McWhorter made this statement that Kate posted in her comment:

Young Black men need to be told not to fall for the idea that being dissed justifies physical violence.

Well, yes, as far as it goes. But “physical violence” covers quite a range. A fistfight – are those out of style? – used to be the way it was commonly done. A stab through the heart was not the norm, nor is it today. After all, it’s not as though most young black men are murdering people, although the murder rate is certainly higher in that population. Most young black men manage to learn that being dissed doesn’t merit stabbing anyone in the heart.

Plus, who was dissing (disrespecting) whom? McWhorter doesn’t highlight the fact that it was Anthony who was disrespecting the other team. Although McWhorter describes it he doesn’t characterize it that way. It was Anthony who crossed a boundary by coming to the other team’s tent, and who would not leave when asked many times. He defiantly stayed and even insulted (dissed) people there.

McWhorter writes about it this way:

Anthony sat down under a team’s tent. Anthony was neither on the team nor a student at its school, and an unwritten but widely known rule is that only team members are permitted under a team tent. Multiple student witnesses – and not just “whitenesses,” as several were Black — testified about what happened next. Anthony was told several times to leave the tent but refused, including a profane epithet, culminating in warning “Touch me and see what happens.” Team member Austin Metcalf shoved Anthony, who pulled a knife out of his bag, stabbed him in the chest, threw the knife into the stands and ran away. Caught by the police, he immediately admitted to the stabbing, reportedly saying “He put his hands on me. I stabbed him.” Metcalf died in his twin brother’s arms.

Anthony was the provocateur. He also came prepared with a knife, which was prohibited by the schools involved. Since he never took the stand, we’ve never heard his excuse for having a knife there, nor have I heard anyone else explain it. The venue was not the inner city, either; it was a relatively prosperous and peaceful area of Texas with a lower-than-average crime rate.

McWhorter goes on:

There is no reason to think Anthony was trying to kill Metcalf. He was trying to hurt him severely, putting him in the hospital, for shoving him, as he indicated in at first saying “He’s not gonna die.”

What on earth? That’s absurd, and McWhorter is dreaming there. No one stabs someone in the chest, with force, without trying to kill them. And “hurting someone severely” always carries the risk of death anyway. Anthony was not a child, nor was he dumb or insane. Perhaps he lived in a video-game or cartoon world, in which people stab people in the chest and the victims spring up again perfectly fine. But I very much doubt it. And “he’s not gonna die” is probably just a hope at that point, since Anthony realized he himself would be in big big trouble if Metcalf died.

McWhorter adds this:

Also, claims such as prosecutor Bill Wirskye’s that Anthony meant “Touch me and see what happens” as a provocation are based on a misreading of Black English. “Touch me and see what happens” is not a command to touch. It means “If you touch me, you will find out.”

McWhorter is a professor of linguistics at Columbia, and one of his specialties is black English. I’ve seen him in many podcasts and sometimes agree with him and sometimes disagree, but here he’s not making any sort of sense that I can see. The two statements – “Touch me and see what happens” and “If you touch me, you will find out” – seem very much the same and both are indeed provocations or dares.

McWhorter is by no means the worst commentator on Karmelo Anthony’s crime, but I find him quite annoying because he knows better.

[NOTE: Much of McWhorter’s “X” essay has to do with explaining Anthony’s behavior in terms of Sowell’s book in which he traces some of the violence in black culture back to the influence of certain strains in the southern whites among whom black people lived early on in the US. That entire topic interests me little at this point, because the historical roots no longer matter; it’s the current behavior that matters all these centuries later.]

The post John McWhorter on Karmelo Anthony appeared first on The New Neo.

A top Southern Poverty Law Center official is accused of helping funnel $1.2 million in donor money to an informant in the National Alliance white supremacist group — who was also allegedly her lover.

The Department of Justice filed a superseding indictment against the SPLC accusing it of funneling donor cash to hate groups they were then telling donors they were fighting. …

Based on the details in the June 2 superseding indictment, “Employee-2” is believed to be Heidi Beirich, a 58-year-old fascism expert who was the director of intelligence at the Alabama-based anti-extremism nonprofit between 2012 and 2019.

The indictment alleges Beirich was very close to the informant known only as “F-9” who “infiltrated the neo-Nazi organization National Alliance.”

