Saturday, March 03, 2018

Ice people f*cking love science!

The percentages of people in the US, by selected demographics, who do agree that modern science does more good than harm (N = 2,675):


Some people think the way to Wakanda is through physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and applied technology. Others think it comes from a magic rock falling from the sky that spreads that magic through the surrounding dirt. The former are in demographic decline. The latter continue to undergo a massive demographic expansion.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2016), HARMGOOD(1-3)(4-5), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), BORN, SEX, RELIG(3)

31 comments:

Sid said...

1. No surprise almost all Jews f*cking love science!

2. Whites and Asians have near identical levels of support for science.

That is honestly somewhat surprising to me. Asians tend to be overrepresented in the sciences, and even though there are Evangelical Christians* among them, I would still think they would make up a smaller percentage of Asians than whites.

I don't know... Maybe Southeast Asians don't f*cking love science?

3. A point Steve Sailer makes is that blacks are more intellectual than Hispanics, relative to IQ. They're more intellectually curious and value education more than Hispanics. You can see that here - blacks like science somewhat more than Hispanics.

4. I associate the page "I F*cking Love Science!" with people who are moderately bright and want to make a big deal about how they believe in the theory of evolution and climate change. I also associate it with women who are smart enough to take science classes and maybe even smart enough to work in, say, a biology lab, but constantly need to reinforce their motivation to stay in the game.

It's not surprising to see that more men support science than women. There are more men who find it fascinating and can glide through it.

The I F*cking Love Science! crowd will act excited when they read an article about how a new planet has been discovered in a solar system somewhere. In that crowd, you will likely find about as many women as men, maybe even more. But among the scientists who are smart and immersed enough in astronomy to be making that discovery, you will find more men than women.

* In US culture, we tend to define being "pro-science" with believing in the theory of evolution and believing in man-made global warming. Evangelicals I've known usually become defensive when you say something is "scientific," showing that they distrust what that adjective usually entails.

Of course, I think feminists who think there are no inherent differences between men and women are just as anti-scientific as people who think the Great Flood drowned the dinosaurs around 3000 BC, but my view is idiosyncratic in American culture.

Feryl said...

It preciscely is science and tech that caused populations to soar....Most of all in the Global South which prior to the 1970's had a limited carrying capacity due to a lack of urbanization, poor quality desert and jungle soil, high disease burdens, corrupt leadership, and inept/primitive farming techniques.

Western and/or Han Chinese influences and aid, as well as these outsiders simply setting up shop in 3rd world hell holes and bringing greater development to these regions, account for the post-1970 population boom in the 3rd world. Ironically, when we started to be deluged with guilt-tripping images of 3rd world poverty in the 80's, we usually were looking at children born in the 70's, many of whom would not have been born were it not for the ill-advised involvement of ice people in Africa.

Africans who once lived in primitive villages and smallish tribes suddenly were living on streets paved by whites, had access (however limited) to cars and firearms, and quickly became dependent on white farmers and farm techniques who obliterated the traditionally small carrying capacity of Sub-Saharan Africa. And if the resources provided by established white colonialists weren't enough, virtually all Western countries by the 1980's were sending money, food, doctors, political consultants etc. to Africa. Millennia long restraints to African reproduction were lifted virtually overnight.

Feryl said...

If we just got the hell out of Africa, Malthusian limits to growth and African ineptitude at running anything would be re-introduced.

The usual suspects (war, famine, poverty, disease) would return the black population to it's historical level. Europeans and Asians are too resilient and creative to be held down by ostensible natural limits (and the best farmland in the world is almost always above the 35th parallel of latitude, below which the Sunbelt lies in America, and the 35th seems to be the Southernmost point for a decent level of civilization). Blacks, not so much.

Checking on the Cal. Central Valley, it turns out that the Valley's Southernmost city is Bakersfield, which is situated around the 35th parallel.

