The hysterical response to Nickolas Decker has proven the power of liberal academics over conservatives.
When a black person says, "I'm going to kill white people," nobody bats an eye. This is because no one really takes black people seriously. They aren't organized; they aren't educated; they aren't disciplined; they aren't dedicated.
But if a white person says, "I'm going to kill black people," it's a 5 alarm fire. This is because we all know that white people are capable of extremely effective violence.
We can call this the "double standard test." If one group's threats of violence are treated as a non-event, but the other groups threats of violence are responded to with HYSTERIA, you know which group is more powerful.
Nicholas is not mentally unwell, if you watch his interview with Hanania. His post is isn't a schizophrenic rant -- it's a careful reprinting of passages from the declaration of independence and writings from the founding fathers.
Imagine if you, or any of your commenters wrote the following:
"If the left tries to destroy the constitution, 1776 will commence again. We have guns, and we know how to use them. It's just a matter of time." Same exact sentiment as Nicholas, which is that there will come a point when violence becomes necessary if the other side goes too far.
There's two responses we would collectively have:
1. "Hell yeah, yee haw brother! MAGA! American First!"
2. Roll our eyes and keep scrolling.
Ergo, no one would take it seriously.
Now consider the response to Nicholas:
1. "Hey, I'm a liberal too, but this is crazy! Be careful!"
2. "I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT LIBTARD, WE WILL KILL YOU FIRST."
3. "OMG THIS GUY IS CRAZY THE LEFT IS INSANE"
Do you see the difference?
Everyone understands that liberals are more powerful than conservatives in the exact same way that whites are more powerful than blacks. They are more organized, educated, disciplined, and dedicated.
When conservatives wonder, "why do liberals always win?" it's because they are more powerful. Now maybe it's that liberalism makes people powerful, or maybe it's that liberalism attracts people who have inherently higher capacity for organization, education, discipline, and dedication. Either way, this hysterical response has shown just how unequal the power balance is between the two sides.
What rubbish are you writing? It wasn't an unpopular opinion It was a call to public homicidal violence. It's written by a PhD student at a respectable university who should by now have some measure of insight and self regulation. Are not recent events in the USA sufficient warning.
Getting kicked out by his landlady seems the least I would expect. Why do I even read you if this is your level of insight?
Calls to public homicidal violence are permitted by both free speech principles and in the US, legally by its First Amendment, where from my recollection and understanding of what I have read American constitutional lawyers write on the matter, the only exception would rightfully be if the call to violence were actually an imminent threat, which is to say it's restricted to such situations as the leader of an assembled mob calling to go burn somewhere down and kill people.
Needless to say, someone mentally unwell advocating for theoretical violence in a theoretical situation clearly does not fit this criteria. Functionally, it's an unpopular opinion and not a call to public homicidal violence. Perhaps you oppose free speech or are in the "words are violence"-crowd, but if so, why not simply state your views as such?
This reaction reads as a tad hysterical to me, particularly in combination with your pretentious remark of "Why do I even read you if this is your level of insight?" as if the author of this or any other Substack page should justify themselves to all-important-you why you should read them.
Having lived through 2020 lockdown/riots and seeing what has happened in Europe (cancelling elections, jailing opposition candidates, arresting people for Facebook posts), as well as the law fare and assassination attempts against Trump, I'm basically done with "you can't do that to them or they can do it to you."
If you don't do it to them, they will still do it to you!
That may or may not make doing something to this guy a good idea. But I have no MORAL objection to it.
What makes you think what you want, or think is right has anything yo do with it?
The whole point of political violence is to ensure your voice doesn't matter, and ideally never will again. All that matters is who's better at inflicting and sustaining violence on their enemies, or anyone else unfortunate enough to get caught up in the shrapnel. Given that you're currently writing a blogging comment rather than running drugs for an organized crime syndicate or whatever else people who are good at violence like to do, odds are high you'll be exceptionally unimportant during any hostilities, and should spend at least one weekend without eating any food before you do anything so foolish as to wish a civil war to resolve an election your side already won.
