On July 4th, the movie “Sinners” will become the first show to be interpreted into “Black American Sign Language (BASL),” per a <a href="https://press.wbd.com/us/media-release/max/sinners-black-american-sign-language-basl-debuts-july-4-us-max">press release</a> from Warner Bros.
The entertainment company described it as “a major step forward in accessibility, representation, and visibility in streaming.”
“BASL is a distinct dialect of American Sign Language (ASL) with its own dynamic history and unique grammar, signing space, rhythm, facial expressions, and cultural nuances,” the release stated. “For the first time, the Black Deaf community will have streaming access to a more immersive experience in their language. Max subscribers, who sign in ASL but are unfamiliar with this dialect, will also be able to follow along with this interpretation.”
The press release noted that the interpretation will be done by Nakia Smith, “an influential voice in the Black Deaf community, who delivers a powerful interpretation with cultural depth and linguistic richness that aligns with the film’s themes and historical timeline.” 
“Accessibility within streaming is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Our goal at Max is to make these great stories accessible to all audiences in a way that is authentic to the content and the communities we serve,” Naomi Waibel, Senior VP of Global Product Management at Warner Bros. Discovery, said in a statement. “Sinners with Black American Sign Language is an example of how culturally nuanced access can enrich the viewing experience for our audiences.”
According to the movie’s summary, “Sinners” is about twin brothers who “return to their hometown to start again, only to discover that an even greater evil is waiting to welcome them back.” It was released in theaters in April 2025.

Sinners

‘Sinners’ To Debut On Max As First Show With ‘Black American Sign Language’ Translation

'Sinners' To Debut On Max As First Show With 'Black American Sign Language' Translation

Blacks

Entertainment

Hollywood

Movies

I want to define cancel culture because I think people are equating many different things that are not cancel culture.
If you cancel or criticize someone, for example, that is not a legal ban on their behavior; that is social ostracization; sanction for behavior or opinion. Not legal sanction, not banning people, not trying to jail people, just people not wanting to hang out with you.
Cancellation can range from people criticizing you to people wanting to not hang out with you, to people firing you, to people deciding no one can hire you. It’s a whole range of activity.
There are basically three generalized perspectives on cancel culture. 
One: Any violation of any taboo ought to be treated with the harshest possible measure of cancellation, ruining people&#8217;s lives for any level of rhetorical transgression. 
Two: No one should ever be canceled for any reason. So no criticism, no social ostracization, no calling out, nothing. You can say whatever you want and there will be no consequences.
Three: the more moderate, complex and true perspective, which is that some behaviors or opinions are genuinely disgusting and should receive social sanction and other behavior should not. The level of forgiveness and social sanction ought to vary, because you might be talking about whether you want to have dinner with somebody or you might be talking about whether someone should be able to hold a job — which is much, much harsher — or you might be talking about whether or not you want somebody in your school.
The problem with the first perspective is that it is censorious. It prevents useful conversations from happening. It&#8217;s unforgiving, it&#8217;s uncharitable. For roughly 20 years in this country we saw people being canceled, socially ostracized, losing jobs, losing career opportunities, or being destroyed for correct opinions such as “Men are not women” or for saying a word in Mandarin that sounded like the N-word. Social media mobs were activated in order to destroy people who violated any taboo. The lines were bright, and if you crossed the line, you were destroyed.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2194-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
This led to a reactionary response, which moved to perspective number two, that cancellation should never happen. No criticism, no social sanction, that criticism is never, ever the answer, which is where we are now.
The problem with this perspective is that if there is never any social sanction or criticism or ostracization for bad behavior or terrible opinion, that&#8217;s moral relativism, in which the ugliest opinions and expressions are supposed to be given equal credibility with decent or even controversial but useful opinions.
The real answer in a normal society would be number three: Sometimes people deserve the social consequences for what they do. Not always, but sometimes. And the social consequences can vary. They aren&#8217;t irrevocable. In certain circumstances, forgiveness could be possible.
For example, in the normal world, you don&#8217;t have a duty as a business owner to hire or to have dinner with someone who shouts the N-word at children or who says that white people are colonizers and evil.
But in that normal world, it would be a bad thing to do to post that person&#8217;s address online so people can go to their house and harass them.
In the real world, you have every right to avoid buying a Bud Light because the company claimed that men can be women. Or you don&#8217;t want to engage with a company that says the police are systemically racist.
But you also shouldn&#8217;t go to the home of the CEO and threaten to burn down his house.
The informal standards of the social fabric used to work well because most issues remained personal. But social media has made everything worse because now there&#8217;s always a mob waiting to form.
That’s all social media is: a mob waiting to form around an issue, just like white blood cells in your immune system waiting for something to attack.
Mobs form to destroy people. And so we are all forced to decide on the spot whether we think a person is bad or good, hero or villain, deserving of shame or support.
The biggest issue is that we have lost the boundaries of what is informal or acceptable debate. We&#8217;re descending into a world of either total cancellation for everyone with whom we disagree or total support for bad behavior in order to fight total cancellation.
Here’s the point: these two perspectives are mutually reinforcing. The moral relativism of “There should be no social consequences or criticism for anything” leads people who don&#8217;t like the stuff that&#8217;s being said to call for more social consequences, which leads to more reactionary moral relativism, which leads to more social consequences, and back and forth until the end of time.
We should totally oppose obviously inappropriate cancellation; we should allow forgiveness where appropriate. People should ask for forgiveness and we should give it to them.
The bottom line is that if we are going to share a society together, a social fabric does require a more nuanced view of how we treat the things that we don&#8217;t like. And that nuanced view can&#8217;t just be “cancel everyone” or “cancel no one.”
As our common moral standards degrade, our society is going to continue to fall apart through a sort of reactionary cycling between the “cancel everyone” side and the “cancel no one” side.
Unless we find a better way to communicate.

Cancel culture, words in city and social media opinion, silence freedom of speech and message. Text, censorship and mockup with overlay, call out or banner internet for online bullying in society

