Half Sigma is eager to show social conservatism, in the form of opposition, is bad for Republicans. (Here, here, and here.) Steve Sailer suspects that social conservatism, with respect to Mexicans, means something entirely different.
What does “social conservatism” mean, really? It is generally thought to mean traditional attitudes towards sexual and reproductive behavior- no promiscuous sex, little or no sex before marriage, sexual fidelity in marriage, little or no divorce, no STDs, no abortion.
And yet upper class whites, Jews, and Asians all live this way more or less, but are not considered socially conservative. Many blacks and Hispanics believe in these things abstractly, even if they don’t practice them, but are not considered socially conservative. Many Catholics believe and practice these things, but vote as liberal Democrats, so they are not functionally socially conservative.
The last bit is the key. “Socially conservative” means you care enough about other people’s behavior to make it a political issue, specifically their sexual behavior. Isn’t this terribly gauche, to concern yourself with someone else’s sexual behavior?
In the old days people who transgressed traditional sexual mores were social outcasts, and nobody cared about them. Then in the Victorian era, rather than writing these people off, Christian missionaries made the effort to spread what is know as “middle-class” morality to all, the lower and also the upper classes.
This has hardly stopped. The moral busybodies are still terribly concerned with the health and morals of the unwashed masses, just not their sexual health and morals. Unrestrained and possibly destructive sexual behavior atomizes people and makes them more dependent on and identified with the state, one reason single people are more liberal.
The current moral panic involves first of all proper racial and gender attitudes- proper deference, not simply respect but deference, to women and minorities.
(Note- I’m going to stop using the term “non-Asian minorities”. Asians behave well but in terms of loyalty and support to the system, they are as strong or stronger than Hispanics and Jews. They are not in the same class as whites, so to try to make out that they are is wrong.)
Aside from this, food is a matter of great moral concern. The masses must not eat fatty foods, too much meat, junk food, or excessive amounts of soft drinks. This last item is so important that it is now a matter of law in New York City. Ideally they would eat a vegetarian diet composed heavily of whole grains.
You will claim this is completely different- sexual behavior affects no one else and is a matter of freedom and choice, while racism and sexism hurt minorities and women, and poor eating increases health care costs. But you would be wrong, or at least not right. Bad sexual behavior causes social and health problems, and abortion hurts other people, if you regard fetuses as people. Unwise food consumption leads to bad health outcomes, but no more so than unwise sexual choices, less so if you consider AIDS.
As a fascist, I think in an ideal society people’s behavior would be strongly encouraged to be healthy in all ways. But the hysterical busybodyism of our elite is destructive.
I would hope that Half Sigma would understand that just because rich, educated, and intelligent people believe something, it isn’t necessarily true or good. If he thinks the Republicans should drop their opposition to abortion, all well and good. But far worse for society is the elite’s opposition to racial and gender reality and their deep desire to control what we eat.