Thursday, June 22, 2017

Are atheists addicted to socialism?

In a great discussion between two leading libertarian minds who forthrightly deal with immigration and the National Question--that is, they don't ignore HBD--Stefan Molyneux asserts a strong association between atheism and socialism:

Sure, we know about the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, China, and North Korea, but how descriptive is it of the US today?

The GSS has, since its inception, asked respondents to rate on a 7-point scale whether or not "the government ought to reduce income differences" or "not concern itself with reducing income differences". The following graph shows the average response by theistic orientation (inverted from the survey for ease of comprehension). The higher the score the more socialistically inclined the group. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are considered and for contemporary relevance all responses are from the year 2000 onward (n = 6,428):

One standard deviation is two full points, so while the relationship clearly exists, it's a relatively modest one. By comparison, the gap between atheists and firm believers is only one-fourth as wide as the chasm between self-described liberals and conservatives is.

GSS variables used: GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), EQWLTH, YEAR(2000-2016), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), POLVIEWS(1-2)(5-6)


Sgt. Joe Friday said...

So the leadership of the Catholic church and many mainline protestant faiths are closer to atheists than believers on inequality. Might explain why church attendance is declining.

Feryl said...

Somebody on Isteve repeated the chestnut that, gosh darnit, California would still be "ours" if it had the demographics of 1980. Whoa, not so fast.

The Western states were strongly conservative (in the sense of voting GOP) before the 1990's. The animus toward big gov. was strong enough to unite Westerners against the Dems. But something changed.....The GOP's embrace of Christian fundamentalism really got under the skin of people Out West. In fact, the mania for investigating porn, restricting abortion, defending prayer in grade school, shaming loose sexual mores, etc. didn't have really anything to do with muh small government. By 1988, Bush narrowly won CA while losing Oregon and WA state. The Pac. NW historically is more puritan/Nordic, while CA in it's white(r) salad days had Scots-Irish Oakies (Mark McGwire, James Hetfield, etc.).

The wave of hostility towards GOP zeal spread east; in the 2000's, much of the Mountain West was reporting (per the GSS) greater levels of cultural liberalism. from the late 80's-early 2000's, irreverence towards Southern and Midwestern conservatives grew and the West lost much of it's conservative culture; they didn't have much cultural conservatism to begin with, esp. near the ocean. And as the region has been developed, the region's trademark hostility towards big government has mostly faded away, especially among younger generations.

Note also that urban areas are almost uniformly more conservative than smaller towns; plenty of urbanites in the East are shitl-libs, but that's countered to some degree by a great deal of small-mid sized towns that are often inhabited by people whose ancestors were there for quite some time. Out West, though, people often either live in large metro areas or in recently developed outlying areas with little to no tradition.

High living costs in the West and Northeast diminish the ability to form families, and it seems that both regions have become more Democrat as a result, though Yankee puritans have always been a tough sell for the GOP. But with the Dem's drinking more anti-white poison and spitting at us, the heavily white and heavily puritan base population of the upper Midwest and New England is slowly going to become more Republican....If the GOP continues in the Trump direction. Fundie Southerners are never going to be accepted by the Northeast. I think the GOP should nominate someone from the Midwest or Northeast again in 8 years. No Gary Johnson style South Park flakes from Out West. A Southerner doesn't really bother me, but people from the Northeast and to some degree the Upper Midwest can't stand the South.

Feryl said...

I meant that urban areas are more liberal, oops. I didn't lose my mind, just a typo.

Issac said...

>Fundie Southerners are never going to be accepted by the Northeast.

Jimmy Carter

Feryl said...

The hippie West Coast, Southern Dixiecrats (of whom there still were enough left to give Dukakis of all people a decent support base) , the populists in the Appalachians, the Lutheran Triangle DFLers (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party), the Southern black belt, and Taxachusettes were blue in 1988.

Amazingly, much of the Northeast supported Bush. The Northeast (which IMO runs west to Eastern PA, north to New England, and south to NorVirginia) has never really been a populist region. It is the establishment, after all. Is it going to be against itself? The inner West (rancher country to a large degree at the time), the West central plains, the lower Midwest, and a decent chunk of the white Deep South also went for Bush.