For whites, the skin cancer and disease burden grows a great deal below the 35th, as no region of Europe exists below the 35th. Whites spending so much time in the literal far North enabled us to get such pale skin. And it wouldn't surprise me if lower class North Africans and Meds tend to have darker skin and more nappy hair, due to at least slight Arab/African admixture (the upper class in these regions historically did not work outside and slaves many of whom weren't white frequently did). Meanwhile, among Teutons, Celts, Balts, and Northern Slavs, upper and lower class whites have historically been just that: really really white. In much of the US Southeast, the skin cancer and disease burden was so high for the Anglo-Celtic settlers that importing slave labor was inevitable. Notably, comparatively frigid Kentucky ended up joining the union, while Kansas (which has blistering summers) was bitterly fought over by pro-Confederates and abolitionists. But Kansas is just dry enough, and cold enough in the winter, that it ended being Union territory.

Jig Bohnson said...

The whole I F*cking Love Science thing may have been the first large-scale internet virtue signal in human history. When that first became a thing, even some scientists were pointing out that what people actually liked even if they truly did like the memes was photography or artist's renditions, not anything actually having to do with science and especially not the process of scientific inquiry.

Nowadays of course, the sentiment I F*cking Love Science is quite likely to be expressed by someone who couldn't string together one coherent scientifically accurate sentence on, say, energy, or exoplanets, or genetics, and may very well believe that there is no genotypic basis for the phenotypic differences between men and women, not that they would know what either of those words mean.

All of this is a long way of getting around to saying that some of that White and Asian (and even Jewish) advantage in the graph may actually be meaningless virtue signaling. Do they actually respect science? Are they actually interested in it, any more than the ~50% of blacks and Hispanics? Or are they just in milieus where they think they should say that? Is there a way to tease that out of the data?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

My vague sense is Asians appreciate technology but they're not more scientifically-inclined than whites. Weird oriental mysticism is nothing new!

Re: the IFLS! crowd, I scrolled through the Facebook page when putting the post together and it is, as Jig points out, mostly obnoxious virtue-signaling midwittery. It's about as scientifically serious as Bill Nye.

Outside of evolution (and 'climate change', though I'm hesitant to include that), Republicans are modestly more scientifically literate than Democrats.

Feryl,

The biggest question of the 21st century is what is going to happen to the unsustainably large (and growing) sub-Saharan African populations. Care to provide a sketch of how you see it playing out?

Jig,

Indeed, well put.

Whites do better than NAMs (and slightly better than Asians) on science literacy questions.

Jig Bohnson said...

Very interesting.

I don't know if this is possible from the data sets available, but I the following suggestion would IMO be a holy grail analysis that would potentially be widely cited: would it be possible to see what the relationship is between basic scientific literacy and political beliefs and/or partisan affiliation, among non-Hispanic whites, controlling for SES?

Feryl said...

"The biggest question of the 21st century is what is going to happen to the unsustainably large (and growing) sub-Saharan African populations. Care to provide a sketch of how you see it playing out?"

Who's gonna turn up the heat on the elites?

The verbal elites in academia, media, law, and politics never have to compete with immigrants. Why? Immigrants don't speak English, and thus, they don't threaten the verbal elites who at the moment dominate leadership of the West. Meanwhile, elites in general enjoy the increasingly exclusive neighborhoods in which they well; why should they care about other people being able to afford a decent place to stay? I got mine, now shut up and leave me alone.

Secondarily, business owner elites (most of whom are conservative) enjoy the cheap labor provided by immigrants. I think that explains the current dystopia. Liberal verbal elites think immigrants bring exotic food and culture with them, while business owners are hooked on cheap labor. Neither group gives a damn about vast areas of America being damaged due to diminished wages, higher living costs, and reduced social cohesion. And while the liberals tend to embrace diversity, often living somewhat close to it, the business/manager elite tends to live in the best suburbs and the exurbs which are far away from the ghetto.

Back in the Russian Revolution era, Western elites were spooked into becoming more populist, out of fear that continuing elite arrogance would spark a major and violent backlash. In the current era, so many parts of America have ceased to be ethnically and culturally American that the ability of legacy Americans to fight back has been damaged.