I have nothing but contempt for you lot of demented civil war fantasists. You are a poison on the body politic, and are doing your hardest to throw away something you never deserved for the sake of your unfulfilled personal life. Ideally, we'd be deporting your lot to the least-functional countries in Africa so you could clean toilets for Saheli warlords until you were disabused of your piggish ignorance. Sadly, you're on course to getting your wish, but that doesn't mean the rsst of us deserve it.
Every successful movement needs a large range of levels within it. For example, Islam has "peaceful/modern Muslims" and it has "extremist/jihadist Muslims" and everything in between. This multipronged approach makes it a formidable foe. Conservatives/pro-Whites also need this. Therefore, those who call for violence are right, and those who call for dialog are also right. We need a multipronged approach, just like Muslims. The responses toward your post are merely a reflection of this necessary diversity.
There's no future in America where we all get along and work together.
The left want people like you and me destroyed. There is no getting along with these people.
Conservatives have 'played nice' for decades and the result has been NOTHING except the left becoming more oppressive, hateful and emboldened.
You literally cannot do anything that will cause these people to back down besides beating them so thoroughly that they become demoralized. No appeasement can ever be productive.
The only defensible position is to allow these clowns to become more and more rabid without interruption, such that when we finally have a leader willing to cross the rubicon, it will be all the more easy.
There is NO future in which these people advocate for good and just things. The ONLY decision to make it how do we most effectively get to a future when these people are disenfranchised and crushed.
While there's nothing like cancel culture in recent times on the right, there have been right-wing versions of this many times in the past. It seems like the middle part of the pendulum swing is the most sane.
I won't agree that conservatives have "played nice". One thinks of the religious right and what they would do had they the strength of numbers or ability to control institutions. One also has to be reminded of dirty tricks done by Republicans that represent ratcheting up in the type of unfair politics that leads to frustration that some find only resolvable via violence (the unprecedented denial of a supreme court appointment to Obama, Gerrymandering that rigs the House to overrepresent Republicans).
Everyone is at fault for the breakdown of the norms of fair play.
Good essay. I loathe Decker's position, but you're right on him writing it.
Regarding his address and eviction, I get the sense it's a trap of sorts. He's looking for martyrdom, perhaps? Another step in the wrong direction, I think.
Conservatives have tried playing nice for decades and the only result was the left becoming more emboldened and more rapid. This idea that you can contain leftist insanity by being nice to them is brainless, suicidal delusion that has never, will never and can never work.
This isn't true at all. Conservatives didn't get where they were by being nice, but by either agreeing with liberals on the fundamentals (Dubya), or refusing to speak up when they knew better for the sake of expanding their own popularity (Nixon). Both of these things are to some extent still being done by DJT, who still refuses to publicly come clean about the hereditarian beliefs of himself or anyone in his cabinet.
Even if one does not see the argument for free speach, having potential assassings speak openly about this is huge (open discussion/backlash, warning the authorities, ...).
Ok some verbal over-reaction on my part (which I acknowledge) and I'll take the legal situation as you call it. But considering the polarisation in America plus the chronic gun violence plus the fact that the country is in a chronic state of political disruption and is not punching its; weight in many areas of domestic and geopolitical life, I would perhaps hold-off a trifle on the freedom to say whatever comes into your head at a given moment and emphasise the virtues of self-control and common bloody sense (if I may indulge myself). And for goodness sake, he did not land up in jail having his toenails pulled out. His landlady said she didn't want him as a tenant. Boo-hoo!
I assume this response was meant to my reply to your other comment here.
Fair enough on the overreaction. Understandable given present tensions and heated climate for discussion these days, so I appreciate the cordial reply.
I agree, given the present political state and violence in society, that self-control and common sense are important and one should be cautious of how their words may be taken, such as to instigate violence, and the perhaps expected retaliation in this climate to that perceived instigation as happened here. It is true he didn't end up in jail, and just got evicted. However, I personally think one should be able to speak without fear of retaliation.
