Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty

This is a nice old post about Colin Flaherty. I like it and I think it’s worth a repost.

The problem is that Colin Flaherty’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No, really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense.

89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes, Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low-level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh, what nonsense.

But if you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the outgroup or the other guys, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks, and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off by Serbian lies that “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were all predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people. Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust.

Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over, and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter. Remind you of anything? Afghanistan, anyone?

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.”

It was only years or even decades later that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists, which is always the general message of anti-Communist slaughters.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us,” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too, you know. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people, and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular.

And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence, and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and  decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Greg, Tulio, and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong. They