Between Mob Justice And Moral Relativism: Rethinking Cancel Culture

Ben Shapiro

Cancel Culture

Opinion

Racism

Social Issues

Social Media

White Supremacy

Around 10:00 a.m. on Friday, a man named Rodney Hinton went to his lawyer&#8217;s office in Ohio and watched body camera footage of his son&#8217;s death. In particular, the footage shows Hinton&#8217;s 18-year-old son, Ryan, emerging from a stolen vehicle while carrying a handgun. At one point, Ryan drops the gun, then picks it up. Soon afterwards, he&#8217;s shot and killed by a police officer. None of these facts are in dispute. The video makes it all very clear. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Armed Suspect Shot" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jbrs9MONtsA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The reason the Hinton family was watching this footage in an attorney&#8217;s office is that, of course, they were contemplating a lawsuit against the city for wrongful death. That was certainly what their attorney was thinking about. In fact, even after viewing this footage, the family&#8217;s lawyer — who incidentally works for &#8220;The Cochran Firm,&#8221; as in the late Johnny Cochran&#8217;s firm — maintained that they had a case.
Here&#8217;s what the <a href="https://local12.com/news/local/family-members-of-18-year-old-killed-by-cincinnati-officer-to-speak-out-ryan-rodney-hinton-larry-henderson-traffic-detail-deputy-mother-grandmother-police-stolen-car-arrest-murder">family&#8217;s lawyer said</a>, as a way of arguing that the police officers were somehow responsible in this scenario:
<blockquote>Being in a stolen car, having a firearm, firearms—we&#8217;re in Ohio, you know, so you can open carry in Ohio, so that&#8217;s not a death penalty.</blockquote>
Admittedly, it&#8217;s not quite as catchy as &#8220;If the glove doesn&#8217;t fit, you must acquit&#8221; but it&#8217;s still a pretty remarkable line of argument from the Cochran Firm, all things considered. After watching the footage of Ryan Hinton exiting a stolen car with a handgun, then dropping the handgun and picking it up as police chased him, and then turning towards the officers, the conclusion from these lawyers is that Ryan Hinton was murdered simply for open-carrying a firearm. He got the &#8220;death penalty&#8221; for doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Even though his gun wasn&#8217;t holstered, and even though he was waving it around while committing a felony, and even though all of this is recorded, we&#8217;re supposed to conclude that Ryan Hinton was &#8220;open-carrying.&#8221;
This is a level of shamelessness that, in another era, would lead to a flurry of lawyer jokes on late-night television. But it&#8217;s not a joke to millions of people at the moment. It certainly wasn&#8217;t a joke to Rodney Hinton, the father of the teenager who was killed. Just hours after he viewed the body camera footage of his son&#8217;s death, Rodney Hinton got in his car with the intent of executing a police officer. He saw it as an act of revenge. And ultimately, he found a target: He ran over a recently retired sheriff&#8217;s deputy who was directing traffic outside the commencement ceremony at the University of Cincinnati. The slain officer, a Hamilton County deputy named Larry Henderson, had never met his killer before. They never exchanged words. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Driver Hits Cop" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mX4fLR6egY8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Rodney Hinton knew that police were justified in killing his son because he had just watched the body-camera footage. He knew that the police did nothing wrong. If the father wanted revenge on anyone for causing his son&#8217;s death, he should have taken revenge on himself. If your 18-year-old son is out with a gun stealing cars, it means you failed as a father. Even a minimal amount of fatherly guidance would have been enough to avoid this situation.
But instead of taking revenge on himself, Rodney Hinton decided to kill a police officer who was directing traffic. This should be an open and shut case, in every sense. The father is a murderer. His &#8220;revenge&#8221; obviously cannot be defended legally. Any hope of defending it morally is destroyed by the fact that, for one thing, the shooting of Ryan Hinton was justified. And secondly, the cop he killed had nothing to do with it anyway. This is not a Gary Plauche situation, where a father ambushed and killed the man who kidnapped and molested his son. This is an act of premeditated, cold-blooded murder against a random white cop.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1590-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
And yet — stop me if you&#8217;ve heard this one before — this murderer is being lionized and defended on social media. The father who just executed a sheriff&#8217;s deputy, in order to avenge his criminal son who flashed a gun at the cops, is the latest celebrity in certain corners of social media. The viral clips defending this murderer are all over TikTok. Here&#8217;s just one example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Rodney Hinton Jr" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/09joDqHimSA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
He gets the age of the so-called &#8220;kid&#8221; wrong, as he&#8217;s showing the sympathetic photos in the background. Ryan Hinton was 18, not 16, when he jumped out of the stolen car with a firearm. But the bigger issue with this video is the claim that the father &#8220;took justice into his own hands&#8221; by murdering a random police officer. Notice how there&#8217;s no pretext here, about how the officers did something wrong, or violated procedure, or any of that. There&#8217;s no explanation of how it&#8217;s &#8220;justice&#8221; to kill a random traffic cop — or to &#8220;un-alive&#8221; a traffic cop, as this guy puts it. It&#8217;s just assumed that killing a random white police officer is an appropriate response to the death of a black criminal. And millions of people find this reasoning persuasive at the moment. That&#8217;s the situation we&#8217;re now in.
For the past half-century or so, every aspect of American civic life has been devoted, at least superficially, to preventing a situation like this. If you spend trillions of dollars enacting a regime that rigidly enforces the seemingly laudable goal of &#8220;racial equality,&#8221; then surely, eventually, you&#8217;ll arrive at a point where all men are judged based solely on the content of their character. That is the grand experiment we&#8217;ve all been participating in for our entire lives. And with each passing day, it is becoming more and more clear that this experiment is crashing down all around us. We are heading, very directly, towards open and overt racial conflict.
To that end, here&#8217;s another similar video, which has more than 20,000 likes on TikTok. We&#8217;ll mute the audio because it&#8217;s obnoxious rap music. But here&#8217;s what it looks like:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Hinton Father In Custody" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1CKNljtK1Sk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It shows Rodney Hinton in court, in a jumpsuit, surrounded by a bunch of police officers. And there&#8217;s the caption that the uploader has added: &#8220;They really try to use over 30 deputies to intimidate Rodney Hinton but he kept his head up.&#8221;
Again, this post has more than 20,000 likes. This is not some random troll that didn&#8217;t get any attention. It&#8217;s one of the most popular posts about Rodney Hinton&#8217;s arrest. And people are responding to it because they genuinely believe that Hinton is a hero. There&#8217;s no rational argument that he&#8217;s innocent, or that he was justified, or that his son was innocent. This is pure racial resentment, spilling right out into the open.
Another post, with roughly 70,000 likes on TikTok, describes Rodney Hinton as a &#8220;mourning father,&#8221; complete with somber music. We&#8217;ll play part of that:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Mourning father" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J_kxDqjdhUw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Look around any social media platform, and you&#8217;ll find plenty of posts like this. 
It&#8217;s not just TikTok. On X, <a href="https://x.com/Blackcapitalis/status/1919132779767386157">here&#8217;s a post</a> with roughly 700 likes:
<blockquote>Rodney Hinton had no criminal record before he killed an Ohio  cop in retaliation for the cops killing his son . The police department brought 30 cops to his hearing to intimidate him.</blockquote>
So apparently, you get to kill a cop if you have no prior criminal record. And the police aren&#8217;t allowed to guard you, either, even after you&#8217;ve just murdered someone.
Then there&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/Duatronica/status/1919205862096142651">this post</a>, with more than a thousand likes:
<blockquote>All I’m saying is this. If a cop killed my son…I’m airing out the precinct. Rodney Hinton Jr. is a saint and a hero.</blockquote>
Yesterday we discussed the story of Shiloh Hendrix, the woman who has now raised hundreds of thousands of dollars after using a racial slur at a playground. What&#8217;s happening now with Rodney Hinton is yet another example of why Shiloh Hendrix has raised all of that money. If you&#8217;re saying that &#8220;justice&#8221; is somehow served by the execution of a random white police officer, in the name of defending a thug who stole a car and flashed a gun — and many people are saying this — then you don&#8217;t get to clutch your pearls because of Shiloh Hendrix. The standards are so wildly out of whack that it’s just not sustainable. “It’s okay if we kill people but not okay if you use naughty language” is not just a double standard. It’s flat out madness — a kind of moral schizophrenia.
It&#8217;s an unsustainable approach. And with every day, it becomes more and more apparent that we simply can&#8217;t continue on this trajectory. People are tired of it.  If large numbers of black people are openly defending and cheering for actual murderers who kill white people in cold blood, then you cannot tell white people that they have to make a big show of condemning a woman who says a bad word. That&#8217;s especially true as more and more white people are executed, without any media attention whatsoever.
For example, you probably haven&#8217;t heard the story of a 22-year-old woman named Logan Federico in South Carolina. Here she is, on the left:
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-916767 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GqPLmluXQAAyIf6.jpeg" alt="" width="680" height="383" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GqPLmluXQAAyIf6.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GqPLmluXQAAyIf6-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" /></div>
According to the authorities, Logan Federico was, &#8220;randomly murdered by a career criminal&#8221; who was &#8220;on a spree of thefts, break-ins and credit card fraud.&#8221; That career criminal, 30-year-old Alexander Dickey, allegedly &#8220;broke into a neighboring home around 3:00 a.m. and stole a firearm, credit and debit cards, and keys to a vehicle. &#8230; [He] then allegedly entered the house where Federico was staying, entered her room, and shot her, before fleeing the scene in a stolen vehicle.&#8221;
Somehow that story didn&#8217;t get much national attention.
Neither did this one, involving the execution of Tara and Taylor Jones in front of their home in the affluent neighborhood of Wellington Florida last year:
<div id="attachment_916775" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-916775" class="size-large wp-image-916775" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-06-May-2025-05-10-PM-4724-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshots: YouTube.com" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-06-May-2025-05-10-PM-4724-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-06-May-2025-05-10-PM-4724-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-06-May-2025-05-10-PM-4724-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-06-May-2025-05-10-PM-4724-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-06-May-2025-05-10-PM-4724-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshots: YouTube.com</div>
Surveillance footage shows that Tara and Taylor Jones were shot to death by a 63-year-old mechanic named Norman Scott, without any provocation of any kind. Again, there was no outrage. There was no public show of support for these victims.
Instead, we&#8217;re now at the point where three cold-blooded killers in the span of a few months have found large cheering sections on social media, including Rodney Hinton, Karmelo Anthony and Luigi Mangione. In fact, one of these viral TikTok videos supporting Rodney Hinton — with more than 20,000 likes — actually brings up Luigi Mangione in this context. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 Silent Rage" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WwxPrsKjFw8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There&#8217;s one useful aspect of this TikTok video, which is that it makes the point that this situation isn’t all about race. Luigi Mangione was obviously white, and plenty of people justified his actions too. In fact, as you probably recall, some people who call themselves &#8220;conservatives&#8221; also justified Luigi Mangione&#8217;s actions. And that tells us that we&#8217;re witnessing a general breakdown of law and order, on top of the racial violence. Decades of justifying and excusing criminality have led us to a point where people who commit blatant first-degree murder are celebrated, at least if they&#8217;re viewed as allies of the political Left. Again: we&#8217;ve now had three of these cases in five months.
As you continue to hear the high-pitched outrage over Shiloh Hendrix, keep in mind that nothing she did, in any universe, could ever end your life or the life of anyone you care about. The people cheering the execution of an innocent police officer or a CEO or a white high school student at a track meet, on the other hand, are actually dangerous. They&#8217;re the ones you should be hearing about, nonstop. They&#8217;re the actual threat to you and your family. They&#8217;re the ones who are trying to bring about a complete breakdown in law and order. They’re the ones who want racial conflict. And as the execution of this police officer in Cincinnati once again demonstrates, even if they can&#8217;t destroy someone like Shiloh Hendrix, they will still do everything in their power to destroy you.

06-May-2025

This Man Was Just Arrested For Murdering A Retired Cop. Now He’s Being Hailed As A Hero.

