We know that large percentages of academics and students refrain from expressing their views on certain topics for fear of being denounced, mobbed or formally sanctioned. Self-censorship on campus is frequently discussed in the media – and rightly so. But what’s the situation in the population at large? And how has it changed over time?
Recently, two relevant studies came to my attention. The first is from the United States. In a paper published last year, James Gibson and Joseph Sutherland collated all the surveys they could find that had asked Americans a simple question: “What about you personally? Do you or don’t you feel as free to speak your mind as you used to?”
This question is not necessarily ideal, though it has the advantage that it was first put to the American people way back in 1954 by the sociologist Samuel Stouffer – which permits the study of long-term trends. When the authors plotted the percentage who said they did not feel free to speak their mind over time, this is what they found:
There is a clear increase in self-censorship. (Although note that the years on the x-axis are not always consecutive because they represent the specific years in which surveys were available.) In 1954, only 13% of Americans said they did not feel free to speak their mind. By 1987, this had grown to 21%; by 2011 to 31%; and by 2020 to 46%.
So around half of Americans say they don’t feel free to speak their mind. And interestingly, a substantial portion of the change since 1954 has occurred over just the last 10 years – corresponding to the Great Awokening.
The second study that came to my attention is from Germany. Researchers from the Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy asked a sample of Germans, “Do you have the feeling that you can express your political opinion freely in Germany today, or is it better to be careful?”
This is a question they first post back in 1953 (in West Germany), although unfortunately the figures published in the study only go back to 1990 (the year of reunification). Here’s what the researchers found:
Here too, there has been a marked rise in self-censorship. Back in 1990, only 16% of Germans said it’s better to be careful. By 2017, this had grown to 25%; and by 2023 to 44%. Like in the United States, almost half the population say they don’t feel free to express their political opinions, with a large portion of the change having occurred over just the last 10 years.
Interestingly, the researchers found that only among Green voters was there a majority who said they can express their political opinions freely. Among supporters of the Alternative für Deutschland party, 62% said it is better to be careful. This Left-Right divide is also present in the U.S., where Republicans are much more likely to refrain from saying these due to the political climate.
Since the start of the Great Awokening in 2012 or thereabouts, Americans and Germans have become much more likely to self-censor. And the same is almost certainly true in other Western countries. So much for the liberal West.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Wednesday Morning Bagshot Road
& Rectory Lane, Bracknell
“Could Trump cost Australia’s Liberals victory?”
Yes. Australians still give too much credibility to the MSM, and most have been convinced that Trump has been a disaster for the US (and the world). Dutton is not anything like Trump (unfortunately), but he is tarred with the same brush.
Trump blames Zelensky for derailing London peace talks
‘I thought it might be easier to deal with Zelenskyy. So far, it’s been harder’
Okay…let me think…why might that be…….?
‘The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an inseparable constituent part of Ukraine
and decides on the issues ascribed to its authority within the limits of authority
determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.
The sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory. Ukraine is a unitary state.
The right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine belongs
exclusively to the people and shall not be usurped by the State, its bodies or its officials’
Ukraine Constitution
‘1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine…….
3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE’Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.’
Budapest Memorandum 1994
‘Statement from July 25, 2018, signed by Mike Pompeo, then the U.S. Secretary of State, states that ‘The United States rejects Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea’
Oh! So maybe Zelensky might have a point?
Putin does not want peace. He is messing with President Trump.
‘From day one, we were taught that Russia is and must remain a derzhava— a “great power.”…….A country destined to challenge the West. That belief — fused with resentment, imperial nostalgia, and a constant sense of grievance — forms the backbone of Russian diplomacy.’
Inna Bondarenko, Graduate of MGIMO, Russia’s elite diplomatic academy
The Trump administration’s ‘final offer’ main points are as follows:
Europe and Ukraine now face off against Russia and the U.S.
The U.S. is in breach of its previous commitments, in particular the Budapest Memorandum. Russia is in breach of the Budapest Memorandum and the CSCE Helsinki accords.
Ominous…..
As reported by the Russian Foreign Ministry in April 2014 (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1711773/):
The current “government” in Kiev, which came to power as a result of an anti-constitutional coup, by their policy, primarily with regard to national minorities, has in fact itself broken the unity of Ukraine and literally pushed an entire region out of its composition.
At the OSCE summit in Budapest in 1994 and during events on the side-lines, Russia did not undertake to force part of Ukraine to stay in it against the will of the local population, but the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum are not applicable to the conditions which have become a consequence of actions of foreign policy or social and economic factors.