In all likelihood, I think that growing ranks of chauvinist Hispanics, blacks, and Muslims will eventually tear certain parts of the country apart, first driving out white conservatives and then, at long last, white liberals. This will eventually sour white liberals on the multi-cultural dream. As Peter Brimelow has said, the 1990's was the last decade where the foreign body induced infection could've been limited to California and Texas, who could've been forced, while still majority white, to have a reckoning over their allegiance: America, or the rest of the world? Yet here we decades later and elites in both California and Texas have overseen the swift decline of the white population in their states; in the former's case, white media/artistic/high tech/environmental elites said and did nothing, in the latter's case, white agriculture and energy elites did nothing. And elites have not been made to answer for their treachery....But that maybe changing, with Marion LePen (a Frenchwoman!) being greeted much more warmly at CPAC than the neo-cuck bozos.

If it takes violent revolts (of natives or foreigners) against hubristic aging elites and their young lackeys, then so be it.

Lastly, if alien and hostile cultures are allowed to flourish in the West, and the West experiences some kind of social and/or financial collapse, I suspect that Eastern And Central Europe are going to start looking mighty attractive, esp. considering that they have survived numerous confrontations with non-Europeans, and also because they survived communism only to see it revived in the now decadent West.

Feryl said...

*don't speak English well*

Anonymous said...

I would think the question is about more serious things than "I f*cking love science!" memes. Most people don't know or care about them. The question's more likely interpretation is people's opinion about the impact of science on real life. For example, more extroverted ethnicities may think science producing gadgets that isolate us from each other is harm, while more introverted ethnicities think it's good. Women may be a little less impressed by scientific achievements because they mostly (as always) advance war technology, while men think this is awesome, etc.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

Yes, broadly. It's not precise because there are four social classes people are able to self-identify as belonging to--lower, working, middle, and upper--but it's serviceable. I've intended to do something similar in the past but didn't make it a priority. Now I will.

Feryl,

Thanks.

Anon,

Yeah, it obviously goes beyond that. The IFLS! types are a subset of 'pro-science' that aren't particularly empirical or scientific in their approaches to life. It's like a foreign language to them rather than something that comes naturally and as such they want to show it off. The Z-Man regularly does segments about "xirl science" featuring papers from these sorts of people that have a patina of science in that they use sciency terms, but the creators have no math or science backgrounds ("female science studies", etc).

The Z Blog said...

The first time I experienced the phrase "I F*cking Love Science!" was during my brief foray onto FaceBorg half a dozen years ago. A woman I know, with no math or science, would post links from it. I quickly started responding with links to race realism stuff and everyone un-friended me. That was the end of FaceBorg for me.

My bet is most whites think they are supposed to love science, so they say it, even though they are probably skeptical. Science gone wrong is not a recurring theme of movies and TV shows by accident. This is very true of Progressives, who love evolution until I mention race.

Audacious Epigone said...

Z,

It has an obnoxiously huge following on the social media sites. It's the virtual equivalent of those ridiculous marches for science. It's not about the scientific method--let alone applying the lessons of biology to human groups--it's about virtue signaling and pushing climate change for the purpose of helping the Cloud People grab as much power as they can get away with.

Jig Bohnson said...

Awesome, looking forward to it.

Just for fun, I'll venture a prediction, but this is wild guessing: It will be largely a wash, with a slight advantage to Republicans. Overall, Republicans will be dinged heavily because of creationism, but Democrats will be behind on things that touch practical knowledge, such as the question on how lasers work. Since this will be non-Hispanic whites only and broken out by SES, I predict that the effects will be equal in regard to party for things like believing in astrology, which will be concentrated for both at the lower SES groups. Also I suppose the sample size will be small for self-identified lowest SES non-Hispanic white Democrats - in fact I don't think I've ever met one of those.

Sid said...

OT, but relating to African migration...

Surge by Populists Leaves Italy Without Clear Victor https://www.wsj.com/articles/italys-elections-appear-to-have-yielded-a-hung-parliament-exit-polls-1520201994

There was no outright majority winner in Italy's elections. The populists surged but they're nowhere close to a governing majority.

Diversity + Proximity = Political Gridlock

We Americans have navel-gazed over how divisive our politics have been. The British have lacked a clear sense of direction since they voted for Brexit. The Germans spent months assembling a ruling coalition. Now the same will likely happen to Italy.

