4087 The Truth About Freedom of Speech: Trends and Demographics
While many claim to support free speech in the abstract, when confronted with uncomfortable real-life decisions or the principles behind freedom of speech, people can display different attitudes. In an attempt to demonstrate trends in free speech and the demographics which support it – we turn to the comprehensive data made available through the General Social Survey.Since 1972, The General Social Survey (GSS) has collected “data on contemporary American society in order to monitor and explain trends and constants in attitudes, behaviors, and attributes. … Since the GSS adopted questions from earlier surveys, trends can be followed for up to 70 years.”For the purposes of this presentation, we will use the term Free Speech Absolutist to refer to those who said that an admitted Communist, an admitted homosexual, an Anti-Religionist (somebody who is against all churches/religion), a Militarist (a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country) and a Racist (a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior) should all be allowed to speak. While this data does have limitations, which we will discuss during the course of this presentation, it provides an indirect sampling over an extended period of time and provides insight unavailable from a direct short-term survey. Who really supports free speech?Source Data: General Social Survey (GSS) Variables: Allow Anti-Religionist to Speak (SPKATH), Allow Homosexual to Speak (SPKHOMO), Allow Racist to Speak (SPKRAC), Allow Militarist to Speak (SPKMIL), Allow Communist to Speak (SPKCOM), Race/Ethnicity (RACECEN1 and HISPANIC), Religion (RELIG), Generation (COHORT), Intelligence (WORDSUM), Native-Born/Foreign-Born (BORN), Gender (SEX), Marital Status (Marital), Number of Children (CHILDS), and Political Party Affiliation (PARTYID).General Social Survey (GSS) NORC: http://gss.norc.orgYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
This is an essential presentation for you to process, to understand, and please, please, to spread.
And it answers the question why demographics are so important.
When you change a country's fundamental demographics, you also change its fundamental values, because not all demographics, not all slices and dices of society, support values such as free speech in equal terms.
And if you believe, as I do, that free speech is the value that underpins and protects all of our other values and freedoms, you will understand why it is so essential to ask and answer this question, who actually supports free speech?
While many claim to support free speech in the abstract, when confronted with uncomfortable real-life decisions or the principles behind freedom of speech, people can display markedly different attitudes.
So, in an attempt to demonstrate trends in free speech and the demographics which support it, we turn to the comprehensive data made available through the General Social Survey.
So, since 1972, in America, the General Social Survey, or GSS, has collected, and I quote,"...data on contemporary American society in order to monitor and explain trends and constants in attitudes, behaviors, and attributes." Since the GSS adopted questions from earlier surveys, trends can be followed for up to 70 years.
So they ask people questions about whether representatives of certain belief systems or sexual orientations should be permitted to give speeches in their neighborhood.
And we'll look at this data, sliced and dice.
But for the purposes of this presentation, we're going to use the term free speech absolutist.
To refer to those who said that an admitted communist, an admitted homosexual, an anti-religionist, somebody who's against all churches and religions, a militarist, a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country, and a racist, a person who believes that blacks are genetically inferior, should all be allowed to speak.
So in each of these categories, if you say yes, people who hold these beliefs or perspectives should be allowed to speak, then you are what we refer to as a free speech absolutist.
Now, the data in the GSS, of course it has limitations, we'll discuss those limitations during the course of this presentation, but it does provide an indirect sampling over a very extended period of time and provides insight unavailable from a direct short-term survey.
So, now we're going to dig into the demographics and ask which demographic bases actually do support freedom of speech.
Now, just before we do that though, I wanted to mention something.
We are going to talk about zoomed out, large-scale views of particular populations, slices by race, by political orientation, by gender, and so on.
Now, I just would like you to understand something in particular.
So, You don't judge individuals according to their categories.
You can't rationally judge individuals according to their categories, but when you zoom out and you look at larger pictures, well, categories begin to take on distinct characteristics.
And I'll give you some examples so you understand what I'm talking about.
This is a sensitive issue. I want to be aware of that and help you through it.
So let's say you run an insurance company.
Are you going to give different life insurance rates to smokers versus non-smokers?
