The Explanatory Power Of IQ

Larry says: “Either intelligence explains stuff and black poverty is natural and Jewish overrepresentation is natural, or else black poverty is a problem and Jewish overrepresentation is a problem.”

You’re talking about social facts in purely abstract terms and omitting a central thing, the social context itself.

You’re talking about black poverty and Jewish overrepresentation in WHITE SOCIETIES.

But demanding from whites that they decide if black poverty or Jewish overrepresentation are problems you are framing the question from the point of view of the interests of these groups but what about our interests?

Both Blacks and Jews have an interest in living in our societies but why is it in our interest to have to deal with their poverty and over representation?

Neither black underachievement nor Jewish overachievement would be a problem to us if they took place outside of our nations.

Therefore…

Nathan Cofnas writes: “Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.”

Larry writes: That’s deeply disingenuous.
Jews are overwhelmingly represented in movements that weaken our people not in movements that benefit us.
Where’s the Jewish right wing version of the Jew Karl Marx ?
Where’s the Jewish right wing version of Freud or Boaz?
Where’s the Jewish right wing version of George Soros with his dozens of NGOs aggressively pushing a terrible agenda on us?
Where’s the Jewish right wing version of Jewish-heavy, left wing CNN?
To blithely say “oh there are Jews everywhere anyway, goy” is to make an intentionally misguiding false analogy.

But that’s how Jews operate. They use words and debates not as a means to search for truth but as weapons to fight for their own naked self interests.
That David who debated ((( Frame Games))) the other day is a textbook example of what I mean. You could clearly see that he was not arguing in good faith and (((Frame Games))) made this point more than once during the debate.

To say that “there are Jews everywhere both on the left and on the right” is like saying “there are gays everywhere, both in Teheran and in San Francisco.”
Both statements are objectively true but deliberately misleading because they both attempt to portray things of vastly different proportions as if they were the same. That’s the typical Jewish way of making arguments.

Posted in IQ | Comments Off on The Explanatory Power Of IQ

Notice How Jews Were ‘Murdered’ But Non-Jews Were Merely ‘Persecuted’

According to the Museum of Tolerance: “The Holocaust took place in Europe between 1933 and 1945. Six million Jews were systematically and brutally murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators. Millions of non-Jews, including Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), Serbs, political dissidents, people with disabilities, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, were also persecuted by the Nazis.”

There’s no business like Shoah business.

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Notice How Jews Were ‘Murdered’ But Non-Jews Were Merely ‘Persecuted’

Critiquing Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy

Youtube comments:

* This was superb content Luke. Takes a clear and open mind to see the value you bring to this discussion, taking TRS types out of a bubble and letting us see the brilliance and at times weakness of Striker. It’s not totally devil’s advocacy, something I can’t describe yet, certainly in a realm we’re not often exposed to.

* What a beautiful answer to the question of “Do you want to see the destruction of Israel?” by Striker:

“Absolutely not. I don’t want to destroy them, I want them to go into a multicultural phase and learn to coexist with other people so that they could be enriched by the different amounts of food and they can have beautiful caramel children. I don’t want to destroy them I want to them enjoy the great benefits that they’ve given to us in the West.”

* This is rhetorical. Why can’t majority of Jews be like Luke or that Frame guy from a recent racewarski stream?

* Love Striker, you have a great channel going here Luke. Here’s to hoping your fellow Jews don’t shut it down.

* How many Jewish directors from the great postwar period of “art house film”? Here’s a close to complete complete list: Fellini, Bergman, Rohmer, Kurosawa, Truffaut, Satyajit Ray, Jean-Luc Godard, Alain Resnais, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Roberto Rossellini, Bertolucci , Werner Herzog.

* In pre-christian pagan/viking north homosexuals where killed and monogomy was the norm. So the idea that aryans where savages before jewish influence is simply not true.

* Re: How can 1% have such control on a nation?

Read the Biblical book of Esther. She single handedly tricked the King to execute all the enemies of the tribe, and she single handedly made the King appoint a member of the tribe as the new PM. All this without any members of the tribe got any blood on their own hands. Esther is the Gold Standard and a blueprint for how an operation is supposed to be run. In short: Use the most powerful proxy there is to reach you goals.