“[Beirich] was also in a romantic relationship with F-9. During this relationship, [Beirich] and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts,” the indictment alleges.

It’s been clear for a long time that the SPLC is nothing more than an effective tool to spread anti-right propaganda by classifying even benign and mainstream people and organizations on the right as far-right hate groups. That allowed the left and MSM to refer to those groups that way, citing the SPLC as though it was some sort of objective judge. The SPLC traded on its name, among other things, which was a form of virtue-signaling: Southern Poverty Law Center.

But what we only learned fairly recently is that the SPLC was actively stirring up extremist racist groups and paying them to cause trouble, in the form of “informants” who were highly active in racist endeavors. And now we have this cozy couple, which at this point comes as no surprise.

The post It turns out the SPLC was in bed with Nazis – literally appeared first on The New Neo.

One of these people is Karmelo Anthony’s grandmother, who spoke to the pro-Anthony demonstrators after the trial:

? WATCH: Karmelo Anthony’s grandmother riles up the crowd by REPEATEDLY screaming “RACIST, BIASED, PREJUDICED” as she left the courthouse

“They sent a MESSAGE that a white person can hit a black boy and get away with it! They can do whatever the F—K they want!”

This entire… pic.twitter.com/p80ibpTnTF

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 10, 2026

Karmelo Anthony’s grandmother riles up the crowd by REPEATEDLY screaming “RACIST, BIASED, PREJUDICED” as she left the courthouse

“They sent a MESSAGE that a white person can hit a black boy and get away with it! They can do whatever the F—K they want!”

So Austin Metcalf “got away with it”? Being murdered wasn’t punishment enough to satisfy this lady? What else would she have liked to see happen to Austin Metcalf and his family? Perhaps she’d prefer something of this sort?:

Twisted Karmelo Anthony supporters are bombarding the family of slain high school football player Austin Metcalf
with sickening death threats, including a disgusting message saying Austin’s twin brother, Hunter, should have also been killed.

It’s almost irrelevant to point out that Austin Metcalf is not reported by witnesses to have hit Karmelo Anthony, because even if he had done that it wouldn’t have given Anthony license to kill him. It used to be that just about everyone understood that. But for some, the rule is now, “if you lay a hand on me, even if I’ve been asked to leave a school tent because it’s not my school, and then I refuse to do so and insult and curse at you, I get to kill you.” Or maybe just, “if you lay a hand on me I get to kill you.”

At least this was Anthony’s grandmother saying it; she is expected to be understandably upset at the fact that he’s going to prison. But people deal with upset in any number of ways, including apologizing to the real victims – the Metcalf family and anyone who witnessed the killing – and looking inward rather than deflecting blame outward. That this woman chose the latter route is telling.

But then there are people who are supposed to be leaders. For example, there’s Jasmine Crockett, who made a series of extraordinary statements on the case, including this one:

Rep. Crockett: "Black women live in agony every day that I promise the Metcalfs had never lived through" pic.twitter.com/GVielzMf51

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 10, 2026

Pure intersectionality. Black women rank very high on the all-important victimhood ladder, according to Jasmine Crockett.

Also see this from Crockett about the size of the knife wielded by Anthony, although that’s irrelevant, and about motive and the self-defense justification. This woman is a lawyer and knows better, but her need to whip up racial anger is strong:

Some of Karmelo’s crazed supporters are now reportedly randomly punching white people. Do the white people get to stab them in the heart? Assuredly not.

ADDENDUM:

This Legal Insurrection post features a number of comments by black people who agree that Karmelo Anthony is clearly guilty of murder and needs to pay the price. I think their position represents that of the majority of black people, despite the attention-getting behavior of those who consider Anthony a victim.

The post The reaction to the Karmelo Anthony verdict: he’s the victim! appeared first on The New Neo.

Anthony must pay the price. But what will the price be? It really depends; he was 17 when he killed Metcalf and perhaps the jury will be lenient for that reason. …

I have a hunch, though, that … Anthony will get less than the maximum sentence.

The maximum was life or 99 years. The crime was a heinous one. And the carrying of the knife to a school track meet, plus witnesses saying Anthony kept his hand in his bag (apparently at the ready with the knife) during basically a verbal spat, indicates the murder was not a sudden “heat of the moment” thing. Premeditation can involve a short time; it doesn’t have to be hours or days. Also, a knife plunged that deeply into the chest would almost certainly be known to be a mortal blow, so it would be very difficult for Anthony to successfully claim that he didn’t mean to kill Metcalf.

