Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries....

The crux of it (and something I never saw quite covered in all the essays bouncing around) is

"Essentially, neoreaction is the dream of a society of mostly white people, living in a hierarchy based both on group membership (aristocratic lineage, gender, race) and individual ability (IQ). The neoreactionaries do not demand total racial purity. But many seem to think that if multiple races live in the same country, the races should be placed in a hierarchy of power, status, and freedom, apparently based on the average IQ of their racial group. Since the movement is about European traditionalism, it's not clear whether white people would be given a special place in the hierarchy, even above those groups whose average IQ is higher than that of whites.

As for women, many neoreactionaries appear to want them to return to traditional social roles - homemaking and child-rearing - and to submit more willingly to the sexual desires of men. Finally, there is some sense that within these group boundaries, the neoreactionaries might want a limited meritocracy - in other words, maybe the smart should rule. However, some neoreactionaries (particularly Anissimov) praise the idea of aristocracy, apparently believing that naturally superior people would manage to win the titles of nobility, and that their descendants would remain superior.

In other words, the neoreactionaries want the West to be a lot like the Ming Dynasty, but for white people. I've often thought of Europe as "the China that never quite made it"; neoreaction seems like the latest manifestation of a dream that refuses to die. "

The "Exit, voice, and loyalty" terminology might seem odd if you don't know it's origins. It's from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that's coming back in popularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty. Hirschman gives an 1978 intro/postscript in his own words here: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~plambert/comp/hirschman.pdf

I'm surprised by apparent predominance of support here on HN for Strangeloop's position. While clearly legal, it's strikes me as a terrible precedent to require speakers on technical topics to pass a political litmus test. I'd be interested to know the actual direction that the sentiment lies. Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk (wisely?) refrain from posting out of (legitimate?) fear of career repercussion? Or am I (comfortable speaking because I'm largely outside the industry) in the minority?

Seriously, any interest I've ever had in whatever he's talking about has been stymied by his lack of concision, even simple methods like the pyramid style which allows for the full treatment. When this blew up I tried reading, then skimming the Carlyle essay, couldn't make myself (and I am somewhat interested in learning about political philosophies I'm not yet familiar with, and of course the peculiar institution is a very important thing to those of us in the US). A bit like the Wheel of Time when the plot stopped.