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. If my child died and I was attending their funeral, I'd feel morally justified in responding to heckling with violence.

I think of myself as very pro-free-speech and even I think disrupting funerals of non-public people should not be allowed.

Who was on Westboro's side? I bet less than 5% would have said that they should have the right to scream 'God hates fags' at the funerals of soldiers, which seems more like harassment of private citizens than speech.

Yet Westboro Baptist Church prevailed and it wasn't even close: 8-1.

Threats to speech are mainly from the likes of Facebook and Twitter, which are not bound by the Second Amendment. That and social shaming and threats to livelihood.

Audacious Epigone said...


Great points. It's not an omnipotent thing but it's not nothing, either, not even close. It's an ally but it's not sufficient.

Regarding freedom of speech--and most of the bill of rights in general--you're right, government is often the most protective of these things. There are countless businesses and other private organizations that put restrictions on speech, ban firearms, etc. AmRen and NPI both use government facilities to host their events now IIRC because private venues are so unreliable for them.

Feryl said...

"The elites reflexively refuse to do so because they disdain the dirt people. We'll see how many of them stubbornly refuse to accept the new reality and how many humble themselves a little."

It's going to take years and years to de-program the striving/status anxiety among the cultural elite. Heartland politicians I think will be rather pliable (at least the white ones) since Trumpism is going to be a home-run. Ya you really think the fact-checkers are going to dissuade the Al Bundys from knowing that Trump is single-handedly doing more to save jobs than any post LBJ president? We might see non info-tech manufacturing industries finally get a heart about protecting American jobs. Why, doesn't it feel good to not sell us out for the umpteenth time since the mid 70's?

We've reached peak elitism and credentialism. For what it's worth, these things were never THAT important in a lot of prole areas to begin with. And doubtless, Hollywood and Manhattan are never going to be able totally stifle their commie impulses. But with the growing backlash towards cultural Marxism, eventually they'll have to keep it in the closet like they did in the pre mid-60's and the Reagan era.

Also, we're reaching an undeniable flash of civic discord. Much like how 1950's and 60's coddlers and grievance mongers set off a decades long crime wave among all persuasions ( but especially blacks), we're now seeing a similar thing as "leaders" devote more energy to sympathizing with the chaotic horde and less energy to locking them up. The results are going to be even worse this time since we now have tons of Muslims and people who aren't even solidly American stirring crap up. A big reason Reagan went over so well is because people were sick and tired of the excesses of the late 60's and 70's, whether it was the riots, the cults, the light handling of criminals, a lax policy towards drugs, and so on. Trump will never be as popular due to demographic changes and the striving climate being much worse these days. But we've got to start somewhere. Secure the borders, round up the illegals, and intimidating doofus lawyers, politicians, and CEOs.

Maybe we can only dream of AA and EEOC being gutted by a reactionary All-star team. But we've gotten closer at a far earlier period than any of could've imagined two years ago.

Audacious Epigone said...


Trump's 2-3 million illegal immigrants subject to immediate deportation is a homerun. I'm going to do a post about it this weekend--he is going to be the populist-in-chief. For all its problems, self-interested democracy is what we need to right the ship now. There's no other viable alternative. Trump is a fantastic vessel.

Do you write regularly in any particular location? Your style and substance I find compelling.

Feryl said...

Something that lib...ertarians and white proles alike can agree on is that jettisoning onerous HR/AA/EEOC (Soviet I mean civil rights association regulations) would immediately free up companies to devote more time to productive activities after:
- 86-ing lousy employees
- spending less resources towards court battles/settlements regarding PC disputes involving harassment/discrimination claims
- feeling a surge in morale as white business owners/managers enjoy a more peaceful work environment that's been scrubbed of incompetent and entitled AA hires. Just like how it was before the dickhead lawyers and activists (but I repeat myself) both codified association regulations and made discrimination lawsuits a nation pastime by the mid 1970's.

