Thursday, November 30, 2017

Free speech absolutism

I've previously created indices based on GSS responses to questions about whether various 'controversial' speakers should or should not be permitted to speak publicly.

The selection of five types of speakers does a pretty good job running the political gamut (atheists, communists, and homosexuals on the left; militarists and racists on the right). That means there are leftists who are fine with nihilistic commi faggots speaking but who don't want to extend the same courtesy to aspiring fuhrers, and vice versa, however, and that muddies things up.

Further, there are wide variances in general perceptions of what should be publicly permissible. At 86% support among the total population, homosexuals are given the green light. Only 61% say racists should be given first amendment protections, in contrast.

In attempt to deal with this, the following graphs show the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who are free speech absolutists. That is, they say members of all five 'controversial' groups should be permitted to speak publicly.

For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Because IQ ranges are based on wordsum scores, only those born in the US are considered for the five intelligence categories. White, black, and Asian racial categories are all restricted to non-Hispanics (N = 12,370):

Free speech is a high-IQ white and Jewish male thing. The double-digit IQ browning of America--the one Ben Shapiro doesn't care about--is creating a society increasingly characterized by restrictions on free expression with the likely eventual criminalization of speech deemed insufficiently woke.

Parenthetically, libertarianism is also a high-IQ white and Jewish male thing. Open borders are a disaster for libertarianism, which is why it has become an ideological pipeline from mainstream cuckery to the dissident right. Some libertarians like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux, Jeff Deist, and Lew Rockwell get this, but most of them do not. The last of the clueless libertarians (hi, Bryan Caplan!) who do not get it will be beaten to death by a copy of Human Action a vibrant New American, unencumbered by the NAP, just stole from him.

GSS variables used: SPKATH, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMIL, SPKCOM, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), COHORT(1920-1944)(1945-1964)(1965-1980)(1981-1994), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), BORN, SEX, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)


dc.sunsets said...

Lew Rockwell is buying a clue? Hmmm. He stopped accepting my columns for publication years ago, a bit after turning off the lights at's incarnation as the Ron Paul Show.

As you know, there are different flavors of libertarian; the ones who are blind/deaf/dumb are those who fail to understand the irony of a libertarian political party (the LP.) I can't figure out the Jeff Tucker left-libertarians; they seem to lack any concept of consequences. The "brutalist" faction is, I think, going to inevitably follow my path to the Hard Right.

Black Death said...

Lots of interesting stuff here. In terms of supporting free speech, men outscore women and Jews outscore just about everybody else. The strongest correlation seems to be the positive one between IQ and supporting free speech. That surprised me, maybe it shouldn't have. It seems strange that liberals are more favorable toward free speech than conservatives. Will liberal jugges be more inclined to support free speech than conservative ones? I wonder about that.

Dan said...

Jake Tapper‏Verified account @jaketapper · 48m48 minutes ago

Flake signs on to tax bill partly in exchange for pledge by Senate GOP leadership and Truml administration “to work with me on a growth-oriented legislative solution to enact fair and permanent protections for DACA recipients.” 1/


Dan said...

So admin sells out immigration for tax reform? That's what it looks like.

Arthur said...

So, this liberal preference for 'Absolutist Free Speech'... do they include "hate speech" in that number? I'd be shocked if they did.

Andrew Smith said...

Did the various demographics respond to the question regarding each of the 5 types of speakers individually? Or were they asked about all at once?

I’d be interested in seeing how they responded to each group on its own. I’m guessing that I probably already know how that came out though.

Audacious Epigone said...


Never followed closely myself. After becoming chief of staff the hatethink stopped being carried at LRC?

Black Death,

Seems to me like there's a big opportunity for a rift here between SWPLs and NAMs in the coalition of the fringes. I think a guy like David Rubin ("the Rubin Report") is probably the poster child for what we want to see happen.


Derb calls this "the big cuck". I was cautiously optimistic a few months ago. Less so now. For tax 'reform'? Really?


Allowing a racist to speak is about as close as they come.


The GSS allows for all kinds of filters to be applied. This one puts respondents who answered "allowed" for all five 'extremists'--who were asked about separately, so five individual qusetions--in one group and everyone who answered any combination other than "allowed" for all five in the other.

Duke Norfolk said...

Tom Woods is another libertarian who it seems should be just on the cusp of going alt-right (or effectively so while rejecting the label as those others do; cause, you know, Nazis and racism and stuff).

It's rather exasperating to watch him cling to his libertarianism and carefully avoid the real issues facing us today. I'm hopeful that as Stefan moves ever closer to Alt-Right that Tom will do so as well. We'll see. I think his living still relies too heavily on those still clinging to the illusion for him to cut loose. That's understandable. Although if anybody is able to adapt to it, it's Tom. He's a real scrapper and an entrepreneur.

IHTG said...

Re: DACA for tax cuts

Political fig leaf. Jeff Flake has no leverage to cash that check and everybody knows it. They didn't even need his vote to pass the bill. Read Mark Krikorian, not alt-right hysterics:

Audacious Epigone said...

Duke Norfolk,

Agree. He spoke at the HL Mencken club this year (though he hasn't made it into a podcast episode--at least not yet). I suspect he'd be revealed as an HBD realist with a little truth serum mixed into his drink. It's a topic a lot of people don't want to broach, understandably. He never tries to police the thoughts of those who do tackle it, though, and that's very laudable.



Unknown said...

A little less inflammatory rhetoric would go a long way in demonstrating at least a modicum of objectivity... Sheesh!

Audacious Epigone said...


The results are easily replicable, I even include all the variables used. I did the digging, I get to have fun with the results. I don't get paid for this, you know!

Zeroh Tollrants said...


Is there a speedy way to contact you, other than here on the blog? I looked on your Twitter, and didn't see any tweets since September. I was looking for some particular voting patterns of Hispanics, I was trying to show some brain dead nomie Conservatives on Twitter that the reason GA would turn blue was not because the native population was becoming more liberal but due to the fact that we have had decades of legal Hispanic immigration.
I got the the "hear no evil, see no evil," traditional conservative boilerplate responses of- "The GOP just isn't selling Republican ideas correctly to the browns," & "did you just pull that out of your ass?" & "that's racist," "where's your proof?" "I've been hearing this since 2004, and again in 2008, & in 2012 & 2016, yet it hasn't happened, yet."
My ask of you is, can you please, or any of your readers who'd like to help educate these norm core Repubs post responses or charts to those replies in my Twitter feed and help educate my few thousand followers? It would be much appreciated. @dibutler