The very eminent TANSTAAFL has an excellent primer & podcast on this here.

* Oxford graduate student Nathan Cofnas is a race realist. See his essay: “Science is not always self-correcting.

Nathan Cofnas, a graduate student at Oxford University, writes:

MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West. While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.

Posted in Kevin MacDonald, Nathan Cofnas | Comments Off on Critiquing Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy

Should Jews Talk To The Alt Right?

Lorem writes: 2:18:33 Luke said, "It's important for Jews to talk to the Striker's of the world." Right on Luke! Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro will not debate the At-Right and so I lost respect for them. Here is a clip where Prager said he will not debate "white supremacists" https://youtu.be/yWdtBcFTJ6Y?t=10m5s Just before he said that, he literally criticized the left for not debating conservatives. He said leftists eschew debate and resort to name-calling. Then Prager did the same thing! It was breathtaking hypocrisy! https://youtu.be/yWdtBcFTJ6Y?t=8m41s

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Should Jews Talk To The Alt Right?

Frame Games Radio Does Warski Live – Debates Jewish Mathematician About In-Group Preferences (3-9-18)

Frame Game’s Jewish opponent Dave, an anonymous mathematician, constantly interrupts Frame and the moderators but he has many important things to say, particularly in the first 30 minutes.

* Just as physiognomy is real, voice is real. David’s voice is cringy. His manner is rude. He sidesteps many of Frame’s points and takes 15 minutes of painful debate to acknowledge the most basic of Frame’s points. An honest person would accept or reject them right away. David embodies many of the worst qualities of the Ashkenazi discussion style though he did play the ball and not the player (he did not make personal attacks). David also makes genuine contributions to the debate and raises important points.

* JF Gariepy is an excellent guide to sanity and logic. JF smiles and nods when Frame speaks, and is repeatedly annoyed with David.

* David frequently laughs at Frame and JF’s points…a dishonorable debating style.

* JF: “David you are derailing so much it is like you have five streams going on in your mind and I can only engage in one [at a time].”

* David doesn’t want latinos in his country.

* David wouldn’t object to the west rounding up jews and deporting them to Israel because he believes that rights belong to conquerers.

* JF established that David lied about Kevin MacDonald, strawmanned KM…as David claimed KMAC said something in COC that David could not find any such quote.

* Andy Warski to David: “You are filibustering.”

Everyone on the stream had contempt for David’s dishonest discussion tactics.

It’s exhausting dealing with David.

JF: “It was a case of Jewish arguing. Pilpul.”

Youtube Comments:

One of my of my favorite exchanges in the debate was:

David said, “There are many Jewish benefactors, for example Sheldon Adelson, who are extremely concerned that Jews in the United States are becoming less Jewish at a rate that would see the population of Jews halved every generation.”

Frame Game said, “This is a perfect segue to the white identity question. The reason that, I myself, became interested in the Alt-Right is precisely that. The concept of genocide and dwindling numbers and dwindling representational democracy political power as a result of falling birthrates of ethnic displacement. And it is a concern that Jews are allowed to have about Israel and their intermarriage concerns, and it is one that if you were to do that from a white identity perspective it would get you completely alienated in all respects from Western society. You are not allowed to protect the genetic identity of European heritage unless you happen to be Jewish. 

* FRAME GAMES: Man I wish I had time to jump into this earlier tonight. Let me respond to a few points here:

1. Halsey, don’t say Dave cited data and I cited anecdotes. That is the exact opposite of what happened. I cited far more empirical data than Dave did, including polling data concluding the Holocaust is more significant for Jewish identity than belief in God, which I cited to support my claim that mandatory Holocaust classes help foster Jewish identity. Do you remember how Dave responded to that? Hint: He didn’t. He changed topics, then changed again after I read him the Stephen Steinlight article from 2001 citing Holocaust guilt as a defense against the dual loyalty charge. Because his argument was busted.