Philippe le Bel said...

Dear Epigone

days are 24 hours long. Wich this parameter, wich are the altright sites you would recommand to me ? I can't read all of them.

For the moment, I read yours, Face to Face, Taki, Occidental Observer, American Renaissance, Altright.com (when it works), and of course Heartiste.

Feryl said...

"There was no outright majority winner in Italy's elections. The populists surged but they're nowhere close to a governing majority."

Why do I feel better about Europe, right now?

Europe wins on:
1) More established history/culture creating greater unity and camaraderie (Europeans are less libertarian and individualistic)

2) Countries without a history of "recent" colonialism (like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Austria, and the Baltic countries) can't be guilt-tripped as effectively into believing that they are obligated to take in immigrants. France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK on the other hand have been taking in 3rd worlders since the 70's as make-good for colonialism. The US is really screwed because many Americans literally believe that "we are a nation of immigrants" with no such thing as traditional ethnic stock (and of course, this myth is pushed the hardest by blacks, Jews, white Catholics, and those who've come here over the last 50 years). Many white Americans are dimly aware, or not aware at all, of their English and Scottish heritage. When PC took over in the 80's, self-reported British heritage began to decline a great deal. I suspect that Boomers moreso than older generations ran from their roots and began to report whatever was trendy (after 1980, British ancestry).

3) PC is still weaker in Europe. Conservative parties can speak of protecting trad. culture and ethnic stock with relatively little repercussions. Whereas in America, "conservatives" who aren't Pat Buchanan or Iowa's Steve King dread being called an ethno-nationalist. Granted, some Euro governments have punished people for inciting "racial hatred", but that tends to come chiefly from specifically attacking Muslim/black culture rather than being generally pro-native. Both liberals and cucks during the last election cycle unfavorably compared Trump's platform with European nationalist platforms, as they wondered how on Earth an American candidate for the GOP would talk about things besides taxes and Jayzus. I would argue that America, more so than other majority white nations, is plagued by PC commissars who will terrorize you, get you fired, stop you from being published, etc., due to the combined strength of Lefty loony muscle and cuck Inc. being so concerned about selling Huggies diapers to more blacks and browns that they do nothing to stand up for free speech or traditionalists.

Feryl said...

Continued:


4 Especially outside of Britain, cuck Inc. has relatively little power in Euro conservatism. Whereas in America, most "conservative" pols are blatantly corrupt and eager to please the CoC. Do you think Berlusconi or Orban gives a shit about corporate shares going down? Americans have been sold down the river by CoC types pushing non-stop growth, BAMN. Leftists want more diversity to strangle the West's conservative white stock, while most elites on the Right go along for the ride because it means greater profits. Yecch.

5) European cities, even the ones that have seen influxes of POC, are still miles above the dystopian environment that you find in many American cities. American Boomers destroyed American cities over-night in the late 60's. First they did it via historically high crime levels, then when they were older they finished the job via inadequate funding, misdirected spending, and inept government. Canada and Australia also have better cities. Urban decay and anti-social behavior also affected Europe and especially the English speaking countries, but the worst damage happened in America. Particularly galling is how white American Boomers simultaneously fled the cities while cheering on the civil rights movement. That being said, a lot of white Boomers also contributed more than their fair share of murders, rapes, robberies, and thefts. Boomers spearheaded living in McMansions and Exurbs. First they lived in the suburbs, then when blacks and immigrants rose in population and started living in the suburbs, a lot of white Boomers were spurred to build a wannabe castle in the middle of nowhere. Part of the reason urban and near urban environments are more pleasant in other majority white countries is because whites in those countries were less willing or able to desert older areas.

Feryl said...

I'm consistently amazed at how cowardly American conservatives are about urban issues. Particularly among the generations who came of age in the 60's and 70's, they seem to think it's A-OK to abandon "our" cities. Ya know, a civilization ain't much of a civilization if our cities are worthless. It's fine and dandy that some people would prefer smaller towns and the country, but civilizations are defined by the grandeur of their cities. Besides, as I've often said, how do conservatives expect to unite and accomplish a whole lot if they are scattered about in rural areas?