Cincinnati

Matt Walsh

Murder

Police

The Met Gala , which means nothing to most of us, is very important to the cultural glitterati, the people who make culture.
The Met Gala is the Marie Antoinette of the modern American landscape. Every year, a bunch of very rich and very famous people get enormous attention for wearing some of the most bizarre and expensive garbage imaginable while the rest of the country tries to pay its bills.
And then we are told that those rich people are brave and groundbreaking for doing so.
Ironically, the theme of this year&#8217;s Met Gala was “Superfine: Tailoring Black Style.” Clearly, when this year’s event was originally considered, people thought Kamala Harris was going to be president of the United States. It was designed as a celebration party for the nation&#8217;s second black president, Kamala Harris.  
And then she lost.
And so now we are in this weird nether region in which the Left continues to whine that Kamala Harris should have won the election, even though she lost.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/style/met-gala-2025-black-dandy-politics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Last October, when the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute announced its next fashion show, “Superfine: Tailoring Black Style,” the political landscape looked very different.
Kamala Harris, the first female vice president and the first Black woman ever to top a major-party ticket, was in the final weeks of her campaign for the White House. The show, the culmination of five years of work by Andrew Bolton, the Costume Institute’s curator in charge, to diversify the department’s holdings and shows in the wake of the racial reckoning brought about by George Floyd’s murder, seemed long overdue.</blockquote>
Right. There was nothing that was longer overdue than a fashion show about black fashion. That is why George Floyd died, so the Met Gala could have extraordinarily rich and famous people wear bizarre outfits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Clearly, that was necessary.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>On Monday, however, when it finally opens to the starry guests at its signature gala, the splashiest party of the year, it will do so in a very different world. One in which the federal government has functionally declared war on diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as programming related to race — especially in cultural institutions.</blockquote>
The theme of this year&#8217;s Met Gala was based on an <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/superfine-tailoring-black-style" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exhibit</a> at the Met Museum that:
<blockquote>explores the importance of style to the formation of Black identities in the Atlantic diaspora, particularly in the United States and Europe. Through a presentation of garments and accessories, paintings, photographs, decorative arts, and more, from the 18th century to today, the exhibition interprets the concept of dandyism as both an aesthetic and a strategy that allowed for new social and political possibilities.</blockquote>
The apparent goal was to recreate the mood of outfits that were worn by black people in resistance to white supremacy. The Metropolitan Museum wrote:
<blockquote>Together, these characteristics demonstrate how one’s self-presentation is a mode of distinction and resistance—within a society impacted by race, gender, class, and sexuality. Together, these characteristics demonstrate how one&#8217;s self-presentation is a mode of distinction and resistance within a society impacted by race, gender, class, and sexuality.</blockquote>
You might notice that this is not the sartorial splendor for black people of the past; in fact, if you watch movies and shows that are made about the early 20th century, there was a form of black fashion and it was actually quite cool.
But that is not what this was, because the Gala had to be used to prop up the ideology that suggests that being black is equivalent to being gay, is equivalent to being transgender, is equivalent to being transgressive in virtually all of its forms.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2193-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
This Gala was race-directed. The Left is going to have to confront a backlash because the American people are tired of DEI; it was one of the main reasons why Democrats lost in the last election cycle. Americans are extraordinarily tired of thinking tribally along racial lines.
So many of the DEI traps about race are Catch-22s; on the one hand, there can be a suggestion that if a historically black area has a lot of investment and white people drive up the real estate prices, this is “gentrification” and “wrecking the neighborhood.” But if white people move out of that area, then that is called “white flight.”
The same thing holds true when it comes to things such as fashion. If white people pay tribute to black people through fashion, then that is cultural appropriation. And if they don&#8217;t, then that is neglecting the impact of black fashion on America and the West.
Let&#8217;s put it this way: If the future of the Democratic Party is re-embracing DEI through an effete fashionista sensibility, good luck to the Democrats. This is precisely the kind of crap that most Americans are ready to end. This is not a reversion to normality. It&#8217;s a reversion to Bizarre World.
The class differentiation at the Met Gala is what sets it apart, but the attempt to cut the class differentiation by reference to race is a giant failure.
The Democrats wonder why blue-collar voters of every stripe moved away from them? It’s because the actual morality that drives the Democratic Party is a snooty elitism that sneers at people who don&#8217;t have the same aesthetic tastes that they do.
I don&#8217;t have the same aesthetic taste as many Americans; I listen to classical music; I&#8217;m an Orthodox Jew, and my aesthetic and cultural tastes might not necessarily be the same as a blue-collar worker from Wisconsin. But that doesn&#8217;t mean that my aesthetic and cultural tastes are better than the blue-collar workers from Wisconsin.
What reeks from all of the pictures of the people at the Gala is a disdain for normal Americans.
And that is why Donald Trump is president.

The 2025 Met Gala Celebrating “Superfine: Tailoring Black Style” – Arrivals

The Ongoing Insanity Of The Met Gala

Celebrities

Coastal Elites

Manhattan

New York City

New York Times

MixCollage-05-May-2025-03-51-PM-2979

How The Shiloh Hendrix Case Killed Cancel Culture

Minnesota

Whites

We have now fallen into a bizarre and terrible cycle in the United States in which one side does something bad and the other side then does something similarly bad, then points to the fact that the first side did something bad as an excuse for doing it.
This is a problem. We used to call this “whataboutism.’
Now, people have misapplied the term whataboutism over and over and over in the political context. It is not whataboutism to point out double standards.
 Whataboutism is when you do something wrong and instead of saying, “Yes, I did something wrong, but a double standard is being applied,” you say, “I didn&#8217;t do anything wrong at all, and it doesn&#8217;t matter if I did do something wrong because the other side did it.”
Let’s take this example. Hunter Biden is super-duper-duper corrupt and then somebody on the Right side of the aisle does something super-duper-duper corrupt, and then the Right side is called on and they say, “Well, yeah, but Hunter Biden did something super-duper-duper corrupt.”
That&#8217;s whataboutism, because it&#8217;s a non-sequitur. You can say there&#8217;s a double standard being applied by the same media that was willing to ignore and cover up Hunter Biden&#8217;s activity for years but now they&#8217;re going after, say, Team Trump. You can say that the media have been disproportionate in their coverage of corruption. That is a fair point.
It is not a fair point to say that corruption on one side of the aisle is justified by corruption on the other side of the aisle.
If you do that sort of stuff, then you end up in a bottomless spiral.
That bottomless spiral gets worse and worse because everybody reacts against the last bad thing that the other side did and uses it to justify what they are doing now. And then the other side responds, “Well, you just did something even worse. And so I&#8217;m going to do something even worse than that.”
The reality is that calling out double standards is a good thing if you wish to uphold a standard. But calling out double standards as an excuse for doing bad things is not calling out a double standard. It is justifying doing bad things.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2192-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to the story of Shiloh Hendrix.
Shiloh Hendrix is a white woman who was caught on camera this week calling a five-year-old boy the N-word. According to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/05/03/us-news/minnesota-woman-rakes-in-more-than-500k-after-calling-child-n-word/">New York Post</a>, Hendrix allegedly caught this five-year-old boy rifling through her bag at a playground in Rochester, roughly 90 minutes south of Minneapolis, and called him the N-word. Hendrix also has a troubled history with law enforcement, including DUI, disorderly conduct and brawling.
A black man filmed the incident and confronted her. When she was asked if she called the kid the N-word, she answered, “Yeah,” adding, “he took my son’s stuff.” She also reportedly repeatedly used the same slur against the man who recorded her.
A few things are happening here. First, a five-year-old kid was rifling through her stuff. Second, five-year-old kids do bad things all the time. They can be wonderful and also extremely naughty and troublesome; they’re small kids. Third, calling a little black kid the N-word is a bad thing to do.
If you have trouble with the idea that calling a little black kid the N-word is a bad thing to do, I don’t understand why. That seems absolutely uncontroversial to me. 
The reason this has become a national issue is because this woman was videoed and people started targeting her on social media. The kid&#8217;s parents, who are from Somalia, said the boy is autistic. The parents were apparently supervising three other kids on the playground at the time of the incident.
“During the confrontation, Hendrix allegedly told him he and his wife shouldn’t have more children because they are a drain on the welfare system,” The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/05/03/us-news/minnesota-woman-rakes-in-more-than-500k-after-calling-child-n-word/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
Hendrix wrote in a crowdsourcing post:
<blockquote>Another man, who we recently found out has had a history with law enforcement, proceeded to record me and follow me to my car. He then posted these videos online which has caused my family, and myself, great turmoil. My SSN has been leaked. My address, and phone number have been given out freely. My family members are being attacked. My eldest child may not be going back to school. Even where I exercise has been exposed.</blockquote>
Hendrix asked for the internet to provide her with money so that she could move, and within days she had raised over $500,000.
To expose every aspect of someone’s life, even if they have called a child the N-word, to publish their Social Security number, their address, to try to destroy their life, is wrong, period.
But to raise half a million dollars in response also isn’t right.
This all became a scandal because people justified giving Hendrix money by using the case of Karmelo Anthony, the 17-year-old black teenager from Frisco, Texas, who stabbed a white teenager, Austin Metcalf, to death. Anthony admitted the stabbing to police. A fundraising site raised over $500,000 for Anthony’s defense fund; some of the funds were supposed to go toward paying for a secure location for the family to live.
None of this stuff justifies the other. None of them are equivalent, either. Alleged murder is by far the worst. Giving money to alleged murderers is second. Third on the list, and certainly not comparable to murder, is calling someone the N-word. And fourth on that list would be giving money to somebody who used the N-word.
But none of these things justify each other. And this is part of the terrible slide into the bottomless pit of garbage that the United States seems to be embroiling itself in; the idea that you have to give money to Shiloh Hendrix because people gave money to Karmelo Anthony.
You don&#8217;t.
I truly understand the people on social media who are justifiably furious that the news media seems to treat calling a child the N-word the equivalent of alleged murder.
But if you are calling on people to do less moral things with reference to other people doing immoral things, that&#8217;s not doing anything productive. That is making the world a worse place, one step at a time.
And there is no bottom to that pit, because the next time somebody does something terrible with the races reversed, somebody will raise $1 million.
This is how you end up with a body politic that has no level of trust in one another. It&#8217;s how you destroy the social fabric.
It&#8217;s the same thing as your child breaking a rule and then saying their sibling also broke the rule, so it was okay to do it. That&#8217;s kid logic and there&#8217;s no reason to use it. It is not moral. It does not make the world a better place. It does not make America stronger.
We can call out the media for treating the two stories as similar. They&#8217;re not.
But if you can&#8217;t at least say that these are bad things, that all of these things fall into the category of bad things people should not do, and you find yourself justifying the behavior on the basis of what the other side did, you&#8217;re making the world a worse place.

