Seems pre-covid levels of action have returned. I am now fully in the ''Ender Wiggin'' camp of reprisals if anything outrageous happens in my neck of the woods.
Very few understand how absolutely fragile our day to day lives are until the main road is obstructed, their car is inoperable, or the power goes out. All of these challenges are painfully easy to cause.
Decker's a kook. But he's also the logical extension of Hillary's "racists, sexists, bigots... deplorables" view of Trump voters. She viewed half the country as the enemy too, but was just more circumspect about her phrasing.
"The Left is an inherently ideological faction even at its least extreme" I'm not sure what you mean here -- the Right is also an ideological faction. I think you mean that universalist -- oppression anywhere requires the liberal's intervention on the side of all that is holy and right -- almost a theology. Outside its Christian strain, conservatism (ala Burke) is far more parochial, tolerant of hierarchy, aristocracy, class distinctions, and local traditions. Conservatives see these as key pillars to encourage human flourishing; liberals see them as oppressive barriers that prevent human flourishing. Those are irreconcilable differences. More than any other reason, that is why I agree a major conflict is coming.
Regarding Anthony: "They collectivize these cases while whites individualize them." Best line from a great linked piece. Thanks.
Regarding Jared Taylor (who I had never heard of): A white supremacist who speaks fluent Japanese is pretty funny. Something I said during the Summer of Floyd (and no one wanted to hear), "Ibram Kendi and Nick Fuentes both want a racial hierarchy; they just disagree about which race ought to be on top."
Jared Taylor isn't a White supremacist. Maybe a White nationalist, or more accurately, a White separatist. He just thinks Whites should have the same privileges other races do as far as having their own spaces and the state should extend minority protections to Whites as well.
Interesting. So essentially, overturn the Civil Rights Act and allow limited private discrimination of some kind. You've been makin the case that may be necessary for a while, and it's hard to argue with.
The entire Civil Rights regime is about the racial majority making concessions while racial minorities make none. That's only sustainable as long as Whites continue making those concessions. I feel like Whites still feel those concessions are worth making, or don't feel like they're making any concessions. If that's the case, then nothing needs to change.
The problem is there's a very obvious racial hierarchy and Blacks are on top. Black concerns take precedence over that of even other minority groups. This is really what makes the regime untenable. Even if one concedes that Whites ought to not enjoy the benefits of the Civil Rights Act, that still leaves the matter unresolved when it comes to what to do when Blacks are at loggerheads with any other group. Whites are the only group other racial minority groups are willing to square off with, because they know Whites will cave. But they'll never square off against Blacks, because they know the Blacks will just steamroll them.
"13 percent of the U.S. population understands this, which is why they don’t seem like they’re only 13 percent." That's a great line, actually; reminds me of the polls they held were blacks in America overwhelmingly believe they make up 30-40% of the population, or are even a majority, but the powers that be skew the numbers to make them look smaller.
That being said, you captured my thoughts on the Decker situation. I'm not worried about him; he's clearly a mid-wit grade-grubber type that's melted his brain from huffing partisan politics for too long who, in the face of real violence, is incapable of holding his own. But there's others who think his way that could. More than anything, his response to the article's frosty reception seems to be goading. I blocked him because, frankly, there's nothing he could say that I want to read and I was tired of seeing him pop up in my feed, but I've heard he self-doxxed, which is effectively poking a bear. It's that purposeful antagonism that I think make people like him dangerous; they're not going to do anything, but they're going to kick dogs until they get bit and then run to the authorities, who will absolutely write a new book to throw at the person who (unwisely, I must add) took the bait. This kind of agitation is becoming more and more common. I'm even seeing it in my own town, where there's one obliquely mentally unwell individual who's made a new hobby of strolling the heart of town waving various pride flags. I know he's spoiling for a fight and I know someone, at some point, is going to be stupid enough to pick it, and the rest of us are going to bear the brunt of the fallout.
I was actually looking for that poll showing Americans overestimating the proportion of Blacks in the country. I couldn't find it, so I published it without it.
Decker & Co. absolutely know they're untouchable. People who are oppressed don't take foolish chances with their lives, unless they have a genuine death wish. Considering he's a PhD student, it stands to reason he expects a nice life, meaning his willingness to suffer for his convictions is nil.
What he does want is to provoke violence, either by others on his side, or by the other side. Either way, he's going to win. It's for this reason that a civil war not happening might actually be the worst possible result. Somehow, their bluff needs to be called.
I hadn’t thought much about how civil war talk hits academics or journalists who stir the pot. It’s no game; societies that descend into conflict rarely spare the intellectuals who helped light that fuse.
And the section about how black Americans rally around defendants no matter what—has been true for decades. But if we can no longer rely on juries—especially mixed ones—to objectively weigh the evidence, then what’s really left of the rule of law?
Here in the UK, they’re already pushing to eliminate jury trials in many cases under the guise of “streamlining” the system and cutting down on the massive backlogs. But based on the kinds of decisions we’ve seen from activist judges, I’ll say this—being judged by an all black jury might still be safer than putting your fate in the hands of an ideologically driven bench. And that says a lot.
Not sure if you saw this ridiculous piece by David Brooks, but it’s the same thing from a self-appointed elite, and dovetails well with the young fool you’ve highlighted: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/opinion/trump-harvard-law-firms.html?smid=url-share
It’s talk.
If you really want to become a terrorist it’s not difficult and way easier if you don’t leave breadcrumbs like this.