2. I also cited the 350+ Jewish non-profit advocacy groups alone as empirical, quantifiable evidence that Jews are more organizationally and financially ethnocentric than Whites. Where was Dave’s data on that? Hint: He didn’t have any. And you rebutting that the YMCA is a White advocacy organization loses instantly on inspection. What would happen if the YMCA ever stepped into the public policy ring and opposed mandatory Holocaust classes on grounds that it was anti-White? Can you even imagine?

3. The only reason you may have been left with the wrong impression that “Dave had data” is because he demanded quantifiable data for me to prove the claim that Jews are more socially protected in debating civil liberties / diversity issues than White people. I was very thorough in explaining (1) why empirical data is not required to draw such prima facie logical inferences, and (2) that we could speculate on ways to collect such empirical evidence. Meanwhile, all he cited was an ADL study on anti-Semitism rates (he was wrong, if you remember: he said 90% of Muslims were anti-Semitic when even the ADL’s own poll said only 40% were), and then withdrew it because he couldn’t respond to the validity of the ADL’s measurement questions (which, of course, were junk).

There’s so much more here. Anyway, cheers guys.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Frame Games Radio Does Warski Live – Debates Jewish Mathematician About In-Group Preferences (3-9-18)

Mental Warfare

I always feel bad when a quality HBO or Showtime show or a decent movie feels obligated to have a black woman play a high-powered lawyer or intellectual.

One way the actors compensate is to have their eyes wide open.

Posted in Blacks, Hollywood | Comments Off on Mental Warfare

One Connected Jew’s Whirlwind Tour Of DC

Dan Zak writes for the Washington Post:

A conservative Parkland student’s whirlwind trip to D.C. ended in the Oval Office

Kyle’s parents immigrated from Israel in the 1990s. He grew up in leafy, placid Parkland, and aspires to get an MBA and a job on Wall Street. The 2016 election was the first he paid attention to. He liked what Donald Trump had to say about immigration, the wall, the idea of “America First.”

After the shooting, Kyle joined Twitter, where he fought for the middle ground. His second-ever tweet was a thank you to Hillary Clinton for defending Parkland students against smears.

In New York, a 19-year-old “influencer marketer” named Michael Gruen saw Kyle on Twitter and — with encouragement from conservative editor and columnist Ben Shapiro — reached out to him last month, knowing that he’d need support to amplify his voice.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on One Connected Jew’s Whirlwind Tour Of DC

The Red Pill

Bud: “What drew me to the Orthodox in my youth was how reactionary the core is. I know that’s what Luke loves about it most. If there would have been an alt-right back in the pre-Internet days, he would have just gone WN. But on some level, for someone like Luke, the main thing is the red pill. Whether it’s Jewish or anti-Semitic is secondary.”

Jane: “The truth is the truth. It manifests itself in different ways. I feel like a lot of the things orthodox rabbis said would be considered “anti-Semitic” by a lot of people’s standards.”

Bud: “As a buddy says similarly, “The truth always comes out.” This was the mussar movement bringing good manners to the Ostjuden. Of course, only the Litvaks listened even a little bit.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Red Pill

Explaining Hitler

I’m rereading Mein Kampf. It seems like he drew the wrong lessons from WWI and that’s why he lost WWII.

Hitler had the usual very incomplete understanding of history. Like a good Marxist, he imagined that he had found the master key to understanding history (Jewish perfidity) when no such key exists. He also grossly distorts to the point of fantasy the role that Jews played in Germany’s defeat in WW1, which is what this book was really all about – coming to terms with that defeat. In fact, the Jews of Germany were in nationalistic terms more German than the Lutheran Germans. They were fierce patriots who fought on the front lines for the Kaiser.

Without the contributions of the Jews, Germany would have lost the war by early 1915. Look up the “Haber Bosch Process” for more on this. Post WW1, Rathenau was a genius at keeping the rest of Europe at bay. But then the idiot Germans assassinated him. Yet he was and could have been a kind of Bismark for that era, helping to revive Germany. And all of this because Hitler failed to win admission to art school in Vienna.

One thing that comes through in this book is that Hitler was bi, I think. I wonder how many BJs he had to give (Jewish?) art collectors just to survive before WW 1. And he may have been haunted by the knowledge that quite possibly, his father was sired by a Jewish lad in the home of family that his paternal grandmother worked for as a maid.