As is known, 97% of voters in Crimea during the referendum of 16th March, which was organised under the control of international observers, supported entry into the Russian Federation.
Thus, Ukraine’s loss of its territorial integrity was a result of complicated internal processes, with which neither Russia nor its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum have anything to do.
The Russian Federation strictly observed and still observes its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, including during the many months of political confrontation in Kiev, which cannot be said about the policy of western countries, who openly neglected this sovereignty during the events on the “maidan”.
Let us remind ourselves of the fact that along with this memorandum a joint statement was adopted in Budapest by the leaders of Russia, the United Kingdom the United States and Ukraine, which, inter alia, confirmed the importance of obligations within the OSCE, which are envisaged to counteract the growth of aggressive nationalism and chauvinism. It is absolutely clear that Ukraine has not fulfilled these obligations and had been conniving in the growth of extremely aggressive nationalism for many years, which finally led to the self-determination of the Crimean population to enter the Russian Federation.
As reported by the Russian Foreign Ministry in December 2024 (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1985517/):
The Memorandum is not an international treaty and does not create rights or obligations under international law. It does not impose additional legal obligations on signatory states, including Russia, beyond those they already had at the time of signing it.
The Budapest Memorandum was adopted in connection with Ukraine acquiring a nuclear-weapon-free status and, accordingly, its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. This document is a component of a package of political agreements that impose certain obligations on all parties equally. Having accepted this package, Russia has strictly complied with the provisions of the documents that it signed during the years that followed.
The United States and a number of EU countries acted quite differently. They blatantly disregarded Ukraine’s sovereignty, unceremoniously interfered in its internal and external affairs, and tried in every possible way to impose a non-alternative Western-oriented future on its people. Contrary to Ukraine’s initially neutral status, they dragged it into bloc confrontation-driven schemes against Russia, cynically playing on the Russophobic and nationalist sentiments entertained by a portion of the population. Their long-term destructive activities set off crisis processes in Ukraine, which heated up the differences within Ukrainian society and called into question the very existence of Ukraine as a single and capable state.
With the upcoming extension of Zelensky’s military rule, Ukraine continues to be governed by an illegitimate body. What purpose do any negotiations with an illegitimate government serve?
‘Russia’s international negotiations have a single goal: to increase the mother country’s power. This meant pursuing wars that are advantageous, while insisting to the outside world that we sought peace in the face of violence and treachery. But be in no doubt: Putin believes it totally. He is convinced the West despises Russia, and that nothing Europe or the US say can ever be trusted.
He is also a master of making one message suit different audiences.
To ordinary Russians, his Easter charade is reassuring. Despite the horrendous losses incurred by the ‘special military operation’, now three years in and with close to one million dead, the Russian people want to believe Putin is not a warmonger.
His announcement of a ceasefire over the sacred Easter weekend was calculated to dupe them into seeing him as a humanitarian, to give him the moral high ground over an enemy he depicts as ruthless and untrustworthy.
When it comes to the West, the cessation of hostilities was designed to create headlines and sow confusion…..
Talks with the US over how to divide the spoils in Ukraine will no longer be handled by highly trained political operatives but by people who wield real power in the Kremlin.
Might is right, after all. And, amid all the lies, that’s an incontrovertible fact.’
Inna Bondarenko, Graduate, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO
‘In the autumn of 2023, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology surveyed Ukrainians on the feasibility of holding elections in Ukraine according to their schedule. 81% of respondents voted that “elections should be held after the war.”
‘Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, passed a resolution on Feb. 25, 2025 to hold elections after “a comprehensive, just, and sustainable peace is secured” in the country, lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak said.
The decision was supported by 268 members of parliament (MPs), while 12 abstained, according to Zhelezniak…..
The resolution to “support for democracy in Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression” stipulates that elections cannot be held under martial law, emphasizing the “need for continuity of leadership” in such circumstances. [ . . . ]
“Martial law in Ukraine, introduced in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion, does not allow for elections by Ukraine’s Constitution of Ukraine.
At the same time, the Ukrainian people are united in the opinion that such elections should be held after the war’s end,” the parliament declared.’
Putin… is convinced the West despises Russia, and that nothing Europe or the US say can ever be trusted.