Go forward to subsequent elections, and we'd see a culture war induced realignment. Seemingly never again will a massive chunk of the Northeast vote like Utah and Kansas. Also, the Dem's growing hatred of white people and non-trendy industry would first alienate traditional Dixiecrats by the late 90's, and beyond that would alienate Appalachian populists eventually.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sgt Joe,

Yep, that's definitely a common, frustrated refrain from laypeople.


but people from the Northeast and to some degree the Upper Midwest can't stand the South.

That does seem to be the case. Trump, as much a brash New Yorker as it gets, did great in the South both in the primaries and in the general. Bush 43--another northeasterner who played pretended Texan--also did. Jimmy Carter worked it in the other direction, but that was 40 years ago.

Feryl said...

Issac - Fundie mania wouldn't appear until the 80's. And even in the 80's, most ordinary people weren't anywhere near Ned Flanders....Yet. In the 90's, the religious right got so carried away that they alienated huge chunks of the public. And since the Midwest and especially South fell so hard for the evangelical/fundamentalist movement, it reignited Northeastern prejudice towards the heartland.

Apocalyptic preaching is something that takes off in unraveling eras (like the late 80's-2000's) and continues into crisis eras (what we're in right now). "High" eras (like the late 40's-early 60's) are too comfortable to warrant ostentatious preaching, while Awakening eras (like the late 60's-early 80's) are more about free-spirited experimentation than they are about judgemental preaching.

Boomers get wistful about the 60's and 70's because of how "loose" everything seemed to be. People were having too much fun to really process how dangerous and seedy Western culture was getting. Eventually a backlash develops to the hedonism, and things turn emotionally and spiritually ugly in subsequent decades. People become more cautious and stable (for the most part....) in unraveling eras, yet we feel as though something has slipped thru our grasp and we've got to try and grab it again. Thus the bombastic preaching and moralism that becomes more popular after an Awakening, which is inherently divisive since it basically is fingerpointing over who or what led us astray.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

"The Western states were strongly conservative (in the sense of voting GOP) before the 1990's. The animus toward big gov. was strong enough to unite Westerners against the Dems. But something changed.....The GOP's embrace of Christian fundamentalism really got under the skin of people Out West."

I was actually in southern California back then. Reagan had embraced the religious right, but everyone understood it to be coalition building, nothing more. After all, he was the guy who liberalized abortion laws back in the 60s.

What was happening back then was (a) the first wave of the post 1965 immigrants were finally starting to exercise political muscle, (b) the housing recession of the early 90s, (c) the end of the Cold War, (d) military base closings, (e) closure of all the Big 3 auto plants, and (f) the job losses resulting from (b) thru (e). The people who had all those good paying jobs were mostly GOP voters. They ended up moving to Washington state, Nevada, Texas, Idaho and other places.

Other people blame the loss of California on Pete Wilson and Prop. 187. But the trend was already clear by 1992, two years before 187.

Feryl said...

AE - The GOP once had a curious rep. for being the party of both Northeastern WASPs and Western anti-government zealots. Perhaps not unfair; Texas saw through Bush 1, with a decent number of Texans not supporting Bush while, as discussed above, the Northeast found Bush relatively appealing.

Trump is neither WASPy in genetics nor in behavior; regardless, the Dems have invested so much on the (non-populist) hate prole whitey bandwagon that virtually anyone running for the GOP is bound to enjoy uncharacteristically high support in America's traditional centers of populism: Appalachia, and the Lutheran Triangle. In 2016, the GOP's greatest improvements were in Appalachia, the Upper Midwest, and much of the Northeast (for the first time in ages, the GOP ran a candidate who wasn't a pious Southerner or Westerner).

The Western US used to be more populist, but it's gotten too urbanized and liberal over the last 20-30 years. Besides, it benefited greatly from the cold war military build-up, and clearly post-WW2 foreign policy isn't populist at all (virtually every war we've been in has been divisive since the reasoning behind these conflicts and the long-term results are both dubious). Meanwhile, the Upper Midwest, adjusting for income, probably produces less military personnel than any other region.

