Taking things from white people

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Daniel Concannon @TooWhiteToTweet

Identity politics aren't bad. They're human. They're normal. They're inevitable. But for the sake of argument, let's play along and pretend that identity politics are inherently bad.

Okay, where are we at in the scope of identity politics in America right now? Literally every group other than White people does identity politics. Now, do you believe for one second that you're going to stop every non-White group from doing identity politics?

No, you don't. And virtually no “Conservative” talking head condemns identity politics for anyone other than White people. In fact, Most “Conservative influencers” of recent decades have heavily promoted identity politics for everyone other than White people, with the official GOP foremost among them.

So in a world where it's a foregone conclusion that every non-White group will perpetuate identity politics, what good could it POSSIBLY do White people to continue being browbeaten and subverted into refusing identity politics?

None. It will only get us further victimized, disenfranchised, and demographically decimated.

If someone launches war on your nation, that's bad. But if you have no organized fighting force with which to respond - with which to take your own side in that war - then you're going to be destroyed. Fighting back doesn't make you bad. Taking your own side doesn't make you evil. Refusing to do those things, however, makes you weak. It makes you easy prey. The evildoer in this equation is the person who tells you that your survival instinct is evil, not you for exercising it.

Until 1965, the United States was a ~90% White nation. That nation has been largely destroyed. The war on White America is ongoing, and we still have legions of influencers lecturing White people - and lecturing ONLY White people - about the evil of identity politics. They're telling the invaded nation that it's evil to raise an army to fight off the foreign invasion. They're a corner man blindfolding his boxer and tying his hands behind his back while assuring him that self-defense is evil and being beaten to death is a moral victory.

“You just can't have a country of 350 million this diverse of just warring ethnicities because then it's just Rwanda.” He should have stopped after “You just can't have a country of 350 million this diverse.” That would be the correct observation of reality, and explain exactly why the powers that be have done all they can to “diversify” this country over the last 60 years - because they understood that “Diversity + Proximity = War,” and demographics are a main front in their War On White People.

“And the people with the most force just kill the others.” Or, in the case of modern America, the people with the highest in-group preference dominate, the people allowed to pursue identity politics prosper, and the only group denied identity - White people - are preyed upon while being forced to fund all the above.

Tucker Carlson famously said: “Whites are gonna be in the minority. You're gonna get people standing up and saying 'I represent White people!' And I'm gonna tell that person to fuck off.”

The reason Whites are going to be in the minority - the reason White children are ALREADY a minority - is because Whites have been indoctrinated against the same identity politics that have been instilled in every other group. Yet still, every day, someone comes along and tells White people not to do identity politics.

And to this, an ever-increasing number of us say; fuck off.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Danke]

What Happened to the D.C. Snipers? Inside the Aftermath of Their Horrific Killing Spree and How One Turned on the Other

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Beltway for weeks

www.yahoo.com

"Malvo later testified that Muhammad planned to kill six White people daily for 30 days"

 

[Danke]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Danke]

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1985417708079321124

This is not going to be a post about race or Black people. Please have a little patience while I get to its actual point.

For several decades there was a taboo in the major media against showing mugshots of Black criminals or even mentioning the race of a non-white offender in text.

Recently - quite recently, like since about 2022 - I've noticed that this taboo seems to have disintegrated. I think I've figured out why.

Cheap surveillance cameras are what did it, I think. There's been such a flood of video evidence of Black street crime that it has broken containment.

I understand the impulse behind that containment. Media gatekeepers thought of it as virtuous anti-racism. But yesterday it occurred to me that the long-term effects of having this taboo collapse may go beyond what we normally think of as racial issues.

The laws and customs of modern liberal democracies are built on the assumption that everybody in them is basically peaceful and has low time preference. Of course we all know that some people aren't, but we're accustomed to thinking of violent and impulsive behavior as something we have pushed to the margins of society and can relatively easily suppress.

Ubiquitous video challenges this assumption. It's just too easy now to find documentary evidence of lots of stupidity and violence, not as dry text but as visual immediacy in motion.

We've all seen the video of Iryna Zarutska being stabbed to death. I'm not claiming this video is what broke the containment, because I think it happened a few years sooner. But it is an index of the new reality. There's no going back from this.

One immediate result is that "anti-racist" gatekeeping now looks pointless. So incentives have flipped, and media now shrugs and uses Black mugshots as clickbait.

Downstream, I think the classical-liberal assumption that human beings other than children and obvious mental defectives are universally competent to be equals in a free society is now under an unprecedented kind of pressure.

As a libertarian, I'm unhappy about this. It's not good for my normative political desires. It's more difficult to argue for liberty when there are not simply individuals but identifiable large classes of people that are morally incompetent.

Ubiquitous video is giving us that identifiable large class. I think this is a more corrosive problem than a simple resurgence of racism would be.

How do you argue against aristocracy when there's a lower class that really is violent and stupid, and we're immersed in moving evidence of this?

This is my real point. Congratulations to anybody who persisted long enough to get here.

I don't have a facile answer to this question. I do think it's important for everybody who loves liberty to start thinking about it.



https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1985422270114750703

That doesn't follow from my mainpost. Nobody ever thought libertarianism collapses because children exist!