This is all quite evident when Alex Jones goes to say, Seattle. Native born whites will confront him and say that he doesn't belong. Leftists and parasites dominate our urban areas, since over the last 70 years fewer and fewer conservatives have been willing to put up a fight.

Many Americans would be probably be shocked to learn that in Europe, some cities tend more toward the Left, while other tend more to the Right. Besides, the labor movement in Europe is much stronger than it is in America, and it provides a glue to hold more prole-ish type whites together. American Boomers destroyed the US labor movement, which only furthered the flight of whites from densely settled areas. A German white who still has his factory to work at would want to remain near it as previous generations did, while an American white is more likely to end up in a trailer and get a shitty job with no benefits, lousy pay, and terrible worker morale. This also ties into the fact that income inequality in America is horrendously bad; Europe has problems, but in recent decades European youth have protested better economic treatment and so forth, while in America the Me Generation has always told Gen X-ers and Millennials to suck it up and just "work harder" to get ahead. It's always "work harder", rather than do anything to get the authorities and employers to stop being such greedy assholes.

The RNC sent me a fund raising letter complaining about "union bosses". I'll grant you that public unions are out of control, but the idea that we need to further attack private unions is grossly inappropriate and dated, given that private unions have about 1/10 the power they did in the 1950's. Once again, though, the CoC has never concerned itself with public harmony and camaraderie, only how to line the pockets of the business owner elite and stock holders.

snorlax said...

@Sid, re: Italy

Quoting myself from Sailer’s thread on it:

So it looks like the possibilities, from most to least likely, are

Right + Left (grand coalition) - The most plausible way for (Lega leader) Salvini to become PM, although the left might insist on someone more centrist. Probably the most “traditional” (that is, unstable and unproductive) potential government for Italy, given the wide ideological gulf between the blocs. Also the government that bond and stock market investors are hoping for. Probably would result in positive movement on immigration, especially if the right gets the relevant ministries, but not enough.

M5S + Left - The worst possible outcome, will pursue an across-the-board shitlib agenda, including and especially on immigration (some M5S politicians have made mildly restrictionist noises, but they’ll happily abandon those if they were ever sincere in the first place). Silver lining is that this government would likely be disastrous and extremely unpopular, resulting in a right-wing landslide next time around. But in the meantime Italy gets 5 more years of being turned into Somalia, at an accelerating pace.

M5S + Lega (M5S’s di Maio PM, Berlusconi in opposition) - One of the options more likely to yield positive movement on immigration. Also would spook investors the most, potential for restarting the debt crisis. As the junior coalition partner, Lega would probably lose much of its support at the next election.

Right minority gov’t (no coalition) - Similar to the grand coalition; ideologically sounder but even more unstable. Likely to result in new elections within 2 years.

Right + M5S - The best option but also the most unlikely since Berlusconi is the bĂȘte noire of M5S and its voters. Still, Italian politics are the story of strange bedfellows. Most likely at a minimum the right-wing parties would have to agree to merge while excluding Berlusconi and his closer associates. Would still result in M5S dropping to single-digit support or lower.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

http://tg24.sky.it/speciali/elezioni/italia/politiche/mappa-elezioni-2018-collegi-uninominali.html?social=twitter_skytg24_photo_null

It looks like the Right only won in Venice, which isn't a particularly large city. The Right does poorly in large cities because its policies are dedicated towards the interest of property owners, and most rural residents own their residence in the developed countries. Large metros are full of university students and lower class subsidized renters. Neither group has ever had right-wing sympathies in the post-WWII era. Further worsening the effect, foreigners prefer to live in cities. I believe Anatoly Karlin has found that this pattern even holds for Russia.

It is amazing to see Emilia-Romagna lit up blue on the map. That is the equivalent of seeing all of New England going GOP.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

PC is far stronger in Europe, as it is outright codified into "hate speech" laws. European constitutions contain either no or weak equivalents to America's 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments. French courts are literally going to "Lock Her Up" in regards to their Presidential election loser.