Money changing hands in cyber space

Stop Giving Your Money To Crappy People

Austin Metcalf

GoFundMe

Karmelo Anthony

Collective cries of anguish echoed through the heavens this past weekend. You may have heard the sound. It was the sound of trauma. Of heartbreak. Of great moral outrage. It was the sound of the Left-wing hacks in sports media reacting to Shedeur Sanders, the son of former NFL star Deion Sanders, being drafted into the the NFL a little bit later than most people expected.
For some background and context, Shedeur Sanders is a quarterback who played for The University of Colorado where his dad, Deion Sanders, is the head coach. For months, most analysts projected that he would be selected in the first round of the NFL draft, which began on Thursday and ran for three days and seven total rounds. But the prognosticators in sports media are about as credible, and have about as good a track record, as the political prognosticators in the news media. Which is to say they&#8217;re full of crap most of the time. So Shedeur was not drafted in the first or even second round. Instead he didn&#8217;t come off the board until the fifth round, when he was drafted by the Cleveland Browns — who selected a different quarterback, some other players, a water boy, a cheerleader, and a janitor before they finally got around to drafting Shedeur.
Why does any of this matter? Well, it doesn’t matter. But to the commentators in sports media, it was a national tragedy. Shedeur’s brief draft slide was ESPN’s 9-11. It was the NFL Network’s Pearl Harbor. They’ll never forget where they were when it happened. They were shell shocked. Dumbfounded. Grief stricken. 
Here are two very short clips that should give you a pretty good idea of how they were covering the news:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Charles Davis and the NFL Network crew and Mel Kiper" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yw9CHR0lCsc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;It&#8217;s disgusting. I don’t get it. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s never happened before. I just want to reach out and give him a hug. This is such a tough time for him.&#8221;
To be clear, they aren’t talking about someone who survived a school shooting. They&#8217;re talking about an already wealthy and famous athlete who had to wait a day longer than expected to be drafted into the NFL and get paid millions of dollars to play football. This is like weeping in the street because a trust fund baby got the wrong color Ferrari for her sweet 16. Most of the human population would kill just for the chance to experience this kind of &#8220;disappointment.&#8221; But the sports media treated Shedeur like a holocaust survivor.
All of this would just be kind of funny and embarrassing but not worth discussing. After all, sports media embarrasses itself in some form pretty much every day. They embarrass themselves even more often than the news media, if you can believe it. But what makes this whole spectacle something worse, and perhaps more notable, is the reason why the sports media were so outraged.
They — very predictably — made it about race. It was decided that Shedeur Sanders fell in the draft because he&#8217;s black.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1584-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
As an article in The Root put it in “<a href="https://www.theroot.com/i-am-a-leader-i-forge-my-own-path-shedeur-sanders-mak-1848432864" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shedeur Sanders</a> not getting drafted in the first, second or third rounds of the NFL draft is like when that white cashier scrunches up her face and drops change in your hand instead of running the risk of touching you. Was she a racist Karen, or is that how she treats all customers? It’s a racism Rorschach test.”
Never mind the question of how else a cashier is supposed to transfer change from her hand to yours. What do you want her to do? Stroke your arm gently as she sensuously places one coin at a time into your palm? Personally I prefer that she just drop the change into my hand so we can both move on with our lives. But that’s how I interpret the “racism Rorschach test.” On the other hand, for the race hustlers, when it comes to the racism Rorschach test, the answer is always yes. And that’s why lots of commentators in sports media jumped in to make it about race. Here&#8217;s another brief highlight reel: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 Racism" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q-CyAJFyOVw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
That was Ryan Clark, Emmanuel Acho, and Skip Bayless — three of the most prominent sports commentators in the country. All of them agree that this came down to race. Skip is practically in tears over it. Emmanuel says he was up all night “muling&#8221; about it, whatever the hell that&#8217;s supposed to mean. I assume the word he was reaching for was “mulling.” But the other thing about sports commentators is that they are, for the most part, fantastically stupid.
Stephen A Smith was also outraged. He was tweeting in a frantic hysteria all weekend, repeatedly invoking Colin Kaepernick and alleging that there was &#8220;collusion&#8221; at play, just as there was, allegedly, to keep Kaepernick out of the league.
And it wasn&#8217;t just sports commentators. Jamaal Bowman, the former congressman famous only for pulling a fire alarm, put out a video on Saturday claiming that Shedeur’s fate is more evidence that &#8220;America continues to fear strong black men.” 
He also said this:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 Jamaal Bowman" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q3DwXgvB3cI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Now, given that I have an audience of intelligent people — certainly more intelligent than Jamaal Bowman, who has the approximate IQ of a rubber spatula — I probably don&#8217;t need to explain that these racism complaints are totally asinine.
If you think that Shedeur wasn’t drafted in the first round because he&#8217;s black, you’ll have to explain why the guy selected number one overall is black. Also the guy selected number two is black. So was the guy selected number three. So was the guy selected number six, number seven, number eight, number nine, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and so on. There were 32 selections in the first round. All but five of them were black. And this ratio held up through the entire draft, just as it did in last year&#8217;s draft, and the year before that, and before that, and before that, for decades. Which is why only 25% of the players in the NFL are white. All of the rest are black, or some other racial minority.
The vast majority of NFL players are black. The vast majority of the biggest stars are black. The highest paid player in the league is black.
So where is the racism coming into play? Is it that black players are held to a higher standard? Are black players scrutinized and penalized and criticized more? No, definitely not. Deshaun Watson — a black quarterback — was credibly accused of sexual assault by over 20 women and yet was still given the richest contract in league history after all of these accusations were made public. There are black players in the league who have been involved in all manner of scandals and crimes and alleged crimes. The Baltimore Ravens selected a player in the second round of this year’s draft who was accused of rape in high school and college. He’s also black. But they needed an edge rusher, and the kid has talent, so they overlooked the rape stuff. That&#8217;s how NFL teams operate. They don&#8217;t care about the color of your skin or crimes on your rap sheet. They only care if you can help them win games. Winning is the only thing that matters. The Ravens most legendary player of all time, a black man, was charged with double murder. A year later he won Super Bowl MVP. Nothing matters in football but winning. Which is what I love about football, actually. It&#8217;s the ultimate meritocracy.
Shedeur suffered his tragic drop, for which all of humanity weeps and the heavens cry out for justice, because he&#8217;s not a great prospect. He&#8217;s a pretty good prospect, but not great. He’s not as talented as a lot of the guys who went before him. Also, to make matters much worse, he’s a high maintenance diva with an ego bigger than any room he walks into. According to lots of reports, that&#8217;s exactly how he came across in his pre-draft interviews with various teams. This is a guy who had a room custom built just for the draft night broadcast with the word “legendary” painted all over the walls. He hosted a draft party where he performed some rap songs — apparently he moonlights as a rapper — and walked around with a giant brief case full of cash.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Star: Shedeur Sanders threw a MASSIVE party to celebrate being drafted by the Browns.
Sanders performed his hit rap songs and flexed over $100K in cash during the event.
So many celebrities were in attendance as well.
Cleveland drafted a superstar 👀 <a href="https://t.co/zqKZZVNCqe">pic.twitter.com/zqKZZVNCqe</a>
&mdash; Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1916572629386887611?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
At the NFL scouting combine, he said he doesn’t even need to explain why an NFL team should draft him. 
There&#8217;s no question that Shedeur deserves it, according to Shedeur. Listen:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 Sanders Speaks" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QfpmX-Oxyn0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
If you aren&#8217;t ready to change your culture, don&#8217;t draft him. That was his message to teams considering drafting him. A message that was apparently heard loud and clear.
This is, of course, the opposite of what you want to say in a job interview. Employers are looking for candidates who will fit their workplace culture, not candidates who demand that the culture change for them. Imagine walking into an interview and saying, &#8220;Hey, if you hire me, I’m going to need you to change your whole culture and the entire way that you do business. That&#8217;s how special I am.” That’s a surefire recipe for getting laughed out of the room. The only real mystery here is how this jackass managed to find any team dumb and desperate enough to draft him. But it’s Cleveland we&#8217;re talking about. Dumb and desperate is their brand. It turns out they actually won&#8217;t have to change their culture at all.
In any case, in this story we find the real tragedy of the Left-wing race hustle. We find what really makes it so harmful. Which is that it constantly destroys opportunities for much more productive conversations. So many teachable moments have been wasted over the past several years because the usual suspects injected their racial victimization narrative into it, completely derailing what could have otherwise been a useful discussion.
In this case we could have been talking about the value of humility. And we could use more conversations about humility, as it falls second only to chastity as the most underrated virtue of our time. Shedeur comes from a generation that has been thoroughly brainwashed into the religion of self-worship. And his dad is Deion Sanders, who is one of the prophets of that religion. But in the real world, you can only get away with being a narcissistic nightmare if you’re extremely talented and gifted — if the weight of your ego is still somehow outweighed by your skills. Even then, you’re only getting away with being a narcissist. It certainly isn&#8217;t helping you. And eventually, as your skills fade — as they will for everyone, no matter your line of work — this equation may not work out in your favor anymore. The thing about a narcissist is that their skills, their talents, their physical gifts — whatever it is that’s causing people to put up with their nonsense — won’t last forever. But narcissism, unchecked, will last forever. Or at least until death. In fact, it will probably even grow with age, like a tumor.
So the lesson is that, no matter how talented you are, it’s better to be humble. There are two kinds of people in this world, after all. The humble, and those who will be humbled. As Christ explains to us in the Beatitudes. Better to be in the first group than the second. That’s the lesson we could take from this. But instead we’re hearing again about racism. Because why talk about real issues, when you can talk about fake ones. If the media had a motto, that would be it.