Chaim Amalek writes: “Main reasons he lost the war: Making war on everyone simultaneously. As in, invading the USSR with the UK still in the field opposing him; gratuitously and stupidly declaring war on the USA days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without extracting anything from Japan (deep moron move right there); marking the people of Ukraine for enslavement and annihilation and acting accordingly, when he might otherwise have presented himself as their liberator from Bolshevik tyranny and won them to Germany’s side.”

From the Irish Examiner April 7, 2016:

‘The Peculiar Sex Life of Adolf Hitler’ offers insight into the dictator’s gay partners

Hitler had many gay partners, but his attempts at relationships with women proved disastrous, writes Siobhan Pat Mulcahy.

ADOLF HITLER, the man responsible for the deaths of more than 70 million people continues to divide historians and researchers. What was the origin of his evil? How could such a thing have happened?

A few years ago, I wrote an article for CrimeMagazine.com called ‘The real Adolf Hitler’. The article received over 30,000 hits on the internet in the days following publication. It seems people continue to be fascinated by him. During my research, I discovered that the German dictator liked Catholic convent school girls and had many homosexual partners. My interest in his life increased. If a man’s sexuality cannot tell you who he really is or was, then nothing else will.

The Peculiar Sex Life of Adolf Hitler is the culmination of almost two years writing and research. It analyses all the phases of Hitler’s sexual experiences: His early mother fixation, his long-term homosexual phase, and his final years as a “reluctant heterosexual”.

During his childhood, Hitler was beaten viciously and often by his father, Alois, and adored by his gentle mother, who tried to protect him from his father’s whip and belt. Hitler later said that his fondest childhood memories were of “sleeping alone with his mother in the big bed” while his father was away at work. Throughout his life, his devotion to the memory of his mother Klara continued, but he rarely, if ever, spoke of his father.

For most of his life, Hitler was predominantly homosexual. In his teens and early twenties, he had a string of “exclusive male companions”, including August Kubizek, Reinhold Hanisch, and Rudolf Hausler. He shared accommodation with these men in seedy Viennese or Munich backstreets and in “homes for the destitute”.

In his autobiography, Mein Kampf (1925), these early years are hardly mentioned. Instead, he jumps forward from his childhood to his experiences during WW1, describing the soldiers in his regiment as a “glorious male community”.

From the outset of the war, he enjoyed a sexual relationship with fellow dispatch-runner, Ernst Schmidt which lasted almost six years. The relationship was not exclusive, however, and Hitler is believed to have had “sexual relations with a senior officer”. US intelligence later discovered that Hitler was never promoted during WW1 because of his “sexual orientation” and that he was arrested in Munich in 1919 for “pederasty and theft”. Indeed, former Nazi, Otto Strasser said that when Hitler became Nazi Party leader in 1921, “his personal bodyguards and chauffeurs were almost exclusively homosexual”. Two of these bodyguards, Ulrich Graf and Christian Weber, were expected to satisfy their boss’s needs whenever necessary.

Then, in 1924, when Hitler was jailed for treason in Landsberg Castle, he began a love relationship with Rudolf Hess, who was nicknamed “Fraulein Anna” and “Black Emma” by other Nazis. Their sexual relationship endured for many years until Hess, who was prone to hysterics became an embarrassment to the Nazi leader.

However, even when his career was scuppered, Hess remained devoted to “his Führer”, claiming they “had shared a beautiful human experience to the very end”.

By the early 1930s, the homosexual ethos at the top of the Nazi Party was so evident that one anti-Nazi newspaper called the political organisation “The Brotherhood of Poofs”. The media ridicule became so widespread that Hitler decided to do something drastic to change public perceptions.

In a so-called Nazi “book burning ceremony”, he had all the sexual perversion records relating to himself and his Nazi colleagues at a Berlin psychiatric clinic destroyed.

In June/July 1934, he organised the murders and imprisonment of hundreds of Nazi Storm Troopers, including their leader “Queen” Ernst Roehm, who was openly gay.