Therefore there was a very good argument that Anthony should have gotten life. The death penalty is not allowed if a perpetrator is under 18 and without other special circumstances, and since Anthony was 17 at the time of the murder and the requisite special circumstances were not present, life in prison was the maximum allowed.

Why did Anthony not get a life sentence? The jury didn’t deliberate long, and I don’t think they explained their sentencing decision; at least, I haven’t found an explanation. But I think – as I wrote earlier – it was his youth. Also his baby face. He will have a long time in prison to think about what he did, especially if he ends up serving most of it. But even if he only serves half of it (the minimum, because he would be eligible for parole then), when he gets out he would be around 34 because he’s 19 now. That will have to do.

Meanwhile, the scene in the courtroom during the penalty phase was absolutely heart-rending. I’m not primarily referring to the fact that Anthony himself was weeping during the sentencing phase. Was he weeping mostly for himself? Probably, but I’m not a mind-reader and perhaps the intense sorrow voiced by Metcalf’s family may have moved Anthony. It’s nice to think so, anyway:

Anthony sat with his head on the table moments before the sentence was delivered and appeared to be sobbing, NBC DFW reported.

He stood when asked, but still kept his head angled down, NBC reported.

Metcalf’s mother, Meghan, delivered a powerful statement calling her slain son their family’s beloved peacemaker.

“There was a part of him you can never take from me, the strength I still get from him every day, because I know what it was like to be loved by him. My son was murdered. He didn’t just die. He was taken from us. Just as he was starting to live,” Meghan said.

“You may have just been given a sentence of 35 years, you should feel lucky because I’ve been sentenced to a life without my son.”

Meghan’s sister imparted a poignant question that has haunted Metcalf’s loved ones since his murder.

“One question will always be with me. Why? Why could you not have just left?” she asked.

Anthony kept his head down the whole time – even when Metcalf’s father, Jeff, ordered him to look up, according to the report.

Jeff smacked the podium while reading his statement, telling Anthony that he doesn’t “belong in this community” and detailing how Metcalf’s murder “destroyed the person I used to be.”

Anthony finally raised his head when Metcalf’s twin brother, Hunter, asked him to look him in the eye.

“You took a son, a brother, a friend, and my best friend, from this world. You took someone from me who was supposed to be an uncle, godfather to my kids. Now I want everything taken from you,” Hunter choked.

Hearbreaking.

Meanwhile, Anthony’s family did not behave well:

After the hearing, Anthony’s mother, Kala, and his brother blasted the killer’s conviction and sentence as “racist and biased” to cheering supporters who chanted “free Karmelo.”

Were these the sort of values Anthony was taught by those who should have been guiding him? Apparently. And yet, of course, they are suffering too.

Here’s some background information about the Anthony family:

By all appearances, the Anthonys look like a typical family. Karmelo has several siblings and the family’s social media showed a comfortable life like vacations, a lavish home and expensive cars, per Distractify. Three years before the incident, they had relocated to North Texas. “Three years ago, my family moved to North Texas, searching for a better life,” Kayla said in a press interview after Karmelo’s arrest, she described their family as loving and said they had provided their children with opportunities to succeed.

The emotional toll of the trial on the family was visible in court. On Monday, Anthony’s parents were summoned into the courtroom for a private visit with their son during a two-hour delay. His mother came out of the courtroom alone and sobbing and had to be escorted to the restroom by security. His father followed shortly after, also in tears. It was not clear what was said during the private meeting, Daily Mail reported.

Did they ever teach Karmelo a sense of personal responsibility? Or was everything bad that happened to him due to racism? I simply don’t know enough to come to any conclusions. But the behavior of his mother and brother now, inflaming crowd passions and calling the verdict racist, may give us a hint.

[NOTE: This Daily Mail article contains more of the victim’s family members’ statements. Very sad.]

The post Karmelo Anthony has been sentenced to 35 years appeared first on The New Neo.