2025 NFL Draft – Rounds 4-7

Another Dumb ‘Racism’ Scandal Takes Over The NFL

Another Dumb 'Racism' Scandal Takes Over The NFL

College Football

Deion Sanders

ESPN

Football

Legacy Media

Sports

It&#8217;s always fascinating to determine which stories are national news stories according to the legacy media and which are local news stories.
This is particularly true when it comes to national crime stories. Every crime story is, in essence, a local story because every crime story involves the perpetrator and the victim, and all of that happens locally. Thus, unless you can identify a broad national trend springing therefrom and that local news story is the hook for a discussion of the broad national trend, no local story on its own should be a national story.
It&#8217;s fascinating which kind of crime stories are the ones that spark national discussions about, for example, race in America. According to legacy media, the only kinds of crime that ought to spark discussions of race in America are crimes where the alleged victim is black and the alleged suspect is white. Those are the only ones that you will ever hear about, whether you&#8217;re talking about George Floyd, Daniel Penny, George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, or Michael Brown. 
Any time you have a racial conflagration, according to the legacy media, it is always on one side of the racial ledger. The primary narrative the legacy media will push is the idea that America is a systemically racist place against black people.
And so, the kind of crimes the legacy media like to cover are, of course, the ones where a white person — or in the case of George Zimmerman, a white-Hispanic person — kills a black person.
But the reality is, unfortunately, on a proportionate level, it is far more common for young black men to kill people of other races than the other way around. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of murders are intra-racial, meaning that most black men who are murdered are murdered by black men. Most white men who are murder are murdered by white men.
When it comes to interracial crime, which the media like to use as a proxy for discussions about the evils of the state of race in the United States, there&#8217;s only one type of story they like to track: white on black crime. The reality is that, proportionately speaking, black on white crime is significantly more common.
That is why it is worth noting the case of Karmelo Anthony, which arose from the alleged murder of a young man named Austin Metcalf.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2181-when-murder-is-apparently-totally-fine-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Austin Metcalf was a football player in Frisco, Texas, and he had a confrontation with the aforementioned Karmelo Anthony, who is black. Austin Metcalf was white, and according to the police reports, there was some sort of confrontation inside an athletic tent put up at a track meet and Karmelo Anthony was not supposed to be in that tent, but he was sitting in that tent. Athletes for the opposing school were also in the tent.
According to the <a href="https://wset.com/resources/pdf/59b71600-1d28-4429-9784-44c7e1e93793-karmeloanthonyarrestreport.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">police report</a>, Austin Metcalf went into the tent and told Anthony he didn’t belong in here, at which point a confrontation ensued. Karmelo Anthony allegedly reached into his backpack, pulled out a knife and stabbed Austin Metcalf to death in front of everybody else and tried to run away and throw away the knife.
Not only that, according to Officer Eduardo Cortez, who says he was the person who was assigned to bring the suspect, Karmelo Anthony, to the police vehicle and take him off to jail for his booking. In his police report, he stated:
<blockquote>The suspect at this point was on the track on the north end. There was a chain link fence that separated me from the suspect. I gave the suspect instructions to keep his hands up in the air. During this time, the suspect said verbally out loud, “I was protecting myself”. It should be noted that I had not questioned him about the incident when he made that comment. I asked him if he had any weapons, and he said no.
I padded [sic] him down for weapons while we were walking along the fence, and I did not locate any on his person. I instructed the male to continue walking along the fence, which he complied, towards an area where there was an opening in the fence that led off the track. While walking him off the track, the suspect also said “he put his hands on me”. I then detained the suspect in handcuffs (hand cuffed behind his back) and had him sit down on the ground.
Officer A. Ricci had arrived on scene at that time. I conducted another pat down of his person and then searched his person after he gave me consent, no weapons were located. While the suspect sat on the ground, I advised that I had the alleged suspect. The suspect then responds and says, “I’m not alleged, I did it”.
Next, Officer Ricci and I walked the suspect to patrol vehicle #2412 (this is Officer A. Ricci’s patrol vehicle), which was on the north east gate of Kuyrkendall stadium. As we were walking to the squad car, the suspect was emotional and said, “He put his hands on me, I told him not too.” I did not question the suspect about the incident while he was escorted to the patrol vehicle.
I searched his person once again and I had him sit in the back seat area (driver side) of patrol vehicle #2412. While the suspect was in the back seat, I noticed fresh blood on his left middle finger. I verbally acknowledged that I saw the blood out loud so that it would be captured on my Body Worn Camera. It should also be noted that the suspect asked me “is he going to be ok” while he was in the back seat.</blockquote>
Officer Alvin Fischer, the first officer to speak with Metcalf’s twin brother, Hunter, who was with him at the time of death, stated:
<blockquote>When I arrived, the crime scene was already marked off and a suspect was in custody. I began asking people if they were witnesses to anything. I made contact with Hunter M[redacted] and then E [Redacted] (B/M [Redacted] they were both breathing heavily and crying due to the nature of events. They were with coaches on the field and it was pouring down rain.
I attempted to ask them both what had happened. I could not really get anything out of Hunter, but [redacted] stated he wanted to speak. I asked him what happened, and he stated they were all sitting on the bleachers under a Memorial HS tent. When another male, who he did not know, walked over and sat under the tent. [Redacted] then said Austin (the victim) told this male that since he did not go to Memorial he had to leave the tent.
Austin and the male went back and forth and then Austin stood up and pushed the male to get him out of the tent. [Redacted]  had said during this time of arguing, the male was reaching around in his bag he had. It was at this time the male took out a knife and stabbed Austin and then left the scene. This was all [Redacted] remembered when he talked to me.</blockquote>
This sounds like a confrontation that escalated to the point where Karmelo Anthony pulled a knife out of his backpack and then stabbed Austin Metcalf to death. 
The case that Anthony will presumably make in court is that it was self-defense, that he was in fear for his life because another student was pushing him.
Here&#8217;s where it starts to get very dicey. A GiveSendGo account was set up for Karmelo Anthony and it immediately raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Now, imagine a scenario in which the race is reversed here and a GiveSendGo was set up for the family. Would there be any doubt the media would be all over it, talking about how terrible it would be for a white student who stabbed to death a black student after being pushed to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in GiveSendGo money?