I also think that someone who doesn't seem mentally in the best state of mind and is freaked out enough about Trump to be writing a piece about what to do in event of near future civil war can't be held to the same standards in public discourse. It's easy to make fun of someone like him, but harder to be sympathetic and defend their rights to free speech.
You can legally advocate for both mass murder and specific murder of individuals in the US under the First Amendment of their Constitution—so long as it is not an imminent threat in the sense of pointing to someone across the street and directing someone to "go kill that man"—and the right to do so has always traditionally been defended by American liberals.
You act like 'the law' matters. It doesn't. There are hundreds of ways to 'legally' punish someone for advocating for the murder of a specific individual. Your 'tradition' is a fraud.
The student mentioned in the article is not unique. Both “sides” have these people. I’d say from validated reports however that the “Left” has more of these, or perhaps just more such individuals who have less restraint in acting out their urges/fears. I disagree however with those who attempt to respond to these people with actions that “punish” them. Doxing the person to his landlord for example. No sense fanning the flames so to speak and remember, most of these people are *nothing*. They fantasize, but are no threat in the main. If these people want to signal their intentions, fine. Take note and prepare yourself, but until then be the “gray man”. When/if/hopefully never, the time for violence comes, you’ll receive notice in plenty of time and with no uncertainty as to your necessary response.
It would have been better if he’d not written it at all. Having written it, it would be best if the consequences are high in order to dissuade further attempts to write posts that argue for the arming and assassination of political opponents.
The hysterical response to Nickolas Decker has proven the power of liberal academics over conservatives.
When a black person says, "I'm going to kill white people," nobody bats an eye. This is because no one really takes black people seriously. They aren't organized; they aren't educated; they aren't disciplined; they aren't dedicated.
But if a white person says, "I'm going to kill black people," it's a 5 alarm fire. This is because we all know that white people are capable of extremely effective violence.
We can call this the "double standard test." If one group's threats of violence are treated as a non-event, but the other groups threats of violence are responded to with HYSTERIA, you know which group is more powerful.
Nicholas is not mentally unwell, if you watch his interview with Hanania. His post is isn't a schizophrenic rant -- it's a careful reprinting of passages from the declaration of independence and writings from the founding fathers.
Imagine if you, or any of your commenters wrote the following:
"If the left tries to destroy the constitution, 1776 will commence again. We have guns, and we know how to use them. It's just a matter of time." Same exact sentiment as Nicholas, which is that there will come a point when violence becomes necessary if the other side goes too far.
There's two responses we would collectively have:
1. "Hell yeah, yee haw brother! MAGA! American First!"
2. Roll our eyes and keep scrolling.
Ergo, no one would take it seriously.
Now consider the response to Nicholas:
1. "Hey, I'm a liberal too, but this is crazy! Be careful!"
2. "I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY IT LIBTARD, WE WILL KILL YOU FIRST."
3. "OMG THIS GUY IS CRAZY THE LEFT IS INSANE"
Do you see the difference?
Everyone understands that liberals are more powerful than conservatives in the exact same way that whites are more powerful than blacks. They are more organized, educated, disciplined, and dedicated.
When conservatives wonder, "why do liberals always win?" it's because they are more powerful. Now maybe it's that liberalism makes people powerful, or maybe it's that liberalism attracts people who have inherently higher capacity for organization, education, discipline, and dedication. Either way, this hysterical response has shown just how unequal the power balance is between the two sides.
Being disorganised doesnt seem to stop black people doing a whole lot of killing bro
Look at the response to Jews killing 100K Palestinians. It's about who controls the media and who they love or hate.
What rubbish are you writing? It wasn't an unpopular opinion It was a call to public homicidal violence. It's written by a PhD student at a respectable university who should by now have some measure of insight and self regulation. Are not recent events in the USA sufficient warning.
Getting kicked out by his landlady seems the least I would expect. Why do I even read you if this is your level of insight?