But many of Anthony’s “supporters” do, because of racism, the perennial accusation:

Karmelo Anthony sobbed Tuesday as he was swiftly convicted of murder in the fatal stabbing of fellow high-school jock Austin Metcalf at a track meet — and his furious supporters raged, “This whole thing’s been racist!”

The jury in Collin County deliberated about three hours before finding Anthony, 19, guilty of first-degree murder in the death of the 17-year-old and must now decide whether to put him away for life — prompting the killer’s weeping mom to later take the witness stand and beg for mercy for her son, according to a report by NBC DFW.

“He’s my oldest. He’ll always be my baby. I love him very much,” Anthony’s mom Kala Hayes sobbed to jurors before they headed into further deliberations to decide his sentence.

As she spoke, Anthony also cried.

“I know my son, and he’s very sorry for what he did,” Hayes told the jury.

“Sorry” doesn’t cut it. That doesn’t mean this isn’t a tragedy all around. I don’t know enough about Anthony’s family to blame them for his behavior, and it’s certainly not the case that the family is always to blame. But in the end, he is guilty of stabbing another young man in the heart for no good reason on earth.

Anthony must pay the price. But what will the price be? It really depends; he was 17 when he killed Metcalf and perhaps the jury will be lenient for that reason. I doubt his lawyer’s summation helped him much, though. Then again, his lawyer’s task was tough, because this was pretty much an open and shut case in the legal sense:

“Austin Metcalf had no legal right to use force to eject Karmelo Anthony from that tent,” Anthony’s lawyer, Mike Howard, said during closing arguments at the Collin County trial — as Anthony looked on intently from the defense table.

“He had the right to ask him to leave, but he didn’t have any legal right to use force,” Howard said of Metcalf, according to a report by the Daily Mail. …

Howard said Anthony “had an absolute right to defend himself.”

What is Howard talking about? After Anthony was asked to leave 15 times and refused to do so, while insulting and cursing at the group and threatening them, Metcalf gave him a moderate push. That is legally irrelevant and does not justify murder. And this was no accidental act of Anthony’s, either – no case in which someone caused a chain of events that led to death. This was a knife plunged deep and with great force into Metcalf’s heart.

Or, as the prosecutor said:

You don’t get to meet a shove with a stab, especially if you provoke the shove …

No, you don’t. That is quite literally overkill. But Anthony’s lawyers really had no other way to approach his defense, since his act was basically indefensible.

The prosecution added this:

The prosecutor told the jury they should consider Anthony’s mindset rather than his motive.

“It’s mindset, mindset,” Wirskye said. “He took a knife to a track meet. He of course felt empowered that he was going to come out on top of any encounter.”

I have a hunch, though, that if it’s possible Anthony will get less than the maximum sentence. No matter what, he will be a hero to some people, but I don’t think their numbers will reach the level of the Luigi-lovers.

ADDENDUM: The jury deliberated for three more hours, and gave Anthony a 35-year sentence for the crime.

The post Karmelo Anthony is found guilty of murder appeared first on The New Neo.

The trial is not about whether Anthony stabbed him; it’s about why. And in that respect the Anthony defense is very much like the argument Vickrum Digwa tried to mount: that the stabbing was self-defense. Anthony’s definition of self-defense, much like that of Digwa, is the perception of danger even when no real danger was present or even arguably present. In other words, it rests on feelings.

That’s not the way the law of self-defense goes, even if you buy that that’s what Anthony felt in his heart. Mere perception is not enough; there must be some valid and objective reason for that perception. Karmelo’s defense lawyers are presenting this approach, and tomorrow will be closing arguments:

Prosecutors say the stabbing was an unjustified attack stemming from an argument over whether Anthony could be under the tent of Metcalf’s team.

Anthony’s attorneys have argued that he acted in self-defense and reacted in fear during a “split-second” moment after Metcalf made physical contact.

The jury heard from defense witnesses on Monday, including one of Anthony’s former teammates who was at the track meet when the fatal confrontation unfolded.

One of Anthony’s teammates, testifying Monday, said Anthony was “distraught” after the stabbing.

“I was hearing him say, ‘I told him not to touch me,’” the witness said.

So what?