What isn't stronger in Europe is civilian control of the military. Up into the 1980s, elements of the military were attempting coup d'etats. The US historically used the "School of the Americas" as a way to assert control of Latin America. It might be time to develop something similar for NATO. Either we do it, or Russia/China will.

The Western Euro bugman won't be surging into the streets, unlike the Turkish Islamists when Gulen's boys came calling.

snorlax said...

@Anonymous

IIRC, in Sweden the cities vote to the right of rural areas. And I believe it's also a fairly common pattern in third-world countries with significant ethnic/class conflict. But otherwise it does seem pretty universal across countries and historical eras that cities are the most leftist.

Feryl said...

"It looks like the Right only won in Venice, which isn't a particularly large city. The Right does poorly in large cities because its policies are dedicated towards the interest of property owners, and most rural residents own their residence in the developed countries. Large metros are full of university students and lower class subsidized renters. Neither group has ever had right-wing sympathies in the post-WWII era. Further worsening the effect, foreigners prefer to live in cities. I believe Anatoly Karlin has found that this pattern even holds for Russia."

Ultimately, who's responsible for metro areas being so full of disgruntled and broke kids, as well as foreigners, compared to previous eras? Partly it's cultural/verbal elites who dominate media, law, and politics, but equally at fault are "property owners" (e.g., aging middle class people dependent on "growth" to continue to be able to live comfortably removed from poverty and the teeming masses) out in the boondocks who won't cut the lower classes and kids a break.

Losertarian bullshit is moderately popular among people born in the 60's and early 70's, who were the last cohort to not be royally sodomized by globalist and corporate funded scumbag elites. Once you get to people born in the later 70's and 80's, self-reported "strong" conservative identity falls dramatically, since younger people believe to a large degree that older generations overhauled many policies to favor older and upper class people while spouting self serving non-sense about an "invisible hand".

Peter Brimelow types wonder why pre-dominately white Northern areas of the US still sometimes cling to the Democrats. Well, it's because cuck inc. is selling out-dated sophistry that aligns with the interests of less educated but relatively affluent Boomers/early X-ers, but is of no value to younger generations who have not benefited at all from putative post-1990 economic booms.

Far from an "invisible" hand, the children of the Boomers want an iron gauntlet on the backs of CEOs to stop them from further shredding the social fabric and denying younger generations the opportunities that people born in the 20's-60's took for granted.....

The lack of progress and gains that we see in those under 45 is all the evidence that you need as to how the Right-wing ideology of the last 30-40 years has failed...Big time. Once Boomers start dying off, CoC type Western conservatives are finished. End of story. The GOP has got to rein in decadent and selfish elites on both sides, not pretend that their elites are better. Failure to adjust by elites on both sides may cause one or both parties to collapse, and/or provoke uprisings among the people.

Feryl said...

Pat Buchanan has recently said that there's never been a more urgent period than the present for Western "conservatives" to stop worshiping the theories of decadence enabling 1800's elites and get on with protecting natives from predatory corporations, cultural Marxism, and the cheap labor racket.

"Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built a great nation.

Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers’ wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."

The bright side is that young people can be persuaded to join your cause...But that is gonna take dropping the libertarian and Statist this Statist that crap. Looks like Paul Ryan types would rather talk to deaf ears and be buried in a Koch Bros coffin than do what's best for the GOP's competitive chances in the long run. The RNC sent me a promo for their team of young true believers.....I'll pass. Sorry lookin' bunch. Probably nerdy as fuck and more than a couple closet cases (y'all realize how many BoomerCons were exposed as closeted homos over the last couple decades?).

Paul Kersey and other young and pro-active conservatives are itching to bury the corrupt and sad skeletons of post-1975 conservatism, but that can't be said for a lot of older people who are busy beating off to Thatcher pin-ups in their POS ugly as sin McMansions.

Feryl said...