Perhaps you may want to reflect further
Calls to public homicidal violence are permitted by both free speech principles and in the US, legally by its First Amendment, where from my recollection and understanding of what I have read American constitutional lawyers write on the matter, the only exception would rightfully be if the call to violence were actually an imminent threat, which is to say it's restricted to such situations as the leader of an assembled mob calling to go burn somewhere down and kill people.
Needless to say, someone mentally unwell advocating for theoretical violence in a theoretical situation clearly does not fit this criteria. Functionally, it's an unpopular opinion and not a call to public homicidal violence. Perhaps you oppose free speech or are in the "words are violence"-crowd, but if so, why not simply state your views as such?
This reaction reads as a tad hysterical to me, particularly in combination with your pretentious remark of "Why do I even read you if this is your level of insight?" as if the author of this or any other Substack page should justify themselves to all-important-you why you should read them.
We shouldn’t hate people because of their politics. We should hate them because they root for the Green Bay Packers.
Having lived through 2020 lockdown/riots and seeing what has happened in Europe (cancelling elections, jailing opposition candidates, arresting people for Facebook posts), as well as the law fare and assassination attempts against Trump, I'm basically done with "you can't do that to them or they can do it to you."
If you don't do it to them, they will still do it to you!
That may or may not make doing something to this guy a good idea. But I have no MORAL objection to it.
What makes you think what you want, or think is right has anything yo do with it?
The whole point of political violence is to ensure your voice doesn't matter, and ideally never will again. All that matters is who's better at inflicting and sustaining violence on their enemies, or anyone else unfortunate enough to get caught up in the shrapnel. Given that you're currently writing a blogging comment rather than running drugs for an organized crime syndicate or whatever else people who are good at violence like to do, odds are high you'll be exceptionally unimportant during any hostilities, and should spend at least one weekend without eating any food before you do anything so foolish as to wish a civil war to resolve an election your side already won.
I have nothing but contempt for you lot of demented civil war fantasists. You are a poison on the body politic, and are doing your hardest to throw away something you never deserved for the sake of your unfulfilled personal life. Ideally, we'd be deporting your lot to the least-functional countries in Africa so you could clean toilets for Saheli warlords until you were disabused of your piggish ignorance. Sadly, you're on course to getting your wish, but that doesn't mean the rsst of us deserve it.
Every successful movement needs a large range of levels within it. For example, Islam has "peaceful/modern Muslims" and it has "extremist/jihadist Muslims" and everything in between. This multipronged approach makes it a formidable foe. Conservatives/pro-Whites also need this. Therefore, those who call for violence are right, and those who call for dialog are also right. We need a multipronged approach, just like Muslims. The responses toward your post are merely a reflection of this necessary diversity.
Great post Emil. I share your prioritization of avoiding violent conflict 100%.
De-escalation? Depolarization?
These are insane fantasies.
There's no future in America where we all get along and work together.
The left want people like you and me destroyed. There is no getting along with these people.
Conservatives have 'played nice' for decades and the result has been NOTHING except the left becoming more oppressive, hateful and emboldened.
You literally cannot do anything that will cause these people to back down besides beating them so thoroughly that they become demoralized. No appeasement can ever be productive.
The only defensible position is to allow these clowns to become more and more rabid without interruption, such that when we finally have a leader willing to cross the rubicon, it will be all the more easy.
There is NO future in which these people advocate for good and just things. The ONLY decision to make it how do we most effectively get to a future when these people are disenfranchised and crushed.
While there's nothing like cancel culture in recent times on the right, there have been right-wing versions of this many times in the past. It seems like the middle part of the pendulum swing is the most sane.
I won't agree that conservatives have "played nice". One thinks of the religious right and what they would do had they the strength of numbers or ability to control institutions. One also has to be reminded of dirty tricks done by Republicans that represent ratcheting up in the type of unfair politics that leads to frustration that some find only resolvable via violence (the unprecedented denial of a supreme court appointment to Obama, Gerrymandering that rigs the House to overrepresent Republicans).
Everyone is at fault for the breakdown of the norms of fair play.