From what I’ve read, evidence in this trial paints a picture of Anthony as the aggressor. He had come into the other team’s tent and refused to leave although asked many times, and then this happened:

Prosecutors previously called more than 20 witnesses, including students who were at the meet and a medical examiner who testified that Metcalf was stabbed through the heart. …

One teen recalled Anthony telling Austin, “Touch me and find out,” and described both teenagers as angry, though he characterized Anthony as the one provoking the situation. He said Austin eventually pushed Anthony, after which Anthony pulled a knife from his backpack and stabbed Austin in the chest.

It seems to me that, both in the Digwa case and this case, the person doing the stabbing was highly reactive and ready to kill at the slightest provocation, which included anything perceived as “dissing” him. That’s not self-defense in the legal sense. That’s a murderer in the making.

Anthony has his champions among the public, and jury selection and race has been an issue. If Anthony is sentenced, I bet that will be one set of grounds for his appeal:

The trial, which is expected to last about two weeks, has drawn significant political scrutiny, with racially charged demonstrations calling for Anthony to ‘walk free.’

A panel of 12 jurors and six alternates was selected after roughly 600 prospective jurors were questioned during a selection process that began Monday. No black jurors were seated on the final jury.

Why no black jurors? Here’s some information on that:

Dewey had to remind panelists that nobody would get “in trouble” for revealing their feelings about the hot-button case, which the Anthony family, who are black, claimed is a product of “white supremacy.”

With that sort of attitude on the family’s part, it’s not hard to see why Anthony might have been so primed to strike.

As for the potential jurors:

“He looks like a child,” several said in questioning relayed by WFAA, when asked if they could consider a life sentence for the teen, who has been charged with first-degree murder.

“I don’t think I can make a decision about somebody so young. One mistake, one argument, one conflict, you can’t say he’s a bad person,” one potential juror told Assistant District Attorney Dewey Mitchell. …

Mitchell asked panelists how they feel about this statement: “I don’t feel comfortable finding an African American male guilty of murder.”

“I don’t know if I feel right putting a brother in jail,” one candidate stated, according to WFAA.

Perhaps they’re also afraid of being doxxed if they’re on a jury that convicts Anthony.

The post The Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas appeared first on The New Neo.

It turns out that Vickrum Digwa is far more vicious and depraved than we were led to believe, and that Britons have not been allowed to see much of the evidence. Neither was the jury, because the judge deemed the evidence too disturbing to share with them. Think about that and let it sink in: Digwa was so depraved in his behavior that the judge withheld evidence of his crime from the people who needed to know because it would enrage them.

If that withholding of evidence from the jury is true – and I’m not 100% sure it is – I’m not sure on what legal grounds it would happen; “it would be too upsetting” hardly seems sufficient. I’ve been puzzled and frustrated from the start by all the gaps in the record and especially in the reporting of the trial itself.

There is some reference to it in the judge’s sentencing remarks, or at least a reference to something similar:

Your brother, Gurpreet, arrived on the scene very shortly after your attack had finished. You then filmed Henry desperately trying to get away from you, somehow scaling a fence, onto a communal bin, before landing on a car in front of the property next door. Bloodstains show that he had got one, more or all his injuries before then.

You then showed a callous disregard for his wellbeing, knowing you had stabbed him to the chest. You continued to make films of Henry suffering, ignoring much of his desperation at having been stabbed. You told him that had not happened, no doubt to convince others who were nearby. Your attitude did not change even though Henry was clearly going downhill very fast. Your brother did much the same, although he may just have been accepting that which you had told him, rather than lying himself. …

You kept Henry’s phone with the incriminating recording of you on it. You had no intention of handing it over. It was found on you after you had been arrested and taken into police custody.

There was a conversation between the two brothers in Punjabi as they were being driven to the station. At least the police had the presence of mind to record that conversation (or maybe the act of recording was automatic?). It was in that conversation that Vickrum Digwa confessed to his brother that he was guilty, and this confession was discovered when the conversation was translated.

The following allegedly involves video taken by a home security camera, but I can’t find the Daily Mail article referred to:

The Daily Mail has now published details from sentencing that almost no one has reported.

As Henry Nowak — bleeding from five stab wounds — tried to climb a commercial rubbish bin and over a fence to escape, Vickrum Digwa filmed him.

And taunted him.

“You’re not going to get… pic.twitter.com/G4HvnLvo62

— Justice For Henry Nowak (@HenryNowakSol_) June 4, 2026

A home security camera then captured what may be the most chilling exchange in this entire case.