Screenshot 2025-04-05 at 9.43.51 AM

Race And The Legacy Media

Texas

Violent Crime

Last Friday we discussed the killing of a white high school junior in Texas named Austin Metcalf. Metcalf was stabbed through the heart by Karmelo Anthony, a 17-year-old black student who attended a different school. 
According to the arrest warrant, Anthony was in the wrong tent at a track meet, for reasons that aren&#8217;t entirely clear. Metcalf told him to leave; Anthony dared Metcalf to touch him; Metcalf apparently touched Anthony or his backpack; and then Anthony produced a knife from the backpack and killed Metcalf. Afterwards, police say, Anthony threw the murder weapon away. When police asked Anthony what had happened, he admitted that he had stabbed Metcalf, then asked them if his actions could be considered a form of self-defense.
Of course, there hasn&#8217;t yet been a trial in this case. Karmelo Anthony, like everyone else accused of a crime in this country, enjoys the legal presumption of innocence under our Constitution. At the same time, reasonable people can look at these facts and come to one obvious conclusion, which is this: Unless the police and all of the witnesses are engaging in the single most organized conspiracy to frame a criminal defendant that&#8217;s ever been undertaken in the history of this country, for no apparent reason, then there was clearly no justification for Karmelo Anthony to kill Austin Metcalf. There was no reason for him to bring a deadly weapon to a track meet in the first place, much less use that weapon to execute an unarmed teenager, and then attempt to hide evidence. In other words, any defense of Anthony must rely on something other than the facts.
Over the past few days, that kind of defense is exactly what has emerged. Despite the overwhelming evidence in this case, tens of thousands of people have now publicly declared that, in essence, Metcalf had it coming. This sentiment isn&#8217;t based on forensic evidence or new witness testimony or anything like that. Instead, the defense of Anthony is based on the fact that Anthony is black, and Metcalf was white.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1570-member-exclusive?row=2&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
We will go through some of these defenses, below, so you can see the exact arguments I&#8217;m referring to. The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that the identity of the person writing the post doesn&#8217;t matter. What matters are the massive amount of positive responses these posts have received. Each post listed below has received tens of thousands of positive responses, in the forms of replies and &#8220;likes,&#8221; along with millions of views. So even if we&#8217;re talking about professional agitators here, it really doesn&#8217;t matter. The point is that the agitation is working. A significant number of people are responding positively.
Here for example was <a href="https://x.com/tariqnasheed/status/1908338545020018820">a post</a> written by the commentator Tariq Nasheed, who describes himself as a &#8220;foundational black American.&#8221;
<blockquote>A suspected white supremacist named Austin Metcalf (pictured with his twin) allegedly demanded honor student Karmelo Anthony give up his seat—like it was the Jim Crow era. Karmelo defended himself from the alleged threat. The Daniel Penny case set this precedent.</blockquote>
Nasheed <a href="https://x.com/tariqnasheed/status/1908289160038977683">added</a>:
<blockquote>If Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in using lethal self defense&#8230; And Daniel Penny was justified in using lethal self defense&#8230;. Then Karmelo Anthony was justified in using self defense against alleged bullies who instigated an altercation, correct?</blockquote>
Collectively, these two posts received over six million views and tens of thousands of likes. Austin Metcalf, according to this post, was a &#8220;suspected white supremacist&#8221; even though there&#8217;s been no evidence whatsoever to suggest that&#8217;s true. It&#8217;s just completely invented. In this instance, as in pretty much every other instance, the words &#8220;white supremacist&#8221; are really being used as a synonym for &#8220;white.&#8221; The people responding to this post understand that Austin Metcalf wasn&#8217;t a member of some white nationalist group. They don&#8217;t care. They simply despise him because he was white, which is all it takes.
Then Tariq compares this situation to the &#8220;Jim Crow era,&#8221; which is apparently meant to imply that it&#8217;s impossible for black people to be in the wrong place, at any time, for any reason. If you are a white person, then evidently you are not allowed to tell a black person that he&#8217;s not allowed in a particular area. That appears to be the logic here. If you wake up at 2:00am and a random black person is inside your home, and you tell him to leave, then you&#8217;re basically reinventing Jim Crow.
The rest of Nasheed&#8217;s defense makes a half-hearted comparison to the Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny cases. Nevermind the fact both Rittenhouse and Penny were repeatedly threatened with lethal force before they responded in kind, which is why juries acquitted both men. Also never mind the fact that Tariq Nasheed thinks both Penny and Rittenhouse should be in prison — which means, by his own logic, Anthony should be too.
But in reality, as those cases demonstrated, lethal force is the appropriate response to someone pointing a loaded gun in your face, or to a violent felon who&#8217;s terrorizing a subway car as he yells, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to kill you&#8221; and &#8220;I&#8217;m prepared to go to jail for life.&#8221; On the other hand, lethal force is not the appropriate response to a student touching your backpack during a track meet. The only person who could possibly be confused about this or pretend to be confused is someone who is seeking, as desperately as he possibly can, to justify the murder of a white minor at the hands of a black killer. That is the only explanation for this kind of reasoning, or lack thereof. We are witnessing the endorsement of racial violence, on a very large scale.
To give another example, someone named Talbert Swan, who calls himself a &#8220;bishop,&#8221; posted a <a href="https://www.threads.net/@talbertswan/post/DIHYiXqxbE2/yall-said-17-yr-old-kyle-rittenhouse-was-justified-in-killing-two-people-with-an">similar comparison</a> on social media. Again, it received an overwhelmingly positive response:
<blockquote>Y’all said 17 yr old Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people with an AR 15 because he felt threatened. 17 yr old Karmelo Anthony was defending himself when he killed Austin Metcalf with a knife and y’all think he deserves to go to prison. I wonder whyTE.</blockquote>
What&#8217;s being conflated here, again, is that Kyle Rittenhouse didn&#8217;t merely &#8220;feel&#8221; threatened. The jury determined, correctly, that Rittenhouse&#8217;s fear was objectively reasonable. It was not a pretext. Rittenhouse did not invent his fear in order to kill anyone. Nor did he kill anyone because he has very little impulse control, or because he grew up in a culture that glorified violence. He killed people because they attempted to kill him first, and any reasonable person could see that. It was quite literally on video. There was no denying it.
The reason these people are making the Rittenhouse comparisons is that they&#8217;re projecting. They want to glorify racial violence, but they don&#8217;t want to make it explicit, at least not yet. So instead, they&#8217;re pretending that white people are already glorifying racial violence. They&#8217;re then framing black-on-white violence as a proportionate response.
Here&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/MikeBaggz/status/1907927941566312508">another post</a>, from someone calling himself &#8220;Mike Baggz.&#8221; It racked up something like seven million views and 30,000 positive responses: 
<blockquote>Whenever white supremacists immediately flood our mentions before the full story is even out, you know something’s up. It turns out, Austin Metcalf was the aggressor, and the Black kid, Karmelo Anthony, was defending himself.</blockquote>
According to this analysis, the person who goes into the wrong tent while armed with a deadly weapon, and then dares someone to touch him, is not in the final analysis the &#8220;aggressor.&#8221; What&#8217;s missing in this analysis is that Metcalf never put Anthony in any fear of his life, reasonable or otherwise. Touching someone&#8217;s backpack at a track meet when they&#8217;re in the wrong tent is not a threat of lethal violence, especially in this context. Therefore, Anthony was not justified in using lethal force as a response. And Anthony probably knew that, which is why he got rid of the murder weapon, and why he asked the police officers if he could possibly have a viable self-defense claim — which is not something you do if you have a viable self-defense claim.
But a lot of people seem intent on ignoring these facts. 
Here&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/HussleMase/status/1908172510442422722">another post</a> with ten million views and around 80,000 likes: 
<blockquote>The twins didn’t just &#8216;ask him to leave.&#8217; They tried to JUMP him. before attacking him, they tried to take his belongings, BROKE his phone, and STOMPED on it. &#8230; Ask yourself: If two 200+ lb attackers came at YOUR child, what would you expect them to do? Karmelo defended himself against violent aggressors. That is NOT a crime.</blockquote>
None of this is true. Austin Metcalf didn&#8217;t &#8220;jump&#8221; anyone. He didn&#8217;t attempt to steal any belongings, nor did he break anyone&#8217;s phone. All of that information was contained in a fake Facebook post from someone pretending to be the local chief of police. Anyone with access to Google, or who&#8217;s equipped with basic common sense, could have figured that out immediately. But millions of people wanted to believe that this post was true, even though it was obviously fake. And the reason these people wanted to believe this fake information is that, when you get down to it, they would support a black person — any black person — who kills a white person, for any reason. This is the OJ Simpson effect, except Karmelo Anthony isn&#8217;t famous. He has no pre-existing fanbase. This is the purest form of racial resentment. And now it&#8217;s on full display.
We&#8217;re not dealing with an honest disagreement about the facts here. We&#8217;re dealing with people who believe that violence against white people is justified, solely on the basis of their skin color. That is why, as of right now, a GiveSendGo fundraiser for Karmelo Anthony, the man who just stabbed a teenager in the heart and killed him, has raised more than $175,000. Yes, the killer&#8217;s family, with his official GiveSendGo, has raised $175,000. Those are people — actual people, not bots or trolls — giving someone money for killing a white kid.
The <a href="https://www.givesendgo.com/HelpKarmelo">fundraising page</a> complains that it&#8217;s been a &#8220;challenging and difficult time&#8221; for Karmelo Anthony&#8217;s family. It claims, &#8220;the narrative being spread is false, unjust, and harmful.&#8221; A similar fundraiser was taken down by GoFundMe, because raising money for murder suspects isn&#8217;t acceptable under their terms of service. But it&#8217;s apparently fine for GiveSendGo, the supposedly Christian alternative.
The reason this is happening, the reason a killer is being celebrated and even funded by a significant number of Americans, is that everything I said on Friday is true. The culture among young black males in this country glorifies violence. And in particular, it glorifies violence against white people. That&#8217;s why young black males are disproportionately violent, to a degree that&#8217;s almost impossible to believe. Black people are roughly 12 times more likely to kill a white person, and 28 times more likely to violently assault a white person, than the other way around.
This is what happens when the vast majority of black children are born without present fathers. It&#8217;s what happens when black culture is dominated by degeneracy. And it&#8217;s what happens when the worst kinds of people are hailed as heroes of the black community. Now it&#8217;s a kid who stabbed another kid in the heart. In the past it&#8217;s been George Floyd or Michael Brown or any other BLM martyr we might name. If not them, it&#8217;s rappers and athletes, who would be the least objectionable of the bunch, at least in most cases. But ask yourself: when was the last time that a great black man of high moral character, someone who achieved something meaningful, was given the George Floyd or Karmelo Anthony hagiography treatment?
You become what you admire. This is true of people and cultures. When you elevate people like Karmelo Anthony and George Floyd, you become like them. There are great black men and women in the world and throughout history, obviously. Just one modern day example is Ben Carson, one of the world&#8217;s greatest surgeons. His personal story is harrowing and inspiring. But he&#8217;s been cast out of &#8220;black culture.&#8221; Mainstream black culture celebrates George Floyd or Kendrick Lamar far more than it would ever celebrate a man like Carson. Not only are the good, decent, productive black men and women not celebrated they are in fact condemned by the very culture that should be celebrating them.
This is what happens with all of the Left&#8217;s victim groups. When you are a victim group, your heroes must be victims. The qualification to become a hero is not that you achieved something, but that something bad happened to you even if, in reality, you did the bad thing to yourself (as was the case with George Floyd, Karmelo Anthony, Michael Brown, and so on). We see a version of this problem in American culture at large. We tore down the statues of our true historical heroes, and now they&#8217;re being replaced by pop stars and celebrities and other assorted degenerates.
The end result of this trend, which is continuing even though so many Americans reject it, will be that many more people will die. Any country that tolerates racial violence will inevitably descend further and further towards dysfunction and open race warfare. If BLM types can justify the killing of Austin Metcalf, they can justify the murder of any white man, woman or child. That is their goal. That is why they&#8217;re sending money to the family of Karmelo Anthony and comparing him to Kyle Rittenhouse. And it&#8217;s why everyone, whether they&#8217;re white or black, needs to pay very close attention to where they&#8217;re living and what schools they&#8217;re sending their children to. Until this culture changes, and right now there are no signs that it will, the consequences of ignorance are simply too great to ignore.