Talk about growth potential!

The great myth of the last 50 years is that forceful integration via overturning covenants, civil service tests, and hiring freedom has been a net positive. Nope. Not only for guys like us, obviously, but I'd argue virtually everyone with the exception of bureaucrats and lawyers. In addition to countless neighborhoods and schools being wrecked seemingly forever (much of the urban Midwest), or alternating between cycles of dark decay and light gentrification (more common in the East Coast), it's become substantially more difficult for both managers and serfs to find a comfortable work place. And duh, the gubermint is the least selective employer of all, thus the utterly lousy gov. performance since the mid 70's.

My dad said that Detroit, if I'm not mistaken, actually resorted to paying black civil workers to stay home! Why on Earth do liberals defend this BS? 'Cuz whites once had slaves? (so has every other race). To keep blacks out of trouble? .Before the 70's this was accomplished via local standards of discipline and association. In other words, outright violence if the offender was very stubborn or dangerous, and more gentle forms of suggestion and persuasion. Nobody felt sorry for you if you arrogantly trespassed. No particular person was that special or entitled. The "right" of a community to live, work, worship,and socialize as they pleased among a particular sort of crowd overruled the individual's ability to impose his vision or desires on those to whom he bore no ethnic or ideological connection.

Nothing lasts forever. The post 1970 civil rights era has no magical qualities that impart eternal life. Right now the Leftists are stricken with strife. Split along geographic, ethnic, and generational lines. They're all trying to impose their particular vision not just on the heartland untermenschen, but on on their co-Leftists as well. After Hillary imploded, taking the Dem's remaining power down with her, it's revealed all kinds of division. The Trumpenreich can, without much difficulty, topple America's urban, coastal, and collegiate Babylons. Then again, the latest crime wave might do the trick. BTW, perhaps the final stand of liberal hubris is insisting that virtually everyone in the entire world has a right to move to Amerca. After all, why should domestic strivers be shaming foreign ones?

Feryl said...

I don't have anything personal anywhere. I do posts here, o'er at Agnostic's blog, and some movie reviews on IMDB. Considering the (with all due respect) fairly light readership of our niche, I don't see much reason to create my own blog or anything. Too much overlap with y'all, and no sense in diffusing our base and ideas between more blogs.

Of the Alt-right-sphere, I tend to get a little bored with sites that have too many flaky Boomers and snarky trolls (which is inevitable when your reader/commenter base gets big) unless they're rowdy Gen X populists.

There's something to be said too for keeping things modest. You don't want an ultra competitive, crowded, and narcissistic/insecure readership vying for attention. MPC is probably my favorite of the "big(ger)" sites, probably because there seems to be very few Boomers. Boomers are actually more conservative and old-school populist in some respects (esp. towards gays and religion), but their stridency and 60's nostalgia gets old fast.

Audacious Epigone said...


Was just talking to someone about the Calexit post and the righteous indignation from a lot of boomers (several sent me twitter messages and unfollowed in response). As Richard Spencer says of Pat Buchanan, great as he is, he's sort of stuck in the idea of this being just a few steps away from the America of 1960. We're way beyond that--boomers don't realize that people our age and younger have been swimming in this stuff since we swam out of our mothers. There is nothing left to conserve. Their promises to fight ring hollow--they should've started fighting a generation ago. We can't wait for the temperature to get a little warmer before we do something. Either we downsize or we're getting evicted if not boiled alive.

This blog actually gets a lot more traffic--121k last month--than comment numbers seem to indicate because so much of it comes from search results. Quant stuff has a pretty long shelf life. Agree regarding comment sections. I read every word Sailer writes at unz but rarely comment because so much gets lost in the sauce there.

Anonymous said...