Henry: “I am dying.”

Digwa: “You’re not dying bro.”

Ten minutes later, Henry said: “You stabbed me.”

Digwa replied: “No, I didn’t.”

In the ten minutes that followed the stabbing, Vickrum Digwa did not call an ambulance. He filmed Henry for a full five minutes instead.

That clip was deemed too disturbing to be played in court.

Which clip was deemed too disturbing – the one Digwa filmed? The one from the home security camera? Or both? I don’t think either has been released to the public (although we’ve seen the police videocam with certain aspects blurred). I continue to find it surprising that the jury didn’t see the video made by Digwa on Nowak’s cellphone (perhaps it came under some self-incrimination exclusionary rule?) or in particular the home security video (some privacy rule?). The judge almost certainly saw all the videos, but I’ve been unable to find anything that clarifies further.

A question that remains for me is how much time passed in its entirety, from the stabbing itself to Henry’s death. This would seem important in determining if he could have been saved. More time seems to have passed than we originally were led to believe. There’s also this:

It is apparently true that if the stab wound had pierced an artery, [Nowak’s] chances of survival were low, especially by the time they arrived. But it did not. It pierced a vein, and the resulting leak would have been far slower, because such wounds clot far more quickly, slowing the bleeding. It is likely that the act of dragging Nowak and then handcuffing as they did reopened and stretched the puncture, and that led to his quickly dying.

A doctor testified that Nowak could not have been saved no matter what, but I won’t believe that until I hear more corroborating details. There will be an inquest to look into it further:

The full inquest into the death of Henry Nowak will open with a jury at Winchester Coroner’s Court on 20 September 2027.

More than a year away? What on earth?

From Ace, who thinks an hour passed between the stabbing and the death, although I’m not sure on what that is based:

People point out there was a trauma center five minutes away — but they allowed the “racist” to bleed out on the ground for an hour while chatting with the racist foreign family of killers.

This is a case of a murder that grows in meaning and force rather than fading. I suppose it will fade – no doubt authorities are hoping for that. But it taps into so many themes of recent years: “anti-racism” resulting in racism against the non-favored groups, the focus on hate speech as an actionable offense (especially in Europe and Canada) if the hate speech is against those favored groups, the phenomenon of violent crime by immigrants from foreign countries (although Sikhs are generally quite law-abiding), and DEI prejudice on the part of police. It also highlights the ubiquity of recording devices, without which I doubt Digwa would have been convicted at all.

The post More about the terrible death of Henry Nowak appeared first on The New Neo.

Whatever delusions or triggered grievances were sparked by the mere sight of such women, the acts are consummately evil.

This is what surveillance video shows:

Security footage shows [66-year-old] Swan sitting alone inside MARTA train car 134 around 11:25 a.m. on Saturday, according to an arrest warrant.

The warrant states [25-year-old homeless man] Matthews walked up to stand near her right side, pulled a knife out of his front pants pocket, grabbed Swan by her head, and cut her throat.

Swan screamed and attempted to rise from her seat before Matthews grabbed her right arm and stabbed her roughly 18 to 20 times in an unprovoked attack.

Matthews then threw Swan to the floor and stood beside her until the northbound train pulled into the Oakland City Station at approximately 11:27 a.m.

There were many witnesses were able to furnish an almost immediate description of the murderer, which enabled police to catch him quickly. He had gotten off the train at the next stop but was still in the station, still holding the bloody knife and dressed in his bloody clothing. But that quickness on the part of the police didn’t help Margaret Swan.

This decision seems to have been a factor:

Swan’s devastated daughter Shanae Sams told The Post on Monday, ripping local officials over the temporary decision to allow free access to MARTA during systemwide renovations for the FIFA World Cup.

In other words, the MARTA system became a haven for homeless people and others with little or no money, such as Matthews.

One of the comments at the NY Post goes like this:

I expect to see every member of the clergy, celebrities, politicians, athletes and BLM members who showed up for the optics of supporting George Floyd at his THREE funerals to be in attendance for this poor lady. If the crime doesn’t fit the narrative, there’s not an activist in sight. Sincere condolences and Godspeed to the family.

Although this attack occurred last Saturday, we still know nothing about Matthews’ life or record, other than that he was homeless. Why have we been told so little?