"PC is far stronger in Europe, as it is outright codified into "hate speech" laws. European constitutions contain either no or weak equivalents to America's 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments. French courts are literally going to "Lock Her Up" in regards to their Presidential election loser"

Alright, buddy boy, If America is so wonderful than I ought to be able to publicly support Trump. But I can't. The Left and the cuck Right will make your life a living hell for supporting populist conservatism. Most Gen X-ers and Millennials on the Bannon/Miller/Trump spectrum of conservatism fear being "outed", lest they get fully doxxed, harassed, fired, etc. It's gotten to the point where I'd almost rather have the government adjudicating speech than private Leftwing commissars whipping up witch hunts and lynch mobs, as has become the norm in America. Are you comfortable with the idea of all your co-workers reading your posts on freedom of association and affirmative action? Of course not, you could get your property smashed, your name and face could end up on the local or even national news, your good name would be forever corrupted (whenever people saw your name or face on the internet, you'd be hit with punch a Nazi memes), family members might disown you, you'd be chased from facebook or Twitter, and you might have more trouble getting another job. This is the climate we have to deal with in the new USSA, in which you can't even criticize dumb comic book and Sci-fi movies anymore.

Remember the Mozilla developer who was chased out of Silicon Valley for (privately and quietly) donating against homo marriage? And that was in the early 2010's, before the PC Nazis really cranked the machine up.

The legal restrictions on speech are indeed greater in Europe, but HR/diversicrats/liberal busy bodies/EEOC etc. can easily get you fired from your job in America. Europeans have, on average, greater job security than Americans do. Which isn't to say that being un-PC is accepted in Euro workplaces, either. But I would argue that since the late 1980's the "encouragement" to be sensitive has strengthened considerably in countries once thought to be places of free inquiry (mainly the English speaking countries), including America.

I know of at least two strong conservative co-workers who have literally never mentioned Trump to almost all of their co-workers, certainly not during work hours and on the work premises. Meanwhile, it's routine for Leftists to spout MSNBC talking points about the Trump regime, and if you dare to not agree with them 100%, they'll lose their temper and start bitching even harder.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

Ask the average Boomer conservative about the prospect of living in a multigenerational home. Then ask them about the prospect of higher taxes in order to pay for free higher educat...err indoctrination. Next ask them about lower returns on their 401(k) and foreign equivalent.

Pensioners in Italy actually voted plurality for the left. As did French and Austrian pensioners. UK Pensioners do vote Tory, and got hell for voting Leave.

Among the youth (including myself), the hard-right is the only wing of the Right that exists. Everyone else is a SJW or a Corvinus-type liberal. There is a decided majority against Free Market Fundamentalism, but a bigger majority for Cultural Marxism.

Gen Z won't go for the Right unless higher ed is "disrupted" or "Black Swan-ed". When the Boomers die off, the Anglo nations are headed towards Chavez/Malema politics.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

The left views Political Correctness as "manners befitting a decent human being". We are meant to be the supporters of authority, and that should mean showing deference towards those in power. Any support of the Right in Corporateland must be done covertly and with tremendous care to never be seen as "whining". Moldbug had a point when he talked about "passivism".

Just as the Afrikaner can never expect justice from the ANC, we will never get it from Big Tech. Too many Boers won't accept lower living standards to grow Orania into a Volkstaat. Black Twitter routinely mocks any white complaints, brilliantly following Alinsky Rule 5.

Trump hasn't joined GAB, and he could easily quit Twitter.

There is no appeal to the Left in terms of fairness. If we want to support Right-wing politics, we need economic self-determination. An "alt-economy".

Dan said...

Feryl wrote,

" If America is so wonderful than I ought to be able to publicly support Trump. But I can't."

Dude, he's the president. I wore a MAGA hat all often in the DC metro and it was joyous, long before he was president, and he only got 4% of the vote here, lowest of any place in America.

Everyone I know, knows I am a Trump supporter. It all good. Had a Trump sticker on my car since long before the election and nobody scratched my car. I can't go around trying to convert my coworkers on work time, but they know my politics.

It's led to a few a arguments. My sister criticized Trump in an email to me during the Republican primaries and I responded with a long and heated letter about what I like about him. It didn't convert her, but I stood my ground and she knew not to criticize him in front of me in the future.