No?! Just how is that possible?! Maybe because his offer to join NATO was turned down? Maybe because the West were promoting violent demonstrations in Kiev in 2014, resulting in Ukraine’s democratically elected government (the last) being overthrown? Maybe because both Merkel and Hollande admitted the only reason for the Minsk peace agreements was to give the West more time to arm and train the Ukrainian military? Maybe because the West was, and is, waging war against Russia?
And how convenient that the current, illegitimate Ukrainian parliament has decided there should be no elections in the foreseeable future. Who would have thought that?
We know exactly how Putin thinks:
‘Liberalism? Mocked.
Constructivism? Ignored.
Postcolonialism or feminism? Unthinkable…..
‘Cold War nostalgia meets KGB street smarts meets legal gymnastics. All this is tailor-made for President Vladimir Putin’s worldview.
Everything revolved around ponyatiya (understood codes), honor, betrayal and (dis)trust.
At MGIMO, we were taught to cite international law while violating its spirit, to defend norms while dismantling them and to speak of peace while justifying and waging wars.
Georgia. Syria. Ukraine. These weren’t deviations.
We deployed whichever claim of “Territorial integrity” or “self-determination” suited the day’s talking point.
This is Russian anti-normism in action.’
Mind reading yet again.
“Banning Alternative für Deutschland”
“The climate crisis is being misreported – and there is no legal way to stop it (yet)”
“BBC bans presenter from hosting heat pump podcast”
Why are there so many calls to ‘ban’ things?
Does banning things really work?
I have seen it said that banning things is an indication of weakness and fear. People put such a high value on safety and comfort that they tend to call for a ban on anything they see as a threat and a risk.
Banning things comes at cost to freedom but freedom is risky and our modern world is risk averse. True life is freedom but our modern world is so scared of the risks that freedom brings that it is prepared to abandon freedom and life a stultifying miserable life of bans and restrictions
Yes indeed. It seems to me that there are two fundamentally different approaches to life, and people fall into one category or the other in this regard, and that informs many of their other views and decisions, political and otherwise. A gross generalisation, I know, but one that holds some truth.
In some ways I hope the AfD do get banned. The more extreme the actions of our enemies, the more obvious it will become to the undecided that these people do not wish us well.
Completely agree, the immediate impulse these days is always to go straight to a ban. Locally to me, a drunk driver recently killed someone on a National Speed Limit road, he was naturally going a bit fast and driving rather carelessly because he was drunk.
The council immediately proposed lowering the speed limit, because of course someone who is already out illegally driving their car while drunk will have second thoughts and drive more slowly so as not to break the speed limit…
“Banning Alternative für Deutschland”
Nobody mention the Reichstag Fire.
“‘It was our fault this started!’” – On GB News, Jacob Rees-Mogg discusses non-crime hate incidents with Toby, who says the Tories were asleep at the wheel…
…14 Years too late for recanting now, Moggie old chap.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
How the US lost patience with talks to end the war in Ukraine
Errr……this happens in every negotiation with Russians:
‘While Westerners will often approach negotiations with a cooperative attitude, the Russian businessman or politician will approach it with force and a confrontation mentality. This difference often prevents the two sides from reaching common ground for the duration of the negotiation.’
‘Russia is an empire: it perceives itself as an empire, it has an imperial history, and currently in geopolitics it sees itself as continuing to play the role of an empire. For this reason most Russian negotiations, not only those by the Russian government, but also those conducted by Russian business people, come from a power perspective.
Russians perceive negotiation as a “power game,” as a “сила” (force). They will typically present a very tough position at the beginning of a negotiation, and they will offer tough responses to their counterparts even at the final stages of negotiations.
Although negotiation theorists speak about the overall opportunity, and finding “win-win” outcomes that can benefit both sides, Russians find it difficult to adapt to this negotiation approach. Indeed, the word “victory” itself in the Russian language means that the other side loses or leaves the game.
The Russian negotiation mentality is a very strong approach, and a rather inflexible one, which to some extent ignores emotional and psychological considerations often discussed in negotiation theory.’
https://embahs.skolkovo.ru/en/emba-hs/blog/culture-and-negotiations-the-russian-style/
Good luck with that.
The Russian negotiation mentality …
And the US negotiation mentality? Hopefully the USA will soon be out of the picture and the Ukraine conflict can return to being the local conflict it should always have been.
I am sympathetic to Candace Owen’s opinion on the West meddling in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI61HrNXQaQ.
“The Russian negotiation mentality is a very strong approach,” you mean like Trump’s?
There is no point in negotiating from a position of weakness, or whuilst standing on quicksand like Zelensky.