As for non-intervening bystanders, I don’t judge them too harshly at this point. We don’t know how many people were on the train, or who they were. If it was just a few, and mostly women or the elderly, were they supposed to confront a knife-wielding maniac? I doubt I would have done a thing. Was anyone armed with a gun, which is legal in Atlanta? I have no idea. Were they afraid of a Daniel Penny type of situation, in which a Good Samaritan was criminally tried? I also call your attention to this article analyzing the Zarutska murder and why bystanders did nothing in time.

RIP Margaret Swan.

The post The murder of Margaret Swan appeared first on The New Neo.

Britain is even further along on this “the brown minorities are always right” road than we are here. For example, one of the first things that came to mind for me were the Rotherham rapes in which Muslim (mostly Pakistani) men groomed and raped underage white British girls. I recalled that not only was the situation allowed to continue for decades, despite constant reports, because British authorities feared upsetting the Muslim immigrant communities by pointing the finger at them, but also that some of the Rotherham victims were themselves arrested. Checking to see if that memory was accurate, I found this sort of thing [emphasis mine]:

On a number of occasions, victims of sexual abuse [in Rotherham] were criminalised – arrested for being drunk – while their abusers continued to act with impunity. Vital evidence was ignored, Jay said, with police apparently trying to manipulate their figures for child sexual exploitation by removing from their monitoring process girls who were pregnant or had given birth, plus all looked after children in care.

Blame the victims, not the perpetrators, if it was racially woke to do so.

Also, we could go all the way back to the post-9/11 emphasis in the US on a backlash “Islamophobia” which really didn’t even exist to any extent. There was a bending over backwards to make Muslims in the US the potential victims.

In Britain, there’s also the phenomenon in which Jews are being told not to wear symbols of their religion so as not to inflame or enrage their persecutors, rather than punishing the demonstrators harassing them. And some Jews have been arrested; for example these cases:

(1) Niyak Ghorbani:

Niyak Ghorbani, 37, waved the sign in the middle of last Saturday’s rally before protesters turned on him leading to a confrontation.

Police said he was arrested for assault before being de-arrested after officers reviewed footage. …

Ghorbani said that he would make a complaint after the incident and that he was not given back his sign.

He said: “[Police] told me that it is a danger for [my] life and for the people when they see maybe attack [me]. I told the police they attacked me and I want to complain and they say go to police station near your home.”

(2) Gideon Falter:

London’s police force has been forced to issue two apologies after officers threatened to arrest an “openly Jewish” man if he refused to leave the area around a pro-Palestinian march because his presence risked provoking the demonstrators.

Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, was wearing a traditional Jewish skullcap when he was stopped by police while trying to cross a street in central London as demonstrators filed past on April 13.

One officer told Falter he was worried that the man’s “quite openly Jewish” appearance could provoke a reaction from the protesters, according to video posted by the campaign group. A second officer then told Falter he would be arrested if he refused to be escorted out of the area because he was “causing a breach of the peace.”

Here’s another article on the phenomenon. Fortunately, none of those incidents caused serious physical harm, but they are indicative of the same trend of placating the country’s Muslim population at the expense of white British natives and of Jews.

As I said, it’s not quite as bad in the US; at least, not yet. But there is the MSM believing Hamas reports on the Gazan conflict, which exploit this same “brown people are automatically the truthful victims” mentality. This is in line with fake hate crimes here (Jussie Smollett, take a bow), a tactic which began long ago (Tawana Brawley, for example). The belief in the veracity of a once-persecuted group came originally from the desire to correct what used to be the opposite – the automatic belief in the white person even if that person was lying. But what started out as a needed correction ultimately became a dangerous overcorrection.

Will the same dynamic be at play in the Karmelo Anthony trial now beginning? He will be pleading racism on the part of the victim, whom he allegedly stabbed and killed with little to no provocation.

Then we also have the coverup – until recently, anyway – of various kinds of government aid fraud perpetuated by Somalis and allowed to go on for fear of being called a racist if it were to be exposed and prosecuted. Officials would rather lose billions of dollars than be called racists.

The post On the treatment of Henry Nowak: it didn’t happen in a vacuum appeared first on The New Neo.

I’ve found a good summary here. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the others. In particular, I’m referring to the judge’s statement, which you can locate by scrolling down there; it’s outlined in a pale blue box.