Good essay. I loathe Decker's position, but you're right on him writing it.
Regarding his address and eviction, I get the sense it's a trap of sorts. He's looking for martyrdom, perhaps? Another step in the wrong direction, I think.
Conservatives have tried playing nice for decades and the only result was the left becoming more emboldened and more rapid. This idea that you can contain leftist insanity by being nice to them is brainless, suicidal delusion that has never, will never and can never work.
This isn't true at all. Conservatives didn't get where they were by being nice, but by either agreeing with liberals on the fundamentals (Dubya), or refusing to speak up when they knew better for the sake of expanding their own popularity (Nixon). Both of these things are to some extent still being done by DJT, who still refuses to publicly come clean about the hereditarian beliefs of himself or anyone in his cabinet.
Right. I also don't think that he's mentally unwell (if you can call an effective altruist mentally well at all).
He seems to be enjoying the attention too much.
My biggest problem with him that he's a leftist edgelord (all edge, no point) and tries to become a professor so he can spread his idiocy.
In a better world these niemands would have been called out a long time ago.
Even if one does not see the argument for free speach, having potential assassings speak openly about this is huge (open discussion/backlash, warning the authorities, ...).
Ok some verbal over-reaction on my part (which I acknowledge) and I'll take the legal situation as you call it. But considering the polarisation in America plus the chronic gun violence plus the fact that the country is in a chronic state of political disruption and is not punching its; weight in many areas of domestic and geopolitical life, I would perhaps hold-off a trifle on the freedom to say whatever comes into your head at a given moment and emphasise the virtues of self-control and common bloody sense (if I may indulge myself). And for goodness sake, he did not land up in jail having his toenails pulled out. His landlady said she didn't want him as a tenant. Boo-hoo!
I assume this response was meant to my reply to your other comment here.
Fair enough on the overreaction. Understandable given present tensions and heated climate for discussion these days, so I appreciate the cordial reply.
I agree, given the present political state and violence in society, that self-control and common sense are important and one should be cautious of how their words may be taken, such as to instigate violence, and the perhaps expected retaliation in this climate to that perceived instigation as happened here. It is true he didn't end up in jail, and just got evicted. However, I personally think one should be able to speak without fear of retaliation.
I also think that someone who doesn't seem mentally in the best state of mind and is freaked out enough about Trump to be writing a piece about what to do in event of near future civil war can't be held to the same standards in public discourse. It's easy to make fun of someone like him, but harder to be sympathetic and defend their rights to free speech.
The reality is that you can advocate for mass murder but not specific murder.
That’s liberalism in a nutshell.
You can legally advocate for both mass murder and specific murder of individuals in the US under the First Amendment of their Constitution—so long as it is not an imminent threat in the sense of pointing to someone across the street and directing someone to "go kill that man"—and the right to do so has always traditionally been defended by American liberals.
You act like 'the law' matters. It doesn't. There are hundreds of ways to 'legally' punish someone for advocating for the murder of a specific individual. Your 'tradition' is a fraud.
The student mentioned in the article is not unique. Both “sides” have these people. I’d say from validated reports however that the “Left” has more of these, or perhaps just more such individuals who have less restraint in acting out their urges/fears. I disagree however with those who attempt to respond to these people with actions that “punish” them. Doxing the person to his landlord for example. No sense fanning the flames so to speak and remember, most of these people are *nothing*. They fantasize, but are no threat in the main. If these people want to signal their intentions, fine. Take note and prepare yourself, but until then be the “gray man”. When/if/hopefully never, the time for violence comes, you’ll receive notice in plenty of time and with no uncertainty as to your necessary response.
It would have been better if he’d not written it at all. Having written it, it would be best if the consequences are high in order to dissuade further attempts to write posts that argue for the arming and assassination of political opponents.
Honestly if you don't at least entertain the idea of mass culling of your political foes then I assume you've been asleep the last decade
The 4th turning is here. And we can't do anything about it.
Who is "we", though? Is there truly any shared "we" at this point?