Well, of course you are. I mean, assuming you're legally allowed to, because the odds are, like half of smokers die from smoking, so the odds are that smokers are going to die sooner than non-smokers, which means they have less chance to pay into The insurance pool, which means that they're going to be more costly, so you're going to charge more for smokers than non-smokers.
Now, if you meet an individual smoker, can you say for certain that he's going to die sooner than an individual non-smoker?
Well, no.
I mean, there's some slight odds and so on, but it's only when you zoom out that you can start making these big decisions.
If you've been a young man and tried to rent a car, a lot of car companies won't rent to you if you're a young man under the age of 25.
Now, can you prove that every single young man under the age of 25 is going to get involved in a car accident?
No.
But when you look at a large enough data set, you have to make decisions based upon that.
If you're running a political campaign, do you campaign in places where people will overwhelmingly support you or overwhelmingly oppose you?
Well, probably not. Even though each individual within those regions may either support or oppose you, and you can't judge each individual.
But you're trying to focus on the swing states or the swing areas and so on where you can make a difference.
You can't look at any woman and say, well, you're shorter than the average man.
Each individual woman, there's a good chance that she could be taller than the average man.
But when you zoom out and you look at a big enough data set, you can confidently say that women are shorter on average than men.
So again, this is not about judging individuals, but the demographics really, really matter.
I just really want you to understand that.
So you don't take this data...
And then say, well, I know an exception to this rule, and therefore that rule is invalidated.
If you know an exception to the rule, you're looking at too small a data set.
So I really, really wanted to point that out.
The sources, of course, we'll put below.
Oh, one other point as well. If you find these presentations helpful, please, please help.
Pay us for the research. Pay us for the compilation.
Pay us for the production time and values and expense at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
We don't take ads entirely dependent upon you.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
All right. Thank you for that little aside to let us look at the data.
Oh, and if you're just listening to this, you might want to watch the presentation.
It's a pretty visual affair.
So, should X category of people be allowed to speak?
This is the data from 1972 all the way through to 2016.
And we've got these five categories.
Remember, should a communist be allowed to speak?
Should a racist be allowed to speak?
Should an anti-religionist be allowed to speak?
Should a homosexual be allowed to speak?
Should a militarist be allowed to speak?
Now... Which one of these things is not like the other?
Well, communist, racist, anti-religionist, and militarist, these are ideologies or categories of belief.
Homosexual is sexual orientation.
So it's a little different. Listen, these aren't necessarily the questions that I would have asked people.
These may not be the questions that you would have asked people.
I do think that these categories skew a little bit.
To the left, insofar as the left tends to be a little bit more favorable to communism than the right.
They tend to be very much more concerned with racism, a little bit more concerned with racism.
They tend to be because they're more secular, less hostile to anti-religionist, militarist, I think both groups are opposed to and so on.
In general, there's some positive trends here.
You can see all of these lines, communist, racist, anti-religionist, sorry, communist, anti-religionist, homosexual, and militarist are all on the upward trends of, yes, we should allow them to speak.
what has actually declined, the only one that has declined, is racist.
And that's really quite an astonishing thing.
One of the problems, of course, is that when you wanna talk about demographics, then you end up talking about immigration.
But if everyone who talks about immigration or restricting immigration or controlling immigration or taking a pause in immigration, if everyone who says anything like that is instantly branded a racist, then of course their free speech is minimized according to this kind of data.
And I also wanted to point out too, so thinking that blacks are genetically inferior is an abhorrent position.
But I would say in general, if you look at something like communism, Well, communism has killed close to 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
How did we know it wasn't going to work?
Well, let's just say there were a few red flags.
If you look at something like militarism or having an authoritarian or fascist-style government, well, democide or the murder of citizens by government reached a total of 250 million.
In the 20th century alone, outside of wars, just citizens killed by their own governments.
And so, you know, 100, 200, 300 million, if you aggregate all of these together, that's quite a lot of death.
Racism is a thought crime, and it is a wrong and base position, but nonetheless, it is not something that has directly caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, which if you stack communism and militarism together, you get to.
So, I just think in terms of the body count, in terms of the death count, our perspectives may have gotten just a little off base.