USA, New York State, New York City, Crime scene barrier tape

Black Teen Raises Thousands In Fundraiser After Killing White Student

Daniel Penny

Kyle Rittenhouse

Track and Field

MixCollage-04-Apr-2025-03-56-PM-4174

The Media Desperately Wants You To Ignore This Horrifying Story

Crime

Dallas

Race

Students

Violence

A Columbia University professor who participated in pro-Hamas protests has been connected to more than $100 million in grants while she has promoted the idea that brain disease can be catalyzed by racism.
Columbia neuropsychologist Jennifer J. Manly “stood in a human blockade intending to prevent administrators from dismantling the unauthorized encampments last April,” City Journal’s Christopher Rufo and Hannah Grossman <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/columbia-professor-hamas-protest-grants-research">note</a>, adding, “According to the <a href="https://reporter.nih.gov/search/zcvQRKaEW0WDLNxgjsBwVg/projects" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Institutes of Health</a> and other publicly <a href="https://grantome.com/search?q=@author%20%20Jennifer%20Manly" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accessible</a> databases, she has been named in connection with over $100 million in grants over the past 20 years.”
Rufo and Grossman point out that in an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kG8pK6XJqM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> last year, Manly declared that “we shouldn’t blame people for their lifestyle choices in terms of their brain health,” blaming “systems of oppression” and “discriminatory beliefs” to cause an inordinate percentage of dementia among black people. “Any biological differences are driven by &#8230; racism,” Manly stated, adding that racism is “the pathway through which race is ‘biologized.’”
“One paper Manly coauthored <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26412671" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blamed</a> ‘historical patterns of segregation’ for higher rates of dementia among blacks. Another <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39692214" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paper</a> blamed ‘structural sexism’ for declining memory, with the effect found to be stronger among black women,” Rufo and Grossman report.
The National Institutes of Health granted Manly and her colleagues roughly $700,000 to examine how racism and brain disease are connected, prompting a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39616788/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paper</a> titled “The impact of historical lynchings on biological and cognitive health for older adults racialized as Black.”
The paper’s abstract stated, “This study examines the association between state-level exposure to historical lynchings (adverse childhood racism for modern older adults), with C-reactive protein (CRP, a marker of systemic inflammation), and global cognitive performance (modified TICS).”
Another <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38665381/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paper</a>, titled “Impact of Structural Socioeconomic Racism and Resilience on Cognitive Change Over Time for Persons Racialized as Black,” stated in its abstract, “These findings reveal the impact of racist U.S. policies enacted in the past that influence cognitive health over time and dementia risk later in life.”
The medical director of Do No Harm, psychiatrist Kurt Miceli, called Manly&#8217;s linking lynchings with black dementia rates “political,” not scientific. “He goes on to explain that the marker Manly uses to track her hypothesis of racism-invoked stress—CRP—can rapidly change and is more influenced by health factors such as obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, and high blood pressure,” Rufo and Grossman write, adding, “Manly continues to <a href="https://edshareproject.org/about/people" target="_blank" rel="noopener">help lead</a> a <a href="https://www.usaspending.gov/search?hash=f0004c4dc92174ad68fbe554a390b0eb" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multimillion-dollar</a> government <a href="https://edshareproject.org/about/history" target="_blank" rel="noopener">project</a> funded by numerous agencies that tracks brain aging. She also currently maintains more than $20 million in active grants to support <a href="https://www.neurology.columbia.edu/profile/jennifer-j-manly-phd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">her research</a> at the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center and the Taub Institute at Columbia.”