Just be a confident Trump supporter. Unless you work for Google, its all good.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

Concur for the most part (I haven't started yet so I swear I'm not cheating!), but actually think Dems may do better overall in comparable SES. May have to group lower and working classes on one hand and middle and upper on the other, or maybe just look at working at middle. Distribution is roughly 5%/45%/45%/5%.

Sid,

It's tough to follow Italian politics from the outside looking in, but my strong sense is that this is a very good result, roughly comparable to what Trump and Sanders blowing out their respective primaries would've been like in the US.

Philippe,

My five must reads, for whom I never miss a post, are, in no particular order:

- Steve Sailer
- John Derbyshire
- Heartiste
- Z Man
- Vox Day

Feryl,

The private side of things is worse in the US than in most of Europe. However, our governmental protections are much better than Europe's are. It sounds cucky to go all 'muh constitution', but it's undeniable that our bill of rights--and the residual respect it still garners--is a big benefit the US enjoys over Europe.

At AmRen last summer I debated with Sam Dickson about where things are worse--the US or Europe. Re: white flight, it is easier to do in the US. We're wealthier. We think our PPP is comparable to Europe, but the European countries we're comparing ourselves to are 90% white, while we're 60% white, yet per capita we're still as wealthy or wealthier. Also, the US has way more open space. White flight is easier, so that's what happens. Things will come to a head first in Europe, probably. That is probably an advantage--the sooner, the better.

Feryl said...

"There is no appeal to the Left in terms of fairness. If we want to support Right-wing politics, we need economic self-determination. An "alt-economy".

In the 60's, John Lennon (who ended up being a complete pothead doofus by the late 60's) alienated a decent chunk of America by saying that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". A lot of their records were burned and taken off the shelves in America.

The current Right wing meme that it's virtually impossible to (publicly) stand toe to toe with the Left has come about because the Right lost it's balls and it's fervor because we don't have a legit foreign enemy and crime has fallen for 20 years. Because I myself am not a tradcon, I and actually support some aspects of economic Leftism (but certainly not the cultural kind), I probably feel better than a lot of you guys do. Agnostic (no truecon) has made a great point that subsequent to Trump's election, neither the tradright nor altright has shown any signs of strengthening loyalty and camaraderie. The Right needs to be regularly having meetups dedicated to action and activism. New Right stars gathering for cocktails and levity doesn't count. The Economic Left back in the 20's-60's didn't gain progress by fawning over their leaders about how cool and rebellious they were. They made substantive plans for collective action, including taking to the streets and publicly dissing/humiliating decadent elites. Likewise, the Religious Right in the 80's and 90's picketed offensive movies, and accused their enemies of aiding child molestors, robbers, rapists, killers, and Satanists. They threw heavy metal and rap records in the garbage. The Left's dedication to feminazis and fags in the 70's was pushed back against heavily in the 80's and 90's, because the rising crime rates of the 70's made the Right in particular very passionate about fighting against the enabling of weirdos. Now that crime is still low, and we aren't at full-scale war against a legit enemy, the Right has no zeal about fighting the stupidest excesses of the cultural Left. The Right still doesn't like a lot of this stuff, but they don't feel particularly motivated about doing anything to curb the nonsense. Note also that immigration was halted in the mid 1920's....Which was a higher crime era.

Because there has not been a visibly pro-active and tenacious Right since the mid-2000's, those who are sympathetic to any conservative stance or cause feel as though they've got no one to back them up if they feel like taking more of a stand. In 1985, people who said that we needed fewer people in prison, or that we needed more gay cub scout leaders, were def. not in the mainstream.

Eventually the current focus on cultural Marxism will fade, and at the very least we'll get more economic Leftism which we need badly after 40 years of supply side bullshit. And no, this does't mean we'll get Mao's China. America was much economically progressive in the 1950's than it is now, and what about the America of the 50's is there to complain about? Eventually another generation of horrible criminals will come about, and the Right will stop throwing pity parties (or celebrating minuscule victories) and get cracking on applying pressure to weirdos, as they did the late 70's-90's.

Zeroh Tollrants said...

Altright.com, therightstuff.biz, thedailystory.name, zmanblog.