And here we can see something quite interesting, which is there's no Republican here.
And one of the big problems that's occurring at the moment, which we'll discuss over the course of the presentation, is the issue or the question that Republicans are having a good deal of trouble trying to speak on increasingly radical leftist campuses in the West or in America in particular.
So now let's look at The support for the question, should communists be allowed to speak?
We're going to look at these categories and the long-term trends by political identification, which is, of course, Republican and Democrat and independent.
Gender, we're going to limit it to men and women.
And ethnicity, largely limited to whites and blacks.
So this is the question that was actually asked in the survey.
Now, I should like to ask you some questions about a man who admits he is a communist.
Suppose this admitted communist wanted to make a speech in your community.
Should he be allowed to speak or not?
So here you can see the breakdown by Democrat, Republican, and Independent.
Democrat in the blue. So Democrat, there has been a significant improvement in the willingness to let a communist speak.
Same thing with Republicans. Independents were more open even back as far as the early 70s.
Almost 20 points more open than Democrats to allowing the communist to speak.
So some upper trends here with independence already being in the good or decent category of this.
Now, if you look at the difference between men and women, look, we found a gender gap.
This one appears to be quite real.
Should a communist be allowed to speak in your community?
Men have in general been significantly more favorable to the free speech of communists than women have.
That is very, very interesting.
Now, if you look at one of the challenges that is facing higher education in the West these days is the deplatforming of people found to be abhorrent by students, by even faculty sometimes.
As more and more women have come into college...
And tolerance for opposing views has decreased.
This graph may be an avenue to exploring that, in that men tend to be far more favorable for free speech for communists than women are.
We'll see as this goes forward how it plays out.
But this is quite significant.
This is sometimes 10 points, sometimes close to 15 points.
If you just look at 2016, women are at 65% sure they can speak, and men are at 75% sure the communists can speak.
That is a pretty significant gap.
Now, what about whites versus blacks?
Now, I'm just going to point out right up front here in 86, there's a big flip between the two.
I don't know what was going on there.
We could theorize, but it would be tough to come to a conclusion.
But in general, you can see here that whites are more favorable for the free speech of communists than blacks are.
And it is, again, quite a significant gap, close to 20 percentage points differences between whites and blacks in some instances.
And where we land in 2016, fewer than 60% of blacks Think that communists should be allowed to speak in the community, while close to 75% of whites say, sure, should be allowed to speak.
So again, we have a gender gap, and we also have a racial gap in support of free speech.
So, with regards to anti-religionists, should they be allowed to speak?
Again, we see here a gap between men and women.
Not quite as wide as the communist gap, but significantly important.
So men, again, more open to allowing anti-religionists to make their case in the public square, in the local community.
And the gap, it's hard to say exactly where it is, is it has ended up...
You know, five, maybe seven points at 2016, but still you hear, you can see here quite clearly that men are more pro-free speech for anti-religionists than women.
Now, looking at whites versus blacks, again, we see a similar gap, but that same hiccup in the late 80s.
But here we can see the quite significant gap that whites are far more favorable to allowing an anti-religionist to speak as opposed to blacks.
And this gap has not been particularly closing and has ended up in 2016 even further apart than prior times, and it's quite a significant gap.
So, here's the survey question that was asked regarding homosexuals.
And I quote, And what about a man who admits that he is a homosexual?
Suppose this admitted homosexual wanted to make a speech in your community.
Should he be allowed to speak or not?
Just a reminder, of course, homosexuality, not a belief system, but we would assume that the speech would have something to do with homosexuality.
So here we can see a positive upward trend and a narrowing of gaps to the point where there was some gap.
Independence better off in the 1970s at 70% saying, yes, the homosexual should be allowed to speak.
Republicans and Democrats further down, but they have come up and they have merged.
And this, of course, is a good success story when it comes to freedom of speech.
It has narrowed and it has increased in general.
So I think that's a very positive development.
I mean, it was back in what was in the early 70s.
The DSM, whatever number it was, I think three back then, Still categorized homosexuality as a mental illness.
So that, of course, has been done away with, fortunately.
Men and women tracking very closely here.