But no one does. We’re just losers yelling at the phone screen
LARPing Loser Liberal Fascists🤷🏼♂️🙄🤡🌎🐂💩
Seems pre-covid levels of action have returned. I am now fully in the ''Ender Wiggin'' camp of reprisals if anything outrageous happens in my neck of the woods.
Very few understand how absolutely fragile our day to day lives are until the main road is obstructed, their car is inoperable, or the power goes out. All of these challenges are painfully easy to cause.
Decker's a kook. But he's also the logical extension of Hillary's "racists, sexists, bigots... deplorables" view of Trump voters. She viewed half the country as the enemy too, but was just more circumspect about her phrasing.
"The Left is an inherently ideological faction even at its least extreme" I'm not sure what you mean here -- the Right is also an ideological faction. I think you mean that universalist -- oppression anywhere requires the liberal's intervention on the side of all that is holy and right -- almost a theology. Outside its Christian strain, conservatism (ala Burke) is far more parochial, tolerant of hierarchy, aristocracy, class distinctions, and local traditions. Conservatives see these as key pillars to encourage human flourishing; liberals see them as oppressive barriers that prevent human flourishing. Those are irreconcilable differences. More than any other reason, that is why I agree a major conflict is coming.
Regarding Anthony: "They collectivize these cases while whites individualize them." Best line from a great linked piece. Thanks.
Regarding Jared Taylor (who I had never heard of): A white supremacist who speaks fluent Japanese is pretty funny. Something I said during the Summer of Floyd (and no one wanted to hear), "Ibram Kendi and Nick Fuentes both want a racial hierarchy; they just disagree about which race ought to be on top."
Jared Taylor isn't a White supremacist. Maybe a White nationalist, or more accurately, a White separatist. He just thinks Whites should have the same privileges other races do as far as having their own spaces and the state should extend minority protections to Whites as well.
Interesting. So essentially, overturn the Civil Rights Act and allow limited private discrimination of some kind. You've been makin the case that may be necessary for a while, and it's hard to argue with.
The entire Civil Rights regime is about the racial majority making concessions while racial minorities make none. That's only sustainable as long as Whites continue making those concessions. I feel like Whites still feel those concessions are worth making, or don't feel like they're making any concessions. If that's the case, then nothing needs to change.
The problem is there's a very obvious racial hierarchy and Blacks are on top. Black concerns take precedence over that of even other minority groups. This is really what makes the regime untenable. Even if one concedes that Whites ought to not enjoy the benefits of the Civil Rights Act, that still leaves the matter unresolved when it comes to what to do when Blacks are at loggerheads with any other group. Whites are the only group other racial minority groups are willing to square off with, because they know Whites will cave. But they'll never square off against Blacks, because they know the Blacks will just steamroll them.
> What’s your reaction to Nicholas Decker’s call to arms?
Grab the revolution by the throat. Charge him with inciting terrorism and toss him in prison. The 1st Amendment does not cover threats of violence.
Unfortunately I doubt there’s any appetite for it in government.
"13 percent of the U.S. population understands this, which is why they don’t seem like they’re only 13 percent." That's a great line, actually; reminds me of the polls they held were blacks in America overwhelmingly believe they make up 30-40% of the population, or are even a majority, but the powers that be skew the numbers to make them look smaller.
That being said, you captured my thoughts on the Decker situation. I'm not worried about him; he's clearly a mid-wit grade-grubber type that's melted his brain from huffing partisan politics for too long who, in the face of real violence, is incapable of holding his own. But there's others who think his way that could. More than anything, his response to the article's frosty reception seems to be goading. I blocked him because, frankly, there's nothing he could say that I want to read and I was tired of seeing him pop up in my feed, but I've heard he self-doxxed, which is effectively poking a bear. It's that purposeful antagonism that I think make people like him dangerous; they're not going to do anything, but they're going to kick dogs until they get bit and then run to the authorities, who will absolutely write a new book to throw at the person who (unwisely, I must add) took the bait. This kind of agitation is becoming more and more common. I'm even seeing it in my own town, where there's one obliquely mentally unwell individual who's made a new hobby of strolling the heart of town waving various pride flags. I know he's spoiling for a fight and I know someone, at some point, is going to be stupid enough to pick it, and the rest of us are going to bear the brunt of the fallout.
I was actually looking for that poll showing Americans overestimating the proportion of Blacks in the country. I couldn't find it, so I published it without it.
Decker & Co. absolutely know they're untouchable. People who are oppressed don't take foolish chances with their lives, unless they have a genuine death wish. Considering he's a PhD student, it stands to reason he expects a nice life, meaning his willingness to suffer for his convictions is nil.
What he does want is to provoke violence, either by others on his side, or by the other side. Either way, he's going to win. It's for this reason that a civil war not happening might actually be the worst possible result. Somehow, their bluff needs to be called.
I hadn’t thought much about how civil war talk hits academics or journalists who stir the pot. It’s no game; societies that descend into conflict rarely spare the intellectuals who helped light that fuse.
And the section about how black Americans rally around defendants no matter what—has been true for decades. But if we can no longer rely on juries—especially mixed ones—to objectively weigh the evidence, then what’s really left of the rule of law?
Here in the UK, they’re already pushing to eliminate jury trials in many cases under the guise of “streamlining” the system and cutting down on the massive backlogs. But based on the kinds of decisions we’ve seen from activist judges, I’ll say this—being judged by an all black jury might still be safer than putting your fate in the hands of an ideologically driven bench. And that says a lot.