The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Diversity! and Big Government Go Together Like a Hand and a Glove
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The 2016 iteration of the GSS asked respondents about who should be the primary provider for the sick, the old, and of education, along with five possible responses–the government, private businesses, non-profits, religious organizations, or family and friends.

The following graphs show the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics*, who said the government should be the primary provider for these things:



Open borders and Diversity! kill libertarianism dead. The schools are long gone. Overwhelming majorities, across the board, favor government funding of education. Throw on the political clout of the teachers’ unions and it’s clear government education is here to stay.

When it comes to government funding for the care of the sick and the old, roughly corresponding to medicaid and medicare, native-born high IQ whites–the only demographic where libertarians can be found–are fairly skeptical. Immigrants, NAMs, and those of modest intelligence, in contrast, are big supporters. They want the government to do everything. Open borders and its attendant Diversity! gives us more of the latter at the expense of the former.

The Derb supports libertarianism within one country. I naturally share those inclinations, but have come to realize the libertarian part of that objective is of picayune importance. The one country part is the part that matters. “Libertarianism” is about ideology and principles. “One country” is about interests and identity. I’m ready and willing to make concessions on ideology and principles in return for gains on interests and identity.

PRVDHLTH, PRVDOLD, PRVDSCHL, RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), WORDSUM(0-3,4-5,6,7-8,9-10), BORN

* Respondents are broken up into five categories that roughly forms a normal distribution; Really Smarts (wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 12%).

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 13 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Can you explain why Ron Paul did so well among Blacks and so terrible among Puerto Ricans in the 2012 primary? I've never had the interest to figure it out, but it was a notable pattern that stood out to me.

  2. Sam says:

    " "One country" is about interests and identity. I'm ready and willing to make concessions on ideology and principles in return for gains on interests and identity."

    As most Alt-righters who come from libertarianism I'm making the same basic turn away. Whereas a libertarian tends to hold economic and legal ideas as the key foundations of a functioning society, the post-libertarian Alt-righter sees sociological and anthropological foundations as the pillars of a good society. And paradoxically(for libertarians) it is also really the key to a more libertarian society or at least the proper basis for one.

    I first realized this when I read Rothbard scolding smug libertarian intellectuals like Thomas Szas for being anti-Christian and anti-bourgeois. He pointed out something I(like most libertarians) had never really given much thought which was that the white Christian bourgeoisie were by far the most likely group to be capable of living out self-government. From then on I realized that if a free society is ever (re)created it won't be made by libertarian personality types but the sort of white christian(and Mormon) that many libertarians would be embarrassed to associate with. The sad truth is that the more sensible types(Woods, Rothbard, Hoppe) have always been the exception as Jonathan Haidt might have pointed out:

    Even more devastating is the exciting revisionist case Sean Gabb makes that English liberty never came from classical liberals and they in fact led the way for its demise and the subsequent socialist labour party. Instead it was the entrenched aristocracy that created the many liberal freedoms through its struggles with the monarchy.

    In short, the identitarian road to a libertarian society is probably the more likely route than that built by libertarians or a de facto libertarian ideology.

  3. Think for a minute about the flip side of wanting the government to do such things.

    So whites are more likely to think family, friends, charity, churches, etc., should be the primary providers. Okay. Well, let's assume the vast majority of whites answering are whites who have been in the USA for generations. What are their experiences with family, friends, charity, churches, etc., vs. their experiences with the gov't? Probably their experiences receiving good treatment from the family, friends, etc., are better than the treatment from the gov't. Also, their experience participating in giving to others is more positive. Contrast that with those who are not white. On the one hand they have had better experiences receiving from the gov't (aka white taxpayers) than from family and friends most of whom are the same race, class, ethnic group, etc. Also, they are in a sense saying that they do not wish to personally care for elderly parents, their own children nor give to institutions of charity or education. They know themselves well enough to know that they don't wish to give, well anything really, but certainly not huge amounts like paying for school for their kids or health care for their kids or parents nor anyone else. They want gov't to print money to pay for it. They don't see themselves as having much agency, and the SJW's pretty much tell them the same. They don't see themselves as competent enough to get big jobs done. Contrast that with the American spirit that we all just assumed growing up, and which was reinforced at school. I never heard much about injustice in school when I was little besides taxation without representation and slavery. Kids today are sucking down oppression memes with their mother's milk. The least oppressed people in history are whining about oppression. It is absurd. Think of the rich people in the past who helplessly watched their children die of diphtheria, but now every kid living in "poverty" is protected against because some white boy saw himself as able to grow up and actually change something. We lament the dysfunction of the "dindu nuffin" folks, but there is an even greater swath of "can't do and won't do nuffin" folks as well. Sigh, how well does this correlate to IQ? probably pretty danged high.