As of 2016, men were clocking in at 90%.
Yes, the homosexuals should be allowed to speak.
Women at 87.7%.
This is tracked very closely.
Among whites versus blacks, whites in general have been more favorable to allowing the homosexual to speak.
The black community or the blacks who are surveyed have improved this to some degree, but there's been a dip as of late.
And the hostility that occurs within certain elements of the black community towards homosexuality is one of the rather undiscussed phenomena, but I think should be talked about more openly.
The militarist. Alright.
This is the survey question that was asked.
Consider a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country.
If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community, should he be allowed to speak?
Or not? Again, here, the independence...
More favorable towards the free speech of militarists, all the way from 1976, in this case, to 2016, whereas the Democrats and Republicans less so.
Now, the Democrats, even less so than the Republicans, are in favor of allowing the militarists to speak, but there has been a general improvement, and the three groups have ended up fairly close together in the 70s, the sort of low to mid-70s regarding allowing the militarists to make a speech that And a speech advocating doing away with voting and allowing the military to run the country.
So I guess people have come up with good counter-arguments to that fairly abhorrent position, and I guess feel confident now in allowing such a person to make such a speech.
With regards to men and women, things track closer, although there is still a slight gender gap, men slightly more favorable in allowing the militarists to speak as regards to women who are slightly less favorable, but it's not a huge amount.
Now, whites and blacks.
Should... Will militarists be allowed to speak?
Well, as you can see, whites have gone from 55% in 1976 to over 75% in 2016, and that has been a general upward trend.
Black's far more uneasy about allowing the militarist To speak, it could be any number of reasons for that.
My guess would be that black experience in America, blacks have had extraordinarily negative experiences with giant government programs, such as segregation, Jim Crow, not to mention slavery itself, all these big giant government programs.
So for there to be a fascist state or a state with more military power and no particular voting could have been, well, could be perceived, and I think rightly so, as particularly negative For the black community, that could be one of the reasons.
This is the biggest gap, I think, so far.
The racist. So here's the survey question that was asked.
Or consider a person who believes that blacks are genetically inferior.
If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community claiming that blacks are inferior, should he be allowed to speak or not?
So this is very interesting.
The independents have declined, and the Republicans have held relatively steady, and the Democrats have remained relatively steady, which produces an overall minor decline in the numbers of, would you allow such a racist?
Now, the question is particular towards somebody who's saying that blacks are genetically inferior.
My question would be, if someone wanted to come and say that whites have privilege, that whites exploit minorities, that whites are racist as whole, that it's a racist society, would they be allowed to speak?
Well, I would assume that these days they'd be given tenureship.
So this is not about racism as a whole.
This is about anti-black racism, we assume, being propagated by a white person.
In the reverse, I wonder how the numbers would go.
Now, this is interesting as well.
There's a significant gap about allowing a race to speak between men and women, that men have held relatively steady in the mid-60s, mid-60% since 1976 to 2016.
Men have held relatively steady in allowing somebody who holds such egregious beliefs to speak.
Women have held relatively steady, but again, it's about a 10-point difference in terms of supporting freedom of speech.
Now, the reason why this is of course important Is that in a democracy, sometimes laws can be changed by 50% plus 1.
A 10% gap is usually the difference between something succeeding legislatively or failing.
So this is a very, very significant difference.
Now this is interesting.
Again, we see this hiccup in the late 80s, early 90s, but for whites, should a racist be allowed to speak?
They've held relatively constant, between 60 and 65%.
Blacks, in the 46% and so on, but have ended up over 55%.
And so there's been relatively constant results among the whites, allowing the racists to speak.
Among the blacks, there's been a slight upward trend.
Again, the reasons for this could be just about anything.
My guess is that from the blacks that I've talked to, they kind of want to know where the racist is and what's being talked about.
They don't like the dog whistles. They don't like it being hidden.
If there is a racist in the community, let him come and make his case so we can see who he is and we can figure out what's going on.
So that could be one possibility for the slight upward trend among blacks.
So, this is the snapshot.
More recent, right?
So now we're just talking about 2000 to 2016.
And these are the overall numbers from all demographics.
So should this person, should X be allowed to speak?
Well, 85% of people say homosexuals should be allowed to speak.
77% of people say anti-religionists should be allowed to speak.
68% say militarists should be allowed to speak, 67% say communists should be allowed to speak, and 60% say that racists should be allowed to speak.
To break down the numbers by men versus women, again, all of this data, 2000 to 2016, So, among men, should the racists be allowed to speak, 66% say yes, and 56% of women say yes.
And here we see again this intolerance to opinions considered to be horrible.
More intolerance among women.
Women. And now, among the militarist, 70% of men say, sure, he should be allowed to speak, and 66% of women, again, this gap.
Allowing the homosexual to speak, 85% of men say, sure, 84% of women say, sure.
Allowing the anti-religionist to make a speech, 81% of men say, yes, 74% of women say, yes.
Allowing the communists to speak, 72% of men, 63% of women say, yes.
Now, Democrats versus Republicans.
Very interesting data.
Allowing the racist to speak.
58% of Democrats say yes.
63% of Republicans say yes.
Allowing the militarists to speak.
65% of Democrats say yes.
69% of Republicans say yes.
Allowing the homosexuals, the homosexual to speak, 85% of Democrats, 83% of Republicans.
This is the only category wherein the Democrats are more pro-free speech than the Republicans, and it's very small.
It's only two percentage points difference.
Allowing the anti-religionist to speak.
74% of Democrats say sure.
79% of Republicans say sure.
Allowing the Communists to speak, 64% of Democrats say sure.
68% of Republicans say yes.
So here we can see there is more tendency for the Republicans to allow for freedom of speech versus the Democrats with the exception of homosexuality, which I assume is driven by the Republicans' more foundational Christian beliefs.
Should X be allowed to speak?
Well, if we look at the differences between whites and blacks in America, this is the date of 2000 to 2016, we can see that there is a significant difference.
So, should the racists be allowed to speak?
65% of whites say yes, 53% of blacks say yes.
What about the militarists? 73% of whites say yes, only 57% of blacks say yes.
Homosexuality? 87% of whites say yes, 78%.
Of blacks say yes.
That's a significant, almost a nine point difference.
Should the anti-religionists be allowed to speak?
82% of whites say yes.
67% of blacks say yes.
Should the communists be allowed to speak?
72% of whites say yes.
57% of blacks say yes.
So this is a big challenge in that we see one of the largest gaps is the difference between whites supporting freedom of speech for these categories versus blacks.
It's a very very large difference.
So now we're going to take the third run at slicing and dicing the data, and we're going to talk about free speech absolutism.
Again, this is the data, 2000 to 2016.
Now, you are a free speech absolutist in this context.
If you say yes to each of the five different categories of individuals who wish to make a speech in your community, do you say yes to the communist?
Do you say yes to the militarist?
Do you say yes to the racist?
Do you say yes to the homosexual?
Do you say yes to all of the groups Even though you may vehemently disagree with enormous sections of the content of these speeches, do you grit your teeth and say, well, it's free speech, and it's free speech.
So, are you a free speech absolutist?
Now, here we're going to introduce two new categories, Hispanics and Asian.
Please understand that the Asian category has a fairly small sample size, so take the data with a grain of salt.
The others are pretty good. Are you a free speech absolutist?
51% of men are free speech absolutists.
Only 41% of women are free speech absolutists.
If you look at not just gender but race, 51% of whites are free speech absolutists.
Only 34% of blacks.
And only 27% of Hispanics are free speech absolutists.
And Asians clock in at 35%.
So, which groups are maintaining free speech?
And if you fundamentally change the demographics...
Of a country, as I said at the beginning, you fundamentally change the values of that country.
And one of the most important values in the West is free speech.
And we can see that as the demographics of the West changes, free speech begins to decay.
It is decaying throughout Western Europe.
It is decaying in Canada to some degree.
It is decaying as a whole.
And the question is, what does this have to do with demographics?
So here is free speech absolutism by race and gender.
So here, if you're white and you're male, 56% are free speech absolutists.
56% of white males are free speech absolutists.
Only 47% of white women are free speech absolutists.
