🇬🇧 Video has surfaced of Henry Nowak’s killer, Vickrum Digwa, threatening people during a road rage incident with the same knife he later used to take Henry’s life.

Follow us -> LiveLeak

🇬🇧 Speaking on the murder of Henry Nowak, Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi attacks Restore, Reform, and the "far right" for politicising Nowak's death, and demands protections for the Sikh community.

📎 Europa

Deport every single Indian from every single white country yesterday. They shouldn't even be allowed to visit our lands as tourists.

Decades ago, when I was in university, I remember having professors from anthropology to philosophy, all going out of their way to deny the existence of biological race. One of their big claims against race-realism was that there’s no single gene for race; that was supposed to be their gotcha argument to BTFO racists. Of course, most all of their students were White and middle to upper middle class. If more of their students had been non-White, I believe their lectures about race would be very different.

But if any anti-racist pseudo intellectual tries to lecture you on how race isn’t actually real because “there’s no single gene for race.” You can explain to them that there’s also no single gene for species.

In other words, if people want to deny the reality of race, put the full burden of proof on them by showing how the same arguments against race apply to biological differences between species. "If race isn't real, how do you know that speciation is?"

When debating against anti-racists, the goal must always be to put the burden of proof on them, in their court.

All-White Jury Selected in Karmelo Anthony Murder Trial

This is why I don’t like the term “racism.” A lot of the Brits protesting against the police over Henry Nowak’s death are accusing the British police of being the real racists, and racist against Whites. The Brits that are out in the streets for Henry Nowak are arguably the real anti-racists, at least according to the paradigm of “racism” prescribed to them by our modern language.

In order to communicate our ideas effectively to the wider world, we have to get our own terminology straight and counter any language that just muddies the waters — words like “racism.”

If we fail to reach the normies, helping them to understand how their vocabulary controls their ability to think about race and nationalism, then we won’t matter. We won’t make a dent, much less accomplish anything as a movement.

I don’t have all the answers, but I just know that most White people are actually open to our way of thinking — open to White Nationalism — they just don’t know it yet because they’re confused. A lot of that confusion comes from our modern language; that’s what’s holding many of them back.

I’ve heard this too many times IRL: “I’m concerned about Whites becoming a minority, but I don’t want to think about the problems or any solutions because I don’t want to be a racist.”

If “racism is cool,” what is racism against White people? Is that cool too? See how that one word confuses everyone. It’s like ableism or sexism, another ism to poison the intellectual well.

This is indeed the big problem with the word “racism.” It means so many different things that it leaves no room for nuance or anything specific. It’s a catch-all term to ostracize and denigrate any and all White people for any reason. We can’t get our message across by accepting that label for ourselves or using it to describe our own position.

It works like this:

If you don’t want your people to be a minority within your respective country, you are racist!

If you want to have your own society, for your people, you are a racist!

If you believe that race is real, and that there are biological differences in brain development between human subspecies, you are racist!

At first, it seems like we might as well call ourselves “racists” but…

This accusation of racism, by definition, also lumps you in with all the fictional, Hollywood-created cartoonish caricatures of the trailer-trash, skinhead, swastika-forehead -tattooed neo-nazis that you’d see on Jerry Springer that would insist they are just full of hate over skin color.

Our position has to be that “racism” as a word/concept never had any real meaning at all. It ultimately means nothing because it’s so nebulous.

This is why we should always use the term "anti-White." It specifically calls out the real problem, and avoids using the enemy's terminology that inherently puts us on the back foot.

What I’ve come to learn is that the battle for hearts and minds mostly rests on language.

For most people, it is through language that the frame is set, the moral compass is directed, and all the lens from which they view and think about reality are put into place.

You either understand this or you don’t!

With the right language, we win every argument before it starts, and we can shutdown our enemies instantly. Accusing them of being anti-White is a good example of this. It is more effective than saying “yes, I’m racist” because it puts them on the defense.

But if we say, “hell yes, I’m racist!” It still puts us on the defense as much as it does for the White guy that says “no, I’m not racist!” The problem is the word racist, because it still exists as an anti-White concept, whether you are for or against it.

You either understand this or you don’t. But what’s clear is that we cannot approach this problem with a sledgehammer, we must use a scalpel.

We have to really think about this, because White Nationalism is going to face some interesting new challenges in the future.

I predict a lot of normies and SJWs/liberals jumping on the White-rights bandwagon and defending Whites as the new wave of anti-racism. If we don’t get on top of how people think now and try to steer them in the right direction, White Nationalism will just be dissolved into a new era of anti-racist civic nationalism that just makes multiracialism safer and more inclusive for Whites.

Another way to understand what I’m trying to say: you can’t change someone’s worldview by also confirming the reality of their current worldview.

You can’t get people onboard with White Nationalism by saying “yup, I’m a racist!” It’s like trying to convince someone that the Holocaust is a hoax and that Jews are the bad guys by just saying “yes, I’m a Nazi! Nazism is cool bro.”

Language is one of the main pillars of it all. If you don’t knock down the pillar of their language — ideas like racism — but instead hold up that pillar (the language, the existing moral paradigm) then they won’t understand you, and they won’t change. You’ll just be a character within their existing worldview, the one created by Jews.

It’s not about “sneakily” changing definitions, or running away from their accusations; AGAIN, that’s not what I’m advocating for at all. Racism doesn’t have a solid definition to begin with, but it still forms the core of their worldview.

What I’m saying is that we actually need to take a wrecking ball to the foundation of their worldview, which is propped up by false ideas like racism. We can’t combat and destroy their worldview by adopting (thus confirming) its core tenet (racism).

We won’t win over everyone, I understand that, but a lot of normies are still thinking “yes we need change… but I still don’t want to be racist!”

BREAKING: Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has suggested a global pause on developing the most powerful AI systems, as the latest models are beginning to show signs that they could escape human control.

➡️ @RealTimeDailyNews

"we can't get it to do what we want it to do without it turning racist so we need to stop and think it over"