  4. Pithom,

    I wasn't aware that Ron Paul did exceptionally well among blacks (or poorly among Puerto Ricans other than having lost that territory like he lost every single actual state).


    Woods comes from the right. I don't know if Lew Rockwell does or not, but I'd guess so. Rothbard is the creme da le creme of libertarians though, isn't he, topping even Hayek and Von Mises? Is it a consequence of him having written so much that no one fully grasps his worldview? My sense is the Libertarian party in the US–the only place libertarianism has any serious presence–is steadily moving in the SJW direction, probably in part because of people like you moving towards the alt right and away from libertarianism, an ideology that sounds good to high-IQ WERIDOs but that isn't applicable in a multicult society because its human nature makes its precepts an unattainable utopia if society isn't full of high-IQ WEIRDOs.

    Read it,

    That makes sense, though the inverse relationship between IQ as measured by wordsum and inclination towards government funding these things exists among non-Hispanic whites exclusively. Foreign-born, non-white–or Hispanic and black presence, anyway–accentuates it.

  5. What I say is true; for what it was worth, Paul did win the Republican vote in Detroit by overwhelming margins, doing his best in the Blackest precincts:
    And his Puerto Rican percentage was especially unimpressive:
    Again, I've never had the interest to figure it out, but maybe you do.

  6. I suspect the whole nonsensical "racist newsletters" controversy likely had a much bigger impact on Whites than Blacks.

  7. Libertarianism is a DEAD END. REAL DEAD like EXTINCTION. Ask yourself why people who don't want collective action want to join Political Parties. And what are these magical values they espouse? Gold? Pot? Is that freedom? This "Free Market" is Bullshit. There is never a "Free Market", or "Level Playing Field". Is the system rigged? You betcha. Its all a scam. Its not what you know, its WHO you know. George Carlin was RIGHT. Its all ONE BIG CLUB, and YOU AIN'T IN IT!
    Capitalism didn't build America. It was Agriculture and then Industrialization. Capitalism is nothing but GREED. Selfish and self-absorbed atomized consumers. What's wrong with that? Cause everyone else is forming into insular groups helping each other, and atomized individuals are easy pickins for gangs and mobs.


  8. Pithom,

    Thanks. I wasn't disputing it, I just didn't know that was the case. Did Ron Paul have a position on the Puerto Rico question? If he's pro-independence maybe that scares a lot of islanders. Puerto Rico is basically a welfare slum that would be in big trouble without US transfer payments.

  9. My suspicion is this is just because Puerto Rican Republicans really like establishment candidates and only listen to what they hear in the MSM. Rubio also won its primary overwhelmingly last year, as did GWB (the overwhelming GOP establishment, if not liberal DC insider, pick) in 2000.

    As for the Black vote, I think this may be due to Ron Paul's stance on drugs and the police state.

  10. Pithom,

    Both far better than my shoot-from-the-hip answers, thanks.

  11. I notice that the "pretty smarts" jump up above the downward linear trend. I suspect that is the manifestation of political indoctrination at the universities.

  12. They know themselves well enough to know that Rubio also won its primary overwhelmingly last year, as did GWB (the overwhelming GOP establishment.
    dabbing urban dictionary

  13. Pithom,

    That also explains Rand Paul's weird, self-defeating push to build a base of support in urban Detroit, I guess.


    Could be, though the differences are modest, may just be noise.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS