Counter-Currents
2,041 words
Almost two thirds of white voters would support a law making it illegal for an employer to fire an employee for exercising a Constitutionally protected right while off duty.
Almost half of white voters are less likely to support a business if it fires an employee due to pressure from the Left.
Our first Homeland Institute poll ever was conducted last year in August, 2023, on the topic of cancel culture. Cancel culture merits research because it is used with great effect by the Left to chill resistance to globalism, multiculturalism, and mass immigration. More specifically we explored which was more damaging: the charge of “racism” or a charge of “woke.”
Much has happened since last year, so we decided to repeat the poll to track public opinion. For example, there has been a strong conservative backlash to the “woke” opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics, and the X/Twitter account “Libs of Tiktok” has doxed Leftists who publicly wished that Donald Trump had not survived the assassination attempt on him.
Along with repeating last year’s poll on cancel culture, we also expanded it with new questions. The Homeland Institute polled 950 respondents who are politically and demographically representative of white, non-Hispanic American registered voters between July 25 and July 31, 2024. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.
- The Endgame
The most important findings came from the new questions we asked. There is a growing consensus that the Right must develop a cancel culture of its own to counter the Left—but for what ultimate, concrete goal? One realistic goal would be to bring the Left to the bargaining table to abandon their cancel culture.
In an internal poll by Counter-Currents of 541 of their readers, 24.4% had been doxed. Of those who had been doxed, only 13% suffered initial employment consequences and 10.7% ongoing employment consequences. 22.2% suffered no consequences beyond initial anxiety. This suggests that doxing is no longer as powerful of a weapon as it once was, especially since employment consequences are the most important.
If doxing were bereft of economic consequences, it would lose most of its sting. Thankfully, the Right is already in a position to achieve this goal of forcing the Left to abandon the economic impact of doxing.
Almost two thirds of all respondents at 64.7% would support a law making it illegal for an employer to fire an employee for exercising a Constitutionally protected right while off duty:
| Q.12 Which of the following best describes your opinion of a law making it illegal for an employer to fire an employee for exercising a Constitutionally protected right while off duty? | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| Strongly support | 39.6% | 35.5% | 36.8% | 39.0% |
| Slightly support | 25.1% | 24.2% | 22.4% | 24.2% |
| Neutral/No opinion either way | 17.0% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 14.0% |
| Slightly oppose | 8.6% | 6.8% | 7.9% | 8.7% |
| Strongly oppose | 9.7% | 9.9% | 7.9% | 9.3% |
| I don’t know | 7.0% | 6.8% | 8.7% | 4.8% |
Support was high and consistent across party lines, so such a law would be a bipartisan, or even better, a non-partisan issue. Only 18.3% of respondents were in some form of opposition. That this was the final question in our poll suggests that the mere specter of an incipient Right-wing cancel culture is enough to bring the Left to the bargaining table due to the nature of the other questions. We do not need to obtain parity or even substantial parity in cancel culture to achieve this result.
Furthermore, passing such a law may be more viable than beating the Left in a tit for tat cancel culture war due to a lack of enthusiasm for developing a Right-wing cancel culture:
| Q.11 Which of the following best describes your opinion of the following statement: | ||||
| “The Left has wielded ‘cancel culture’ to great effect for years. Until the Left decisively disavows cancel culture, the Right has no reasonable option but to develop a cancel culture of their own.” | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| Strongly agree | 10.3% | 1.7% | 7.2% | 20.5% |
| Slightly agree | 12.7% | 6.1% | 11.6% | 18.8% |
| Neutral/No opinion either way | 25.9% | 24.2% | 30.7% | 24.4% |
| Slightly disagree | 15.2% | 11.6% | 19.9% | 14.3% |
| Strongly disagree | 29.4% | 50.2% | 24.9% | 14.3% |
| I don’t know | 6.5% | 6.1% | 5.8% | 7.6% |
One can wonder why support for a Right-wing cancel culture is so low. A GOP establishment which pushes a message of unity rather than vengeance and the inherently defensive nature of conservatism probably play a role. Regardless of why, only about two fifths of Republicans at 39.4% would support developing their own cancel culture, while 28.6% would be in opposition and the rest neutral or undecided. Two fifths of Republicans is still substantial, especially if their target is vulnerable, so this does not mean that fostering a Right-wing cancel culture should be abandoned. However, it does mean that bringing the Left to the table now for a ceasefire on the employment aspect of doxing would be more effective.
Cancel culture can encompass more than pressuring employers to fire employees. For example, it can use boycotts. But regarding firing employees, there was widespread resistance among respondents:
| Q.9 If a business fires an employee due to pressure from the Left, would it make you: | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| More likely to support them | 7.8% | 14.7% | 3.2% | 4.5% |
| Less likely to support them | 49.5% | 24.2% | 49.5% | 71.6% |
| No real effect either way | 23.8% | 35.5% | 24.2% | 13.8% |
| I am not sure | 18.9% | 25.6% | 23.1% | 10.1% |
| Q.10 If a business fires an employee due to pressure from the Right, would it make you: | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| More likely to support them | 7.7% | 3.4% | 3.2% | 14.6% |
| Less likely to support them | 45.5% | 55.6% | 46.6% | 35.4% |
| No real effect either way | 26.8% | 22.2% | 25.6% | 32.9% |
| I am not sure | 20.0% | 18.8% | 24.5% | 17.1% |
This was true whether the pressure to fire the employee came from either the Left or the Right. With Republicans and Democrats favoring their respective sides and Independents being consistent, the end result among all respondents was very similar. The 7.8% of respondents who were more likely to support a business for firing an employee due to pressure from the Left were decisively outnumbered by the 49.5% who were less likely to support them. These numbers were almost the same for pressure from the Right at 7.7% versus 45.5%.
Given that almost half of their white customers would be less likely to support them, employers would be wise to refrain from firing an employee due to political pressure from either side. This is especially true since whites held 70% of all buying power in the United States in 2020 and are projected to have 68% of US buying power in 2025.[1] How non-whites feel about employers firing employees for political reasons merits further research.
Because doxing has almost exclusively been a Left on Right phenomenon, employers realizing that it is more dangerous to fire a doxed employee than to not fire them would be a major boon to Right-wing activists. In the balance of terror between doxees and doxers on employers, the doxees clearly have the upper hand.
Getting people fired from their jobs has become an unpopular tactic. Perhaps it never was popular, and we simply didn’t realize it because a lack of hard data made it easy for antifa to gaslight employers and doxees. Regardless, agreeing to laws which protect the right of employees to exercise their constitutional rights during their off duty lives would be an effective solution to ending the worse effects of cancel culture. In the meantime, doxees should stand their ground against their employers.
- “Racism” versus “Woke” for Boycotts
We replicated last year’s findings on comparing the charge of “racism” versus a charge of “woke” regarding business boycotts.
63.3% of respondents said they are less likely to support a business if it is accused of being racist, versus 61.9% last year.
But only 42.2% said they would be willing to follow through with boycotting a business that is accused of being racist if they had to pay 10% more or drive an extra mile, versus 41.8% last year.
42.2% said they are less likely to support a business if it is accused of being woke, versus 43.7% last year.
But only 27.2% said they would be willing to follow through with boycotting a business that is accused of being woke if they had to pay 10% more or drive an extra mile, versus 29.1% last year.
| Q.1 If a business is accused of being “racist,” would it make you: | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | ||
| More likely to support them | 3.9% | 1.7% | 3.2% | |
| Less likely to support them | 63.3% | 92.5% | 63.5% | |
| It doesn’t matter | 32.8% | 5.8% | 33.2% | |
| Q.2 If a business is accused of being “racist,” would you be willing to boycott that business if you had to drive one extra mile or pay ten percent more? | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| Yes | 42.2% | 71.0% | 40.8% | 18.3% |
| No | 33.2% | 10.2% | 32.9% | 53.7% |
| I am not sure | 24.6% | 18.8% | 26.4% | 28.1% |
| Q.4 If a business is accused of being “woke,” would it make you: | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| More likely to support them | 18.6% | 41.3% | 13.7% | 2.5% |
| Less likely to support them | 42.2% | 9.9% | 39.4% | 73.3% |
| It doesn’t matter | 39.2% | 48.8% | 46.9% | 24.2% |
| Q.5 If a business is accused of being “woke,” would you be willing to boycott that business if you had to drive one extra mile or pay ten percent more? | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| Yes | 27.2% | 8.2% | 21.3% | 48.6% |
| No | 51.4% | 77.8% | 53.1% | 26.7% |
| I am not sure | 21.5% | 14.0% | 25.6% | 24.7% |
The difference between this year’s and last year’s results were within the 3% margin of error.
- “Racism” versus “Woke” for Electoral Politics
We replicated last year’s findings on comparing the charge of “racism” versus a charge of “woke” regarding electoral politics.
68.2% said they would be less likely to vote for a politician if that politician was accused of being racist, versus 65.7% last year.
46.1% said they would be less likely to vote for a politician if that politician was accused of being woke, versus 45.6% last year.
For Independent respondents, 68.2% said they would be less likely to vote for a politician accused of being racist compared to 43.7% of Independents who said they would be less likely to vote for a politician accused of being woke. Last year, these numbers were respectively 65.5% and 41.3%.
Among Republican respondents 43% said they were less likely to vote for a politician accused of being racist, compared to 78.1% who said they were less likely to vote for a politician accused of being woke. Last year, these numbers were respectively 42.6% and 79%.
Additionally, 7.3% of Republican respondents said they were more likely to vote for a politician who is accused of being racist, versus 7.2% last year.
| Q.3 If a politician is accused of being “racist,” would it make you: | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| More likely to support them | 4.0% | 1.0% | 2.9% | 7.3% |
| Less likely to support them | 68.2% | 97.6% | 68.2% | 43.0% |
| It doesn’t matter | 27.8% | 1.4% | 28.9% | 49.7% |
| Q.6 If a politician is accused of being “woke,” would it make you: | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| More likely to support them | 20.4% | 45.7% | 14.8% | 2.5% |
| Less likely to support them | 46.1% | 11.9% | 43.7% | 78.1% |
| It doesn’t matter | 33.5% | 42.3% | 41.5% | 19.4% |
The difference between this year’s and last year’s results were within the 3% margin of error, and a charge of “woke” is still remains almost twice as powerful as a charge of “racism” among white Republican voters. Thus the strategy of Susie Wiles, a senior Trump campaign advisor, that “For every Karen we lose, we’re going to win a Jamal and an Enrique” makes little sense.[2]
Republicans who pander to everyone except whites would be wise to rethink their strategy, lest they be perceived as being woke—and especially since whites remain 70% of the electorate.
- A Changing Country
Regarding the first six questions of the poll which explored a charge of “racism” versus “woke,” a significant number of respondents said that their answers would have been different five or ten years ago.
| Q.7 If you had been asked the previous six questions ten years ago, would your answers have been different? | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| Yes | 23.3% | 20.5% | 29.2% | 21.1% |
| No | 76.7% | 79.5% | 70.8% | 78.9% |
| Q.8 If you had been asked the previous six questions five years ago, would your answers have been different? | ||||
| Results by Party | ||||
| % All | Democrats | Independents | Republicans | |
| Yes | 13.5% | 11.9% | 17.0% | 12.4% |
| No | 86.5% | 88.1% | 83.0% | 87.6% |
- Conclusion
Key takeaways:
- Almost two thirds of respondents at 64.7% would support a law making it illegal for an employer to fire an employee for exercising a Constitutionally protected right while off duty.
- Almost half of white voters at 49.5% are less likely to support a business if it fires an employee due to pressure from the Left.
- Support for developing a Right-wing cancel culture is not particularly strong but may still be enough to apply pressure to vulnerable targets.
- Among Republican respondents, a charge of “woke” was almost twice as damaging as a charge of “racism” regarding whether they would support a politician.
- Last year’s poll and this year’s poll both strongly suggest that Republican pandering to minorities will backfire as it risks voters perceiving them as woke. Such voters may choose to punish the GOP by staying home like they did during the “red puddle” of 2022 in contrast to the mass mobilization in 2016.
[1]https://www.insiderintelligence.com/chart/252370/us-buying-power-by-raceethnicity-2000-2023-billions
[2] https://modernity.news/2024/07/12/top-trump-campaign-operative-wants-to-appeal-to-jamal-and-enrique-not-so-much-karen/
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
6 comments
One of my biggest takeaways is the number of people that will behave differently based upon ‘accusations’. Given none of the questions contained verbiage about proof of the alleged racisms or wokeness against a person or business, every one of my answers on a poll like this would be 100% neutral. Is this some kind of ‘gotcha’ poll? How is this supposed to be used scientifically?
However, I 100% support the so-called ‘cancel culture’ from both sides in the same vein I support repealing the CRA1964, AA, and the EOEC. That ultimately means I have to support the DEI hiring policies if I’m going to support any group based on any filter that have preferences on who they want around them. Long term, this means there’s tons of Whites out there who could create enclaves in business and personal life with nary the sight of a darky amongst them.
If we’re going to have freedom, let it ring! Right of Association all the way!
Either fight or die. We’re not exactly winning right now if you haven’t noticed.
As Dictator of the United States there would be a mass culling of immoral trash from the airwaves, schools, and public policy – think trannies, homos, miscegenation on the boob-tube, etc.. We’re coming up on the 100 year anniversary of burning the tranny/sex change books; seems like a good first step in making America great again.
Beyond all that, I’d like to add that most R’s are weak. I’m a precinct chair for the R party where I live; it’s a mixed bag in that group. You have hardcore CRA1964 supporters, 100% of them (not me) are Reagan worshipers, and they all say “it’s just skin color” while quoting the communist michael king. I haven’t figured out if they’re confused or just stupid. Having said that, is it really a mixed bag? Why they call themselves conservatives is beyond me, because they’re all just libtard-lite, especially the libertarians in the group. Libertarians are nothing more than commie enablers (just look at the leader of official L party), and modern conservatives, through generations of propagandized parents are typically more often than not cucks on race.
Since I’m going on and on here, the term ‘libtard-lite’ I used previously is my prediction of Trump’s next term if he wins – based on everything I witnessed at the RNC and the things that have came out of his mouth/actions. Trump is libtard-lite.
I’m only there for something to do and to take the temperature of the locals in my area; I am NOT a republican.
Here here Robert! If a business wants to do something to an employee based upon social-political-associated reasons, so be it.
The small businesses take the risk of the local reaction. The larger businesses generally have a more politically and culturally diverse consumer market, and face less risk, oh well. And the retards heading larger businesses are way too often clueless liberal retards, so the action is more often against traditional folks. C’est la vie, mon frere!
It is war. If you don’t like it much, don’t poke your head up out of the foxhole! (not you Robert, the public at large)
But one observation: seeing that 24% of the folks hit by employers via doxxing saw an economic impact. That is 1 in 4! NOT insignificant, that sucks! Pretty much feudal era extortion.
An absolute non-no for government jobbers though.
You are 100% wrong. What you are advocating is the exact thing that has made the American “right” do nothing but lose ground for the past 60 years–adherence to abstract principles and concepts as opposed to actually wanting to win. A law protecting employees from retaliatory action from their employers when they exercise their first amendment rights would do nothing but help our cause. If that means we have to be ideologically inconsistent and support laws restricting freedom of association in order to gain a very real strategic and tactical advantage, so be it. You use the right tools to accomplish what you need to accomplish—you can implement whatever you want once you win. Until then, you’re stuck with the very real mantra of politics being the art of the possible.
I am not wrong. You are not right. What you are advocating for is exactly what has been plaguing this country for a while now – more government intervention in private affairs which only serves to promote the enemy’s agenda. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government, not your employer, co-worker, or someone out in public.
If you want a Whites Only sign on the front door of your business, that is your business. If you hire someone that winds up saying something you don’t like in public on their own time while being employed by you, guess what? You get to fire them, and it’s YOUR private business that the government should not be involved in.
What you are suggesting is we advance the enemies agenda of complete control in hopes that we can co-opt the system after it’s built. That sounds like a losing strategy right off the bat, especially when we’re already losing.
Let me ask you this. Knowing what we know about the state of cuckery of ‘conservatives’, leftist control over all the important institutions, the anti-White empire, the international financiers, and global communism/plutocracy (I’ll spare you and stop the list) how effective in the real world do you think this specific law is going to be? Do you really, REALLY want the government to have more control over your private business/affairs? The justice system has been working so well letting off black murderers while burying Whites under the prison, maybe this one will turn out different….?
We’re not going to gain any tactical advantage or any advantage at all until every single one of us on sites like this are running for office and making our ideas known and available to the public at the ballot box. Every commenter. Every contributor. Every single one of us. Until then, nothing changes.
What these polls show well is why ‘conservatives’ lose. They’ve no stomach for punishing their enemies. What the polls also suggest is that racially-aware Whites are going to start tipping the scales in close national elections. It will mean that the ‘greater of two evils’ wins in many cases, but in racial matters, there’s not substantive difference between the GOP and the DNC: Both are controlled by anti-Whites (whether anti-White jews or anti-White darkies).
National politics should be dead to pro-Whites until the foreseeable future. It’s like not picking up the phone when your divorced spouse calls looking for ‘quickie’. Walk on.
Local races are the place to concentrate one’s efforts, specifically looking for candidates with a more hard-line stance against ‘intrusion’ by the federal government. ‘Nullification’ (for the right issues) has very strong White support. It plays to the ‘Don’t tread on me’ anarchist streak in the American Character.
If we can diminish the Federal Authority, Whites can win.
When I worked at OTC Thriftstore on cap-hill Sea; I saved everything sent to me from upper managment and co-workers (I learned by working for the State that people will lie, cheat, and steal to avoid taking accountability. Especially if it’s a straight, white, male -vs- a diversity higher. Maybe I should have known that already but the state job combined with the Sea job were major steps in my political awakening).
My assistant manager had sent me several text messages telling me, more or less, to suck eggs. When she finally sent me a text to a website titled “Why I hate white people” (she was mexican) I told her she was being racists. She, of course, calimed that it is impossible to be racist to white’s. I complained to upper management and found out that she too had complained. Based on the only information I was privy to, I was fired for saying she was being racists. I contacted an attorney (if I knew then what I know now I would have tried to find one that understood these types of things). He took my case for a cut of the money he thought we would get via suing. I had all the documentation, including her text messages. I was unemployed, he got tired of attempting to get a response from AHF and turned my case over to the EEOC who found no fault on the part of my assistant manager (the mexican girl) or AHF. Oh, here’s AHF btw: https://dailycaller.com/2024/05/10/video-blind-man-falling-elevator-shaft-los-angeles/
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.