And again, that is the difference between sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing when it comes to legislation.
Among blacks, 39% of black males are free speech absolutists.
31% of black females are free speech absolutists.
Among Hispanics, 31% of Hispanic men are free speech absolutists, but only 23% of Hispanic women.
Among Asians, 39% of men and 32% of Asian women are free speech absolutists.
So if you like your free speech, the only group that has a majority is white males.
And thus, if you're against free speech, you're going to rail against white males, which explains a lot of the cultural and ethnic battles going on at the moment.
That 50% line, there's only one group above it, and it's not even that much above it, and that is white males.
What about religion? Now, in this category, Jewish and Muslims have smaller sample sizes, so again, take it with a grain of salt, but the trends may be important.
So, if you're Protestant, 42% of Protestants are free speech absolutists, 41% of Catholics.
54% of Jews are free speech absolutists, but only 25% of Muslims.
Among atheists, 58% are free speech absolutists.
What about party identification?
Now, among Democrats, only 42% of Democrats are free speech absolutists.
That rises to 47% among Republicans and drops to 46% among independents.
So, that is a significant gap.
There's a 5% point gap between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to being a free speech absolutist.
Now, What about generations?
Free speech absolutism.
So among the silent generation, the pre-Boomer generation, 34% of them were free speech absolutists.
Among Boomers and Generation X, that data rises to 49%.
It's a significant improvement, which I assume would have a lot to do with breaking down barriers in the 1960s.
So Boomers and Generation X, 49% free speech absolutists.
Among Millennials, 44% are free speech absolutists, and among Generation Z, which admittedly does have a very small sample size, 33% are free speech absolutists, which is the lowest that has been recorded since the silent generation.
And again, we can see on college campuses and other places that the intolerance of free speech is growing.
This would be one of the reasons, or at least one of the indicators, as to the cause.
Now if we look at free speech absolutism by race and nativity, we get the following very illustrative data.
So if you're a native-born American and you're white, 52% of you Are free speech absolutists.
But if you are white and a foreign born American, that drops down to 42%.
It's a 10 percentage point gap in free speech absolutism between native born Americans and foreign born Americans.
If you're a native born black, 35% support free speech absolutism.
Foreign born American blacks, 28%.
Among Hispanics, 37% of native-born Americans who are Hispanic support free speech absolutism.
Only 16% of foreign-born Americans support free speech absolutism.
Among Asians, 47% of native-borns versus 30% of foreign-borns.
Now, foreign-born black and both Asian categories do have a small sample size.
And this is chilling for those of us who are very concerned about the continuity of free speech, looking at these various categorizations.
And that is why people who want to talk about immigration are concerned about this kind of information.
This may be stuff you kind of know instinctively.
Well, we've got a lot of immigration, but free speech, intolerance towards free speech is growing.
Here's the data which supports this.
It doesn't tell everyone exactly why.
We get to some of that in a moment.
What about mothers by marital status?
Free speech absolutism.
So if you are a mother and you are married, then 46% of you will support free speech absolutism.
If you have children and you are divorced, only 43% of you will support free speech absolutism.
And if you are a single mother in this category, you have children but you've never been married, only 35% of you will support free speech absolutism.
Next, why?
Well, we can come up with all kinds of complicated explanations.
But there may be one graph that puts it all in perspective, and my money is on the next one.
Free speech absolutism by intelligence.
And this is from Word's scores in 2000 to 2016.
If you have high intelligence, you are 78% likely to be a free speech absolutist.
If you have only above average intelligence, that drops to 56%.
If you have average intelligence, which is declining...
As a whole in the West, if you have average intelligence, you're only 44% likely to be a free speech absolutist.
Below average intelligence, 33%.
And if you are of low intelligence, you are only 17% likely to be a free speech absolutist.
So look at this descending staircase to hell itself.
And this is one of the reasons I talk about intelligence disparities between ethnicities, between genders, and so on.
It is important. The values that we survive on, the values that allow us to continue to flourish in the West, came from extraordinarily high IQ people in relatively high IQ environments, in fairly high IQ societies.
So that is an important consideration.