Feryl said...

Sgt. Joe -

The Pacific states have always been socially liberal; what made them GOP friendly in the past was that they were more rural, and as we've pointed out, they became the tech. back-bone of the cold-war. The Dems were associated with teamster thuggery in the dank concrete jungle of the Northeastern quadrant of the US, as well as with Dixie Klansman.

As the GOP became strongly associated with the religious right in the 80's, Oregon and Washington dropped the GOP like a hot potato in 1988. And Cali went for Bush by like 3 1/2% points. Growing urbanization/living costs and hostility towards the ascendant fundie wing of the GOP were making the Left coast inevitable. Last year I saw an article talk about a middle-aged Mexican American, still working the fields in central CA, being a Trump voter. He's a relic;once upon a time, the defense industry and agriculture in CA produced people who though that the GOP was the party for optimistic winners who got stuff done, the Dems were the dinosaur party for losers Back East. The lower Plains states still are very rural, very cheap, and socially conservative. That's why they haven't gone to the Dems. Whereas the Pacific and most of the Mountain states are trending liberal on account of housing costs and dwindling social conservatism. Plus people West of the Rockies are less rooted; citizens of the world.

Audacious Epigone said...


Plus people West of the Rockies are less rooted; citizens of the world

In 2014, the GSS asked respondents whether or not they considered themselves citizens of the world. The census region with the highest citizen of the world score? The Pacific, of course.

In contrast, New England and the West South Central (TX, LA, OK, AR) score the lowest.

Well done.

Anonymous said...

There are no atheists on the Left. They have replaced the worship of any god with worship of the State.

Millenial Theocrat said...

To offer a different perspective: Almost all of the social ills that religious Conservatives warned about in prior decades have come to pass. They were right. Back a few generations, people warning about miscegenation, birth control, female vote -- All issues that have been hugely deleterious to US society and will only become more so. But the warnings were forgotten because human memory and attention spans are so short.

It's true that the religious voices in the 1980s were rather obnoxious. That is, in general, a symptom of the democratization of mass media production and the general cultural zeitgeist. 1980s era media was just obnoxious (at least to my sensibilities) overall. What led to the West-Coast whites to abandon religiousity? (Did they abandon religiousity? Or did they just find substitute set of values? Why did they do this, to distinguish themselves from their brethren back East? etc.)

If I had

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> What led to the West-Coast whites to abandon religiousity?

From what it appears, they just substituted Christianity with a grab bag of leftist dogmas like environmentalism, multiculturalism, etc. They are fervent believers in these much like someone in the deep south is a fervent Baptist. These people approach leftism like a religion because regardless of what people say, the vast majority need to believe in a higher power, whether that be God or the government. The transmutation of that is why they keep buying into the diversity cult even though they have to keep moving farther away from cities in order to go to "good schools." Any cultural enrichment that they see in the news is just testing their faith but nevertheless they will continue to worship at the golden calf known as social justice.

Audacious Epigone said...

Millennial Theocrat,

All of these things were, through convention, tradition, and to some extent rationalism, actively preserved. Now that they have been worn down to the point of bringing societal excommunication if publicly advocated for, Euro-descended people are on track to simply vanish. In DotW, Pat Buchanan wrote that in 1950, ancestral Europeans made up 25% of the world's population. In 2000, it was 16% and by 2050 it will be less than 10%.

Feryl said...

The GSS only goes back to the early 70's, so caveat about historical values, especially Out West where there's so little white history. In terms of what the GSS says, the West Coast has always the most liberal region regarding gays, abortion, divorce, drugs, etc. Personally, I think that the West Coast has long drawn "misfits" who wore out their welcome Back East. This is also applicable to Florida, and the Mountain states to some degree also. There used to be a more pronounced split between NorCal/Oregon/WA and Southern/Central CA, but that's been diminished by Southern California's old school (mid-Century) Oakie/Mexican-American culture getting destroyed by endless waves of immigrants and strivers. 1950's/1960's Los Angeles was actually a relatively clean and safe city, perhaps more pleasant than any other big city of the time, Wiki frustratingly doesn't have historical demographics of L.A., but as I understand American born whites and Mexicans got along pretty well while L.A. had relatively few blacks compared to other big cities. Meanwhile, the more puritan/northeast settled region of the Northern West Coat has always had more of a snobby liberal culture, and is still fairly white.