My own summary is as follows: In Southampton, England, 18-year-old Henry Nowak crossed the path of 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa, a Sikh wearing a ceremonial knife. A verbal exchange ensued (described by the judge, but somewhat cryptic), part of which was recorded by Nowak on his cellphone. Digwa stabbed Nowak multiple times, and one of the wounds caused fatal bleeding into his chest area. Digwa’s brother – who did not witness the incident but came upon the scene shortly after – called police to report it as a racial aggression by Nowak, and said no one was badly injured and no weapons were used. When the police arrived, despite Nowak’s obvious declining state (previously explained by the Digwas as Nowak’s being drunk, trying to climb a fence, and falling onto a car), and the fact that Nowak kept telling them multiple times that he’d been stabbed and couldn’t breathe, they didn’t believe him and didn’t examine him for wounds. Digwa’s brother had told the dispatcher there were no weapons involved, but had said an ambulance was probably needed for Nowak because of the supposed fall. And meanwhile, while the brother was on the phone, the killer passed the knife (bloody?) to the mother, who hid it; both parents had apparently come onto the scene perhaps because Vickrum had called them.

The website also contains an important audio, that of the emergency call made by the brother. I can’t embed it, but here’s a link. The key moment occurs almost at the outset, when the brother (Gurpreet) frames the problem this way:

Yeah, we’ve just been attacked racially. Yeah, this f***er. Yeah, we just got attacked racially by some white person.

Many people are outraged that the brother wasn’t tried as well as Vickrum and their mother, but I think it’s pretty clear why. The brother never witnessed the altercation and is merely repeating the lies that Vickrum has told him. I believe it’s only later, when Vickrum is jailed and the two speak in Punjabi (a discussion that’s recorded), that Gupreet learns what actually happened.

There is also a police bodycam, which I think isn’t the entire thing, but here’s the link. Among other things, Vickrum lies to police about being injured himself, pointing to a nonexistent eye injury he says he got – while meanwhile, Nowak is dying in front of everyone and the killer says nothing about the stabbing. A female officer asks the male officer. “We have to check that out, don’t we?” referring to the possibility of stab wounds that Nowak is describing in labored breaths. The male officer appears to respond, “No.”

This, in a nutshell, is what is so terrible about the police response. Whether Nowak could have been saved even with prompt medical attention is unclear (the medical examiner says he could not have) but irrelevant. The mindset of the male police officer was set in stone by the brother’s phone call, by Vickrum’s silence about what he’d done, and almost certainly by intensive training in sensitivity to the needs of “brown” racial groups. To question Vickrum’s story and to credit Nowak’s would have opened the officer up to charges of racism, but I doubt it even occurred to him to go that route, so deep was his indoctrination.

Putting it all together – the judge’s statement, the brother’s phone call, and the police video – and you get something of the story. It’s a terrible one, and people are right to be deeply outraged.

But my main question is this, and I have yet to see an answer: why did Vickrum stay at the crime scene? He could have escaped; he already had taken Nowak’s phone with the evidence of the verbal exchange, which did not contain any racial slurs or any attack by Nowak. Vickrum apparently realized there might be other video or photographic evidence of what really had occurred, but there were no actual witnesses other than Nowak and Vickrum himself. Maybe he thought running away would implicate him, and he was gambling that his lies would work to set the scene. So he stayed, and told his brother to make the call, and furnished the lies to his brother, and watched Nowak die – thus, ending the possibility that Nowak would be able to tell police a different tale than Vickrum was relating.

Apparently Vickrum would rather watch Nowak die than confess to stabbing him, either to his brother or to the police arresting Nowak. In service of these self-serving lies, Vickrum involved and implicated his family. His mother almost certainly saw the blood on the knife and was knowingly covering up the crime, but I doubt the brother knew anything other than the lies Vickrum had told him.

A terrible person.

Another issue – this being Britain – is that the carrying of knives (except for folding ones 3 inches or less) is generally banned, but Sikhs are allowed to carry ceremonial ones. A lot of people want to end this exemption. I think that’s a red herring. It’s not the knives themselves. It’s the killer. The knife discussion is similar to the gun discussion in which a focus is on the weapon, as though the knife itself is an agent. It’s not.

The post The murder of Henry Nowak: outrageous appeared first on The New Neo.