Run through this once more if you're just listening.
High 78% free speech absolutism.
Above average, 56%.
Average, 44%.
Below average, 33%.
And low, 17%.
And of course, having high intelligence allows you to see down through the tunnel of time for the blowback of the principles you support in the here and now.
And so if you say, well, that perspective is odious and must be banned.
Well, if you're smart, you say, okay, well, if we give people the power, they give the government the power to ban ideas, then my enemies are going to use it to ban my free speech.
So I don't want that rule.
Even though I'd love to get rid of this particular perspective, I'm not going to do it.
Based on principle and also based upon blowback.
I don't want to give the government the power to police speech because they're going to use that power against me all too quickly.
So it is a high IQ phenomenon to be principled in many ways.
Not just because you have to understand the abstract principles.
You have to manage your emotional revulsion.
I find these perspectives repulsive, but that's the whole point of free speech.
Nobody has to defend the free speech of kittens are cute.
People have to defend the free speech of people considered to be the most egregious in society.
It's never popular to defend free speech because people only want to violate the free speech of people they enormously dislike.
And there is this weird trick now where if you defend the free speech of odious people, you are considered to be supporting odious people when you're simply supporting a principle.
The data is not perfect. I fully understand that, but it's absolutely worth talking about this.
This is decades worth of data and it shows particular trends.
Now, if you want to know more about why demographics are so important, you can check out my presentation, link to it below, called The Truth About America's Survival Demographics.
Now, this is American data, to be sure.
However, this is not just about America.
Everywhere there is mass immigration, these issues are going to present themselves.
And, you know, if you have bad ideas, you don't want to be subject to the scrutiny of free speech to the marketplace of ideas.
You don't want to be challenged.
And if you're on the left and you have bad ideas, you're going to support...
Immigration from demographics that don't support free speech because then you're going to be able to chisel away at free speech and shield your bad ideas from criticism.
And as we can see, one of the things that's happening on college campuses is the intelligence thing to me is the key, that the smarter you are, the more you support free speech.
And as colleges have opened up their doors and gates to just about anybody and their dog, well, what's happened is the average intelligence of people in college has gone down and the intolerance of free speech has gone up, just as you would predict.
It used to be that only 10% or so of people went to college.
Now it's 40%, 50%.
It's not like people have just become magically smarter.
What has happened is colleges have lowered their standards, allowed more people into college, and thus you see a diminished respect for free speech because you have lower intelligence on average in college.
Thank you.
So, yeah, demographics do matter.
These are facts.
Various groups do not hold the same values.
And that's really important.
Hey, diversity in thought is wonderful.
I have debates. I have conversations.
Diversity of thought is great.
But diversity of thought is only protected by free speech itself.
You cannot get diversity of thought if you lose free speech.
You get police speech.
You get suppression. You get fear.
You get self-censorship.
You get a diminishment of engagement in the public sphere if you lose free speech or free speech gets chipped away at.
So diversity is only possible if we defend free speech in an absolute manner.
But if diversity means bringing into your country or having within your country more and more groups who are hostile to the idea of free speech as a principle, you will lose diversity of thought.
You will lose diversity of argumentation.
You will lose your free speech. And then you lose the diversity that free speech is designed to protect.
And This hostility towards freedom of speech is something that really needs to be understood and processed.
Liberals say you should not fear the other.
Leftists say you should not fear the other.
But if the other doesn't support your foundation of values, there is a problem when demographics begin to shift.
And, of course, liberals. I mean, look at liberals' relationship to Trump supporters.
They hate them. They will attack them.
They will denigrate them. They're, you know, the media and, I mean, constantly 90% negative coverage of Trump.
And so, they're not that much into diversity.
They have their enemies who they hate.
And yet, if anyone else says, I'm a little bit uneasy about changing demographics, affecting the values that my ancestors fought and bled and died to hand to me, ah, you're a bigot!
Well... So...
If you love free speech, if you wish to defend and protect free speech, then it's your native-born white males who are your demographic.
Native-born white males in America are the most staunch defenders of free speech.
No other group really comes even close.
So when I talk about demographics, I'm not talking about it because I dislike the other.
