FlyOnTheWall
14d ago
However is there any evidence that Novak was accosted without any provocation on his part? It sounds like he was drunk and drunkenly his called out to the non-drunk guy with a big fucking sword, and tried to banter with him in an insulting way.
He was clearly provoked (but not racially), and probably a little tipsy.: "Henry Nowak had had a few beers (still under the legal limit), saw the Sikh man, Vickrum Digwa, pulled out his phone and started recording, and called out to him a few times "Are you a bad man?""
So I think Nowak was a little obnoxious (though I'm willing to overlook that given the murder)
Maybe brits are just stupid and coddled to the point that they can't survive in a world filled with non-coddled, tribal savages
Echoing @Corvos - other than the "stupid" bit - yes, and that's a good thing! In a functional civilisation "tribal savages" should be excluded, executed or imprisoned. People should be free to walk the streets at night, and they should be free to speak to other people they encounter on the street (if the other person is offended, they can be verbally offensive right back to them, ignore them, or just leave the situation) - it would be very bad if the lesson (white) people take away from this is that they should give extra respect and deference to (brown) violent thugs, lest they get Nowaked.
This logic seems to be part of a more general pattern of coping regarding slipping standards:
- Originally things are good.
- For moral reasons, some people want to implement a change to society (in this case mass immigration and race-denialism)
- The change is probably going to make things tangibly worse ("worse" in the eyes of most people, and probably even the people pushing the change)
- The pushers assure everyone that there won't actually be slipping standards, because we can just like, put some elbow grease into it, and work really hard to maintain standards ("we just need to arrest criminals, and make sure society is racially integrated")
- Standards end up slipping, and then pushers (alongside status-quo maintainers, who are now on the pushers' side since what they pushed for is the new status quo) do what you are doing now.
They imply that the old state of affairs was in some sense fake, and the new (worse) situation is somehow more authentic, or real. Living in a world where you wouldn't have to worry about getting stabbed by some criminal if you got a little tipsy and made an ass of yourself, and then bleed to death in handcuffs due to "two-tier" (i.e. anti-White racist) policing? That's a "bubble", "boring", "basic", ...
The new state of affairs is "real", "enriched" and "vibrant". As if the England of the early 1900s (sans rape gangs, two-tier policing, etc) was some computer simulation broadcast on VR headsets, whilst only the non-European peoples lived life in the real physical world.
What purpose does being able to coexist with "tribal savages" serve? Why is it a bad thing to not be able to live with them? It seems there is no limiting principle to prevent this logic being applied to literally anything that erodes civilisation. How coddled the British are, that they live in brick houses instead of huts like Australian Aborigines. What a bunch of namby-pamby morons - does the modal British person even know how to make a hut?
Ok, I see what you're saying. I guess I see things from a different angle - I think the root cause of the serious problems in society are the overtly violent thugs. And the badness caused by them is so bad the civilised predators aren't worth worrying about while there are violent thugs.
I think it's better if we just stick to the simpler "no hitting" rule, and accept that there may be cases where someone will be able to bait an otherwise decent person into becoming violent - otherwise a lot of bad stuff could be argued as justified under some sort of "provocation".
Like, I exist in the sort of environment where actual violent thugs are non-existent, but there are sometimes these sorts of "civilised predators". And it's just much nicer this way than living "in the sticks" or something - not being able to punch an obnoxious person in the face (or even be verbally rude or obscene to them) is a tradeoff I'm willing to make to maintain such a relatively nice environment.
More options
Context Copy link