New England used to be the 2nd most liberal region, in the 70's-'90's, but lately the Mountain states and Mid-Atlantic states often draw close to New England on many issues. As of the last 10 years or so, the Mountain states (especially when excluding Utah) seem like they're becoming the 2nd most liberal region. Back when these states were largely rural in the 70's and 80's, they typically were as (self-reported) conservative as the Midwest. In the Mountain and Mid-Atlantic states, there seems to be a generational shift; X-ers and Millennials of these areas seem to disdain Ned Flanders types, and they look like they're flooring the liberal accelerator so that nobody thinks they're dinosaurs from the Midwest/South/Appalachia.

Lastly, self-identified liberal markers are not the be all/end all standard of personal morality. New Englanders aren't as flaky or hedonistic as people West of the Rockies. There's self-reported values/identity, and then there's actual standards of conduct and matters of conscience.

Feryl said...

"Euro-descended people are on track to simply vanish. "

It's very much our creativity and tech that blew up in our face. Communication and travel used to be arduous, even in the most advanced countries (largely Western). Now, we can create ticking demographic time bombs in the blink of an eye via reaching 3rd worlders, swiftly importing them, and feeding/housing/pandering to them.

High(er)-tech has also activated our worst instincts. For Western Euros, that's having our bleeding hearts be taken advantage of. The advent of TV in the mid-Century made it phenomenally cheap and easy for Leftists to stage video-ops that soon shook the conscience of historical White America (Jews and blacks cynically knew what they were doing and were counting on naive gentiles feeling sincerely moved). How could we continue to maintain segregation and communal standards by force when TV broadcasts were showing (cynically provoked) confrontations and beatings?

Tech limitations use to hold us back from abusing ourselves too much. But since WW2 our greatest weakness (large doses of generosity towards strangers, while other ethnic groups are more clannish) has wrought great damage. Jews used to make cloths and loans; now they dominate the vehicle thru which mass brainwashing of the naive is made easier than ever: the screen with moving images.

Now, to this day, Leftists are sitll maintaining that "our" countries are expected to be shining utopias of diversity while other places remain provincial; we're told the de rigueur and increasingly trite "fact" that the 3rd World is a helpless victim of Western oppression; as such, we owe them our hearts/jobs/housing/cities etc. But we're never told when the debt will be paid off, nor are we enlightened as to when the 3rd world will get up off it's lazy ass and be self-sufficient/independent. Over the last 20-30 years, it's become quite common for liberals to say that diversity in and of itself is good; the arguments over physical/moral debt were annoying enough, but at least that attempted to amount to more than mystical sentiment. Of course, over that time frame greedy SOB strivers have become more common and many of them cynically promote muh diversity just to make more money.

Audacious Epigone said...


Dunbar's Number + Outbreeding = Extinction in the age of instantaneous, ubiquitous mass communication.

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone - no one is becoming extinct. The ideal family size remains around 2.75. Non-obese women have above replacement fertility. There are genetic factors that protect against obesity in the modern environment. In the worst case scenario, we will not cure obesity and its related inflammatory diseases and birth rates will rise above replacement as a larger percent of the population becomes non-obese due to genetic reasons. It the best case scenario, we will cure it rapidly and fertility rates will rise much faster.

Feryl - you are blaming Jews and Blacks for doing something that never happened. The country is encouraging immigration because of metabolic syndrome caused low fertility. They are trying to keep the entitlement system from imploding. The only thing raising social tensions will do is harm the ability of the country to function as normal. This is the condition which is optimal for achieving medical and scientific progress. As I assume you are not able to assist in that effort, I suggest going for a walk to calm down.