However, while gay Nazis were being butchered or imprisoned, Hitler was having a secret affair with his Munich chauffeur Julius Schreck. The two were apparently devoted to each other and enjoyed romantic trysts at the Hotel Bube near Berneck, the midway point between Berlin and Munich. Their affair lasted until Schreck’s sudden death from meningitis. When he heard the news, Hitler wept uncontrollably for several days. Schreck had fulfilled Hitler’s fantasies about the great love between a powerful man and his obedient servant. The homosexual Bavarian, King Ludwig II — who had conducted a 20 year affair with his coachman — was one of the German dictator’s heroes.

Hitler ordered a state funeral for his beloved chauffeur, at which he delivered a personal eulogy, with all the Nazi top brass ordered to attend.

Ten years earlier, the 37-year-old German leader had attempted to “go straight”, as he was sick and tired of paying off blackmailers who knew of his homosexuality, but his attempts to have relationships with women proved disastrous. He had a picture of his mother hanging over his bed in Munich, in Berlin, and at his retreat in the Bavarian mountains. Few, if any, of his heterosexual relationships were ever consummated.

Eight of the women he had sexual contact with attempted suicide and six succeeded.

Hitler was attracted to both pubescent teenagers and the actresses he admired on the silver screen.

His first girlfriend (during his mid-teens in Linz) was no more than a figment of his imagination; they never spoke, though he ogled her from a distance for years. The girl, Stephanie Isak, was of Jewish descent and, ironically — along with his “beloved mother” — became the model for “his ideal Aryan woman”.

When he was aged 38, Hitler began a relationship with 16-year-old, convent-educated, Maria Reiter who tried to hang herself (in 1927) when he suddenly lost interest in her. Reiter told Stern magazine in 1959 that, four years after her failed suicide attempt, she shared one night of passion with the man she could never forget, but discovered his “sexual tastes were far too extreme” for her and they never met again.

Hitler then became obsessed with his half-niece, Geli Raubal. Raubal and her “Uncle Alf” conducted a torrid relationship for more than four years, until she shot herself in 1931 with a gun he had given her as a gift. For the last two years of her life, she had been a virtual prisoner in his Munich apartment. Some historians believe Hitler had her murdered when she began telling friends about the “disgusting things” he made her do when they were alone together. After her death, he told Nazi colleagues she was “the only woman he had ever really loved”.

In 1937, film actress Renate Mueller threw herself from a balcony in Berlin after Hitler deliberately ruined her career and ordered the Gestapo to follow her. During their sordid sex sessions, Mueller told friends she was obliged to kick and beat him as he contorted with pleasure on the ground.

When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the English aristocrat, Unity Mitford shot herself in the head with a gun Hitler had given her as a gift. She had participated in orgies with Nazi Party storm troopers, so she could relate the sordid details to the man she called “her messiah”. Mitford wrote in her diary that Hitler said they could only be together sexually in “the afterlife”.

Then, there was the long-suffering and loyal Eva Braun. Hitler was unfaithful to her with both men and women.

She became so sexually frustrated that she asked Hitler’s physician Dr Theodor Morell to give him hormone injections to increase his libido. In the final months of her life, she told girlfriends she regretted not leaving him 10 years earlier (when he wanted to end things).

Instead, she committed suicide with him just 40 hours after their marriage in the Berlin bunker in April, 1945.

Posted in Adolf Hitler | Comments Off on Explaining Hitler

WP: A speech code for lawyers, banning viewpoints that express ‘bias,’ including in law-related social activities

During our Sunday interview, Frame Game Radio, a Jewish New York corporate lawyer, suggested that the following is why Kyle Bristow cucked so badly over the weekend.

A lawyer friend says: “Lawyers like to think of themselves as potential Atticus Finches, or Clarence Darrows, but they are just as craven and conformist as the rest of the population. The ABA code is antithetical to the concept of free speech and the protection of unpopular viewpoints.”

Eugene Volokh writes:

The American Bar Association has adopted a new provision in its Model Rules of Professional Conduct — an influential document that many states have adopted as binding on lawyers in their state. I blogged about it when it was just proposed, in slightly different form, but I thought it was worth repeating my analysis now that the ABA is formally recommending it to state bars and state courts. Here is the relevant text (emphasis added):

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these rules.