The Tories were asleep at the wheel when Non-Hate Crime Incidents became a thing?
They seemed to have been asleep at the wheel for many things, it would seem. Insane Net Zero legislation, The destruction of civil liberties during COVID. The near disappearance of bodily autonomy also during COVID. The descent into madness over gender. The explosion of the national debt. The explosion of immigration numbers.
What were the Tories actually awake for?
Or, as is more likely, perhaps they weren’t asleep at all but very mindful and very aware of what they were doing.
Toby… come on…wtf
I am in complete agreement with this position.
The Conservatives must be destroyed. They are well past their use by date.
Is this news? Are we meant to care? Why is it included in today’s News Round-Up?
I thought the exact same thing. I don’t even know who this person is. Probably someone who’s only famous in the U.S.
I’ve never heard of her either.
“Reeves rules out chlorinated chicken in US trade deal”
But she fine with Bovaer in cattle feed?
Excellent point! Will any of us get to vote for poisoning cattle with Bovaer?
UK Government ‘Commits’ to Forcing Cattle to Consume Anti-Flatulence Feed Additive
“The mandate comes after the British dairy farmers attempted to meet consumer demands for their products to be Bovaer-free. In the post-COVID world, people are hesitant to automatically take the word of “experts” on subjects related to their health and diet.
And it turns out the climate-change argument is not packing the punch that it once did.”
“Rupert Lowe says that the Government must recognise that the public are not going to accept climate change as an excuse for ‘tampering with healthy food’.”
The MP for Great Yarmouth adds: ‘Ruminants have been developing for tens of thousands of years. So you cannot just start messing around with them using an unproven substance.’”
Well said to you and Rupert Lowe
Tampering with food in the supermarket is a criminal offence why should it be different if it is tampered with beforehand?
“Sean Walsh argues that the Supreme Court’s affirmation of biological sex is a fleeting win for common sense, doomed to be undermined by progressive activism”
Completely wrong!
Biological scientifically proven fact will never be doomed by zealous religious beliefs and mumbo jumbo science and never has been, quite the opposite, scientific fact has always won through and always will, facts don’t care about your feelings!
Examples, flat earth, the witch trials, evolution, the cosmos etc
“Ed Miliband set to U-turn and ban solar panels made by slave labour”
= even more massive hikes in electricity prices, who’d have thunk?
Whoops. I have justed posted the same comment.
Apologies Dinger.
No probs, our comments are so blatantly true it hurts!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14638989/Humiliation-Ed-Miliband-forced-legal-guarantee-solar-panels-slave-labour-WONT-used-Labours-Net-Zero-drive.html
That should ensure a further hike in domestic fuel bills. Another excuse for money laundering.
This has interesting parallels with the recent “Protests Against British Tourists in Spain”, which were actually organized by a Marxist Welsh Tourist living in Spain. And now they’re warning British tourists not to go to the Canary Islands on holiday.
1) Globalist PROBLEM: How to facilitate the Mass Third World Invasion of Spain for The Great Replacement, when there is so little spare housing for the invaders? Especially in the Canary Islands as a stopover point for the invasion?
2) Globalist-inspired REACTION: Foment huge protests of Spanish people against their fellow Ethnic European tourists, especially the British.
3) Globalist SOLUTION: Spanish people threatened with bankruptcy, because the tourism they depended on has dried up, are offered large pay-outs to hand over their tourist properties to the Third World Invaders.
Another Globalist Problem Solved.
I’m a small sample size but every Spanish person I have interacted with since we arrived in the Canary Islands yesterday has seemed pleased to see me and/or happy to take my money in exchange for goods and services. I expect the tourists piss them off sometimes, as tourists in London used to get on my nerves, but I am sceptical that there is a true grass-roots desire on the part of a significant number of locals to move away from tourism as a source of revenue.
Very interesting article in The Exposé on Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the guy taking over from Klaus Schwab to lead the WEF: https://expose-news.com/2025/04/24/klaus-schwab-is-out/.
If you thought Klaus Schwab was bad …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOglqhcsfo
Starmer said today the our energy security was threatehed by the likes of Putin, and yet we are told on here that the low price of oil will bring Russia to its knees. I fail to see how bothstatements can be true at the same time.
The reality I see is Russias economy is based on trading real commodities, not financial instruments where everyone takes a small slice of the service cost… this I’d say makes their economy very resilient indeed – people NEED energy to stay warm and survive… it’s a fundamental need. Margins may well reduce, but like it or not what they have, has a fundamental value