Pro Palestine Columbia students continue occupation of campus

Columbia Professor Who Rallied For Hamas Connected To $100M+ In Grants

Christopher Rufo

Columbia University

dementia

Education

Grants

Hamas

Politics

Early in the afternoon of April 16, 2000, a 77-year-old farmer named John Cross and his 76-year-old wife were returning home from church in the province of Limpopo, South Africa. When they arrived, they were immediately attacked by two men who had broken into their house. The men <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/26/southafrica.rorycarroll1">shot</a> the elderly woman three times, but she didn&#8217;t die immediately. So to torture her, for roughly 25 minutes, the assailants poured boiling water on top of her. When it came time to murder John Cross, the attackers tied him up, shot him several times, and poured boiling water down his throat for roughly five hours. 
In the end, the killers made off with a few thousand dollars&#8217; worth of household items. And when they were caught, they weren&#8217;t repentant at all. Afterwards, when she was asked about the motive, the Crosses&#8217; daughter said, &#8220;I think it&#8217;s hatred. It must be race hatred. I think they did it for satisfaction.&#8221;
As horrific as this incident was, it wasn&#8217;t particularly uncommon at the time. Farm invasions were happening at a rate of around 1,000 per year. This barbarism was occurring so frequently that, two years after the Crosses were executed, South Africa commissioned a 500-page report on farm attacks. It found that almost two-thirds of farm attacks <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/26/southafrica.rorycarroll" target="_blank" rel="noopener">targeted</a> &#8220;elderly white people in rural areas&#8221; — often sadistically. But the conclusion of the report was that racism wasn&#8217;t a factor in most of these incidents. Even though white people only made up something like 10% of South Africa&#8217;s population, and accounted for two-thirds of the victims of these attacks, the government insisted that anti-white racism wasn&#8217;t a problem in South Africa.
This was a narrative that no one in the West wanted to challenge. Yes, it was obviously a lie. No serious person said otherwise. But in the eyes of Western leaders, it was a necessary lie. And that&#8217;s because, just about a decade earlier, South Africa had supposedly ended racism when they overthrew the apartheid regime. In a referendum in the early 90s, white South Africans voted to effectively authorize a new constitution — one that would allow universal suffrage, end many forms of discrimination against Black Africans, and ultimately clear the way for majority rule by non-whites. As Nelson Mandela put it at the time, &#8220;The referendum signalled the end of white privilege.&#8221;
That was supposed to trigger a kind of golden age in South Africa, if our leaders were to be believed. After all, white people had just lost much of their political power, and a black majority would soon gain that power, in a free and democratic fashion, supposedly. And inevitably, that was supposed to lead to racial harmony and a high-functioning society. Certainly the media got behind that narrative. Pull up news coverage of this referendum, and you&#8217;ll see how the decision was framed at the time. The choice, we were told, was between democracy and racial segregation. Given that choice, most people would opt for democracy, obviously. What we weren&#8217;t told is that, in the end, democracy in South Africa would produce even more racial segregation and racial injustice. And all along, Western elites knew that would happen. In fact, they intended for it to happen.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1533-member-exclusive">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
In various academic papers, far away from the public view, Left-wing academics admitted to this. Here for example is what the critical race theorist Cheryl Harris <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/print/no-volume/whiteness-as-property/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in the Harvard Law Review, all the way back in the summer of 1993, just as South Africa was <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/1993/06/1707-1791_Online.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">getting rid</a> of apartheid:
<blockquote>The South African conception of affirmative action expands the application of affirmative action to a much broader domain than has typically been envisioned in the United States. That is, South Africans consider affirmative action a strategic measure to address directly the distribution of property and power, with particular regard to the maldistribution of land and the need for housing. This policy has not yet been clearly defined, but what is implied by this conception of affirmative action is that existing distributions of property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality. Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.</blockquote>
In other words, the newly-installed African National Congress was not interested in implementing a system based on equal rights for all races. That was the little secret that we weren&#8217;t told about. Instead, with the backing of Western academics, they were going to start practicing &#8220;equity.&#8221; They were going to be a laboratory for Critical Race Theory, shortly before it would take hold in the United States. And that meant redistributing land, housing, and money on the basis of race. It meant using the law to punish white people.
And they did exactly that. Take a look at this chart. It&#8217;s from the South African Institute of Race Relations, and it tracks the number of race-based laws in the country.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-874549 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/Gi91G3XW8AA4UYK.jpeg" alt="" width="900" height="537" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/Gi91G3XW8AA4UYK.jpeg 900w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/Gi91G3XW8AA4UYK-300x179.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/Gi91G3XW8AA4UYK-768x458.jpeg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 900px) 100vw, 900px" /></div>
You&#8217;ll notice that, when apartheid was ended in the early 1990s, there was a massive drop, as you&#8217;d expect. Black Africans weren&#8217;t considered second-class citizens anymore. They didn&#8217;t have to carry identification around that specified their racial group, as required by a law from the 1950s. They didn&#8217;t have to self-segregate in residential areas, or in libraries, parks and restaurants. They weren&#8217;t prohibited from marrying whites anymore. And so on. A bunch of race-based laws were taken off the books.
But then look at what happened. Starting around 2000, the number of race-focused laws went back up. In fact, the number of race-based laws is now higher than it was at any other point in South Africa&#8217;s history. It&#8217;s higher than it ever was during apartheid. Only this time around, the laws were intended to exact racial vengeance on whites. And whites lost the protection of the laws that were already on the books.
This has continued for decades, with very little fanfare. That&#8217;s led to scenes like <a href="https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1888078897696104477">this one</a>, in a squatters&#8217; camp for whites in South Africa. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 Afrikaner squatter camps" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iNP5W8AkDT0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Again, no one in the West stood up while this was going on, at any point. There was no international coalition of the willing that liberated South Africa. The sentiment only began to change (to some extent) in August of 2018, when South Africa&#8217;s government filed papers to seize several white-owned farms, while paying the owners only one-tenth of the value of the properties. That decision prompted the first Trump administration to launch an investigation into the anti-white purge that was occurring in South Africa.
In response, pretty much every outlet in corporate media <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/23/white-farmers-trump-south-africa-tucker-carlson-far-right-influence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accused</a> Trump of promoting a dangerous far-Right conspiracy theory. They told us not to besmirch the good name of South Africa&#8217;s government. We were just supposed to continue sending them hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid every year, and ask no questions whatsoever.
We certainly weren&#8217;t supposed to notice, for example, when the South African black nationalist politician Julius Malema led a packed stadium — full of 100,000 people — in a chant of &#8220;Kill the Boer,&#8221; which essentially means &#8220;kill the white farmer.&#8221; (And by the way, Malema leads the political party that raided the whites&#8217; camp in the video I just played). Here&#8217;s his rally in Johannesburg, if you haven&#8217;t seen it yet:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Why should White people care about the White South Africans??? 🤔 
Plays clip of South African political leader Julius Malema shouting “Kill The Boer.” (White farmer) to the thunderous applause of thousands of people….
That’s why. <a href="https://t.co/FGBWBPdhAH">pic.twitter.com/FGBWBPdhAH</a>
&mdash; Uncommon Sense (@Uncommonsince76) <a href="https://twitter.com/Uncommonsince76/status/1888267755771531607?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
After this footage went viral, the corporate press went into a panic. They tried to convince people, in comical fashion, that they hadn&#8217;t heard the things they had just heard. The New York Times, as is so often the case, led the propaganda effort. They <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/world/africa/south-africa-kill-boer-song.html">reported</a> that, &#8220;Right-wing commenters claim that an old anti-apartheid chant is a call to anti-white violence, but historians and the Left-wing politician who embraces it say it should not be taken literally.&#8221;
So it&#8217;s really a term of endearment, or something like that. He didn’t mean kill them, as in actually kill them. He meant &#8220;kill them with kindness.&#8221; And you were supposed to believe that spin, even after the same politician made it as clear as he possibly could that he wants white people to die. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Julis Malema" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6LHb3JrC4Uk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Again, we were told that there was nothing to see here. To the extent that anyone criticized this in the mainstream press, they labeled this politician as a rare &#8220;extremist&#8221; in South African politics. But that was never true. His perspective is actually pretty popular over there.
That&#8217;s why South Africa&#8217;s president just signed the &#8220;Expropriation Act of 2024&#8221; into law last month. This law permits the government of South Africa to seize white people&#8217;s land without providing any compensation whatsoever. Specifically, the law states that, &#8220;It may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid where land is expropriated in the public interest.&#8221;
So what&#8217;s the &#8220;public interest&#8221;, you ask? The law doesn&#8217;t limit that concept in any way. But it does <a href="https://www.parliament.gov.za/project-event-details/1670" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state</a> that, among other things, it&#8217;s in the &#8220;public interest&#8221; to promote the interests of, &#8220;vulnerable groups including women, children, youth, LGBTQI+ and people with disabilities.&#8221; In other words, yes, if you&#8217;re a white farmer in South Africa, you could soon be forced, under principles of equity, to surrender your farm — without any compensation whatsoever — to the transgender community.
This time around, the Trump administration is taking decisive action in response to this development. Trump isn&#8217;t just assigning the Secretary of State to investigate or convening hearings so that we can talk about it. Instead, he just <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-hell-cut-off-aid-to-south-africa-over-land-seizure-policies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cut South Africa&#8217;s foreign aid</a>. We&#8217;re no longer going to be sending them hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance. The other day, Trump signed an executive order that reads:
<blockquote>It is the policy of the United States that, as long as South Africa continues these unjust and immoral practices that harm our Nation: (a) the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa; and (b) the United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.</blockquote>
With that executive order, Trump became the only major world leader to speak out, in any meaningful way, about the unfolding atrocity in South Africa. And this order matters: Over the past decade we&#8217;ve sent something like $6 billion in assistance to South Africa. All of that&#8217;s gone now. So you have to ask: Where exactly are the other leaders of Western democracies who supposedly value &#8220;human rights&#8221;? Why aren&#8217;t they cutting South Africa&#8217;s funding? And why are we supposed to care more about Palestinians and Ukrainians than white South Africans?
These are not rhetorical questions. They need answers. That&#8217;s why the last part of Trump&#8217;s executive order is so important. He says that the United States &#8220;shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.&#8221;
We&#8217;re offering white South Africans a refuge — one they&#8217;ve never been offered before. They&#8217;ve already been fleeing South Africa in large numbers, but now they have an open invitation to come to the United States. And that makes a lot of sense. It makes far more sense than welcoming refugees from many other places on the planet. These are &#8220;refugees&#8221; who are productive. They&#8217;re skilled. And they&#8217;ve seen the worst of radical Left-wing racial ideology.
But there&#8217;s another reason to accept these refugees, which is this: There&#8217;s no better way to signal the end of &#8220;critical race theory,&#8221; and the various efforts to demonize white people in this country, than to abandon the mythology of South Africa as some kind of harmonious, post-racial utopia. That&#8217;s the narrative that&#8217;s been sold to Americans for decades. But it&#8217;s not true. It was never true. That narrative was always a part of a larger plan to incorporate similar anti-white laws in this country.
With the second Trump administration, that plan is being dismantled, piece by piece. Now the government of South Africa is going to have to find some other country to pay them billions of dollars. And the whole world can see why this is happening. Put simply, with its new executive order, the Trump administration has dealt a fatal blow to race-obsessed arsonists who have sought — for decades — to model our country&#8217;s decline after the collapse of South Africa. That effort has now been exposed and rejected. This is a major victory. And for everyone in this country — and particularly for white farmers who endured years of overt racial discrimination under the Biden administration — it&#8217;s a victory that&#8217;s long overdue.

EFF Hold Press Conference Following 1st Prenum Of 3rd NPA In South Africa

Trump Takes A Stand Against Anti-White Persecution

Apartheid

South Africa

Menu