Discrimination and harassment . . . includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The substantive law of antidiscrimination and anti-harassment statutes and case law may guide application of paragraph (g).

Conduct related to the practice of law includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law. Lawyers may engage in conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion without violating this rule by, for example, implementing initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing [diverse] employees or sponsoring diverse law student organizations.

So say that some lawyers put on a Continuing Legal Education event that included a debate on same-sex marriage, or on whether there should be limits on immigration from Muslim countries, or on whether people should be allowed to use the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. In the process, unsurprisingly, the debater on one side said something that was critical of gays, Muslims or transgender people. If the rule is adopted, the debater could well be disciplined by the state bar:

1. He has engaged in “verbal . . . conduct” that “manifests bias or prejudice” toward gays, Muslims or transgender people.

2. Some people view such statements as “harmful”; those people may well include bar authorities.

3. This was done in an activity “in connection with the practice of law” — Continuing Legal Education events are certainly connected with the practice of law. (The event could be labeled a bar activity, if it’s organized through a local bar association, or a business activity.)

4. The statement isn’t about one person in particular (though it could be — say the debater says something critical about a specific political activist or religious figure based on that person’s sexual orientation, religion or gender identity). But “anti-harassment . . . case law” has read “harassment” as potentially covering statements about a group generally, even when they aren’t said to or about a particular offended person, and the rule is broad enough to cover statements about “others” as groups and not just as individuals. Indeed, one of the comments to the rule originally read “Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct towards a person who is, or is perceived to be, a member of one of the groups.” But the italicized text was deleted, further reaffirming that the statement didn’t have to be focused on any particular person.

Or say that you’re at a lawyer social activity, such as a local bar dinner, and say that you get into a discussion with people around the table about such matters — Islam, evangelical Christianity, black-on-black crime, illegal immigration, differences between the sexes, same-sex marriage, restrictions on the use of bathrooms, the alleged misdeeds of the 1 percent, the cultural causes of poverty in many households, and so on. One of the people is offended and files a bar complaint.

Again, you’ve engaged in “verbal . . . conduct” that the bar may see as “manifest[ing] bias or prejudice” and thus as “harmful.” This was at a “social activit[y] in connection with the practice of law.” The state bar, if it adopts this rule, might thus discipline you for your “harassment.” And, of course, the speech restrictions are overtly viewpoint-based: If you express pro-equality viewpoints, you’re fine; if you express the contrary viewpoints, you’re risking disciplinary action.

This also goes beyond existing hostile-work-environment harassment law under Title VII and similar state statutes. That law itself has potential First Amendment problems, as I’ve argued and as some courts have recognized (though others have disagreed); see, for instance, the recent “Don’t Tread on Me” controversy. But in most states, it doesn’t include sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. It also generally doesn’t cover social activities at which co-workers aren’t present; but under the proposed rule, even a solo practitioner could face discipline because something that he said at a law-related function offended someone employed by some other law firm.

Hostile-work-environment harassment law is also often defended (though in my view that defense is inadequate) on the grounds that it’s limited to speech that is so “severe or pervasive” that it creates an “offensive work environment.” This proposed rule conspicuously omits any such limitation. Though the provision that “anti-harassment . . . case law may guide application of paragraph (g)” might be seen as implicitly incorporating a “severe or pervasive” requirement, that’s not at all clear: That provision says only that the anti-harassment case law “may guide” the interpretation of the rule, and in any event the language of paragraph (g) seems to cover any “harmful verbal . . . conduct,” including isolated statements.

Many people pointed out possible problems with this proposed rule — yet the ABA adopted it with only minor changes that do nothing to limit the rule’s effect on speech. My inference is that the ABA wants to do exactly what the text calls for: limit lawyers’ expression of viewpoints that it disapproves of. I’ll blog again shortly on other aspects of the proposal (such as the remarkable implications of banning discrimination based on “socioeconomic status”); but here I just wanted to focus on the new ABA speech code, and why state courts and state bars should resist the pressure to adopt it.

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on WP: A speech code for lawyers, banning viewpoints that express ‘bias,’ including in law-related social activities