Assuming you have Boomer parents, well, you know how it goes. Strauss/Howe pointed out decades ago that the late 60's saw a surge of interest in and concern for youth opinion. So let's see, they turned the tables on the stolid squares (G.I.s) who unquestionably tended the mechanized destruction of man and nature alike. By the 80's, they drove unprecedented levels of aesthetic authenticity and individualism though they disdained the "junk" culture created by "sell-out" Boomers and consumed by Gen X-ers born in this era. Ya see, we all had utopia in our grasp circa 1970, then we let disco, cocaine, MTV, attaining a nice house along with maybe 1-2 kids, and so on get in the way.

I dunno what's more dreary. Hearing Boomers (moreso the pre-'58 ones) repeat the story, or hearing Gen X-ers repeat this second-hand mythology as though the experiences of those whose freshman year of high school came after 1979 are not even worth hearing. Really, I think a lot of Gen X-ers need to just shut up about Boomer mythology whether it's 60's protestors, 70's film directors, 80's yuppies, and 90's helicopter parents. We don't need to encourage the Boomers by only seeing things through their eyes and by not doing more to let people know that we exist. What about 70's abortion victims, 80's child abuse victims, or 90's calloused teenagers?

BTW, Buchanan is a Silent. Boomers rarely acknowledge who the Silents were, either rejecting them or embracing them depending on the cred of a given Silent. So Scorsese and Bob Dylan mysteriously become Boomers on account of their aesthetic contributions. Part of the problem is that the Silents themselves never could quite make up their mind on whether they wanted to break with G.I.s or be the Boomer vanguard. Both Silents and Gen X have been far too timid in confronting Boomers about their conflations and grandiosity. Course, the Boomers never try to claim any Gen X-er as a peer; they only exist as Boomer children to the extent that they exist at all (early Gen-Xers are not really recognized at all by Boomers unless they happen to be family).

When a Boomer spitefully blocks you it's supposed to sting. We shouldn't let it get it to us. You guys had quite the ride, but it's gotta end sometime. While you're at it, knock off the daddy issues (wasn't Star Wars enough?). "Our dad's just didn't seem to relate to us" (the fathers who made mid-century America the most pleasant and safe place one could imagine). Enough already.

Feryl said...

Oops, that's me above. Just didn't put my name on it. I don't so much judge Boomers for what they did (they do enough judging themselves) as I much as wish they'd find a sheath and a muzzle sometimes. Unless we make peace with the fact that nobody (not even any Boomer) has any right to act like they know more and have done more than anyone else, we won't get much done. Boomers second guessed enough things with good reason that they became convinced that they had the right to keep piking the heads of sinners who get in the way of the utopian Boomer dream. Now that we've got a Boomer paladin in the white house, the Boomer critics, traitors, and fallen would-be heroes need to stay out of the way.

Audacious Epigone said...


Right, they seem collectively devoid of humility. They've created problems their ideologies have no way of addressing. Time to sit down and shut up.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

Several thoughts for you to consider --

1. Trump had a huge "gift" -- if you want to call it that -- in that Obama's huge slug of regulatory overhang has a huge amount of compliance cots.

Trump and Congress killing them, particularly the Obama care mandates on small business, will have the effect of a huge tax cut targeted at small business job creation.

2. The killing of Federal fracking regulations, the opening up of public lands for fracking, and sitting on the EPA to allow American natural gas exports to Europe and coal to Asia will accelerate America's move to being a net energy exporter.

The domestic economic, and the huge discressionary American military power plus up -- the Mid-East loses it's American garrison as the Saudi's and other oil ticks become economis competitors -- means America focuses upon Nukes, ballistic and cruise missile defense and the US fleet and _can afford to do so_.

3. The key economic killer from civil rights is the "Disparate impact doctrine" that has been interpreted as any objective test that excludes African-Americans for performance reasons is illegal. So college degrees become the only means test to exclude them from employment.

Allow objective tests for employment performance, and you both kill the higher education bubble that disparate impact credentialism has created plus you improve economic performance via increased productivity.

This is very much something Trump knows and as President can change.