What we need to think about carefully is the boundaries of who can be in the game. At the limit, we're back to an aristocratic society.

Another way of putting this is that libertarianism may be an aristocratic idea that mistakes itself for a universalism.

 

[CaptUSA]

"I understand the impulse behind that containment. Media gatekeepers thought of it as virtuous anti-racism. But yesterday it occurred to me that the long-term effects of having this taboo collapse may go beyond what we normally think of as racial issues."

Maybe one of the worst parts of that "virtuous anti-racism" are the millions of black victims of that violence. "Anti-racism" is every bit as dangerous as your garden variety racism - probably more so, because it's done with a clear conscience.

God save us from people who mean well.

 

[Anti Federalist]

336

 

[Danke]

I see a pattern here.

 

[Anti Federalist]

One immediate result is that "anti-racist" gatekeeping now looks pointless. So incentives have flipped, and media now shrugs and uses Black mugshots as clickbait.

Downstream, I think the classical-liberal assumption that human beings other than children and obvious mental defectives are universally competent to be equals in a free society is now under an unprecedented kind of pressure.

Culture is downstream from race. A free, high trust society is downstream from culture. Economic prosperity and property rights are downstream from a free, high trust society.

There is no enchanted dirt. There are no magic words and phrases.

A nation and its ideals are a reflection of its people

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[otherone]

Another way of putting this is that libertarianism may be an aristocratic idea that mistakes itself for a universalism.

Yah. That was the point in another thread where I was called a troll. It is apparent at this point that libertarianism has to be a splinter from the Right. There has to be a true opposition party. The left is simple ridiculous, and ultimately self-defeating. I frankly don't give a fig about the race committing crimes. I want the individual held accountable for those crimes. Yes, people can be nuts and do heinous things. Don't give them a pass because they're non-white. That's not justice. That's not public safety. And that's not protecting the black community.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Olympic hopeful? Last time I checked, pie eating contests aren't part of that.

 

[jmdrake]

https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1985417708079321124

This is not going to be a post about race or Black people. Please have a little patience while I get to its actual point.

For several decades there was a taboo in the major media against showing mugshots of Black criminals or even mentioning the race of a non-white offender in text.

Recently - quite recently, like since about 2022 - I've noticed that this taboo seems to have disintegrated. I think I've figured out why.

Cheap surveillance cameras are what did it, I think. There's been such a flood of video evidence of Black street crime that it has broken containment.

I understand the impulse behind that containment. Media gatekeepers thought of it as virtuous anti-racism. But yesterday it occurred to me that the long-term effects of having this taboo collapse may go beyond what we normally think of as racial issues.

The laws and customs of modern liberal democracies are built on the assumption that everybody in them is basically peaceful and has low time preference. Of course we all know that some people aren't, but we're accustomed to thinking of violent and impulsive behavior as something we have pushed to the margins of society and can relatively easily suppress.

Ubiquitous video challenges this assumption. It's just too easy now to find documentary evidence of lots of stupidity and violence, not as dry text but as visual immediacy in motion.

We've all seen the video of Iryna Zarutska being stabbed to death. I'm not claiming this video is what broke the containment, because I think it happened a few years sooner. But it is an index of the new reality. There's no going back from this.

One immediate result is that "anti-racist" gatekeeping now looks pointless. So incentives have flipped, and media now shrugs and uses Black mugshots as clickbait.

Downstream, I think the classical-liberal assumption that human beings other than children and obvious mental defectives are universally competent to be equals in a free society is now under an unprecedented kind of pressure.

As a libertarian, I'm unhappy about this. It's not good for my normative political desires. It's more difficult to argue for liberty when there are not simply individuals but identifiable large classes of people that are morally incompetent.

Ubiquitous video is giving us that identifiable large class. I think this is a more corrosive problem than a simple resurgence of racism would be.

How do you argue against aristocracy when there's a lower class that really is violent and stupid, and we're immersed in moving evidence of this?

This is my real point. Congratulations to anybody who persisted long enough to get here.

I don't have a facile answer to this question. I do think it's important for everybody who loves liberty to start thinking about it.



https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1985422270114750703

That doesn't follow from my mainpost. Nobody ever thought libertarianism collapses because children exist!

What we need to think about carefully is the boundaries of who can be in the game. At the limit, we're back to an aristocratic society.

Another way of putting this is that libertarianism may be an aristocratic idea that mistakes itself for a universalism.

Does perception really equal reality?

'Highway Superintendent And Wife Charged With Attempted Murder Of Doordash Driver'

Nov 4, 2025

Wife of Chester highway superintendent charged with hindering attempted murder prosecution

The wife of the Chester highway superintendent accused of shooting a food delivery driver has been charged with hindering the investigation.

www.poughkeepsiejournal.com

And look. The first story didn't show his mugshot. I wonder why?

DoorDash driver who went to wrong address lost 2 feet of his bowels after being shot: DA

John Reilly, 48, was charged with attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon after police said he fired a gun at a 24-year-old DoorDash driver on the night of May 2.

lawandcrime.com

• jmdrake
• Replies: 1
• Forum: U.S. Political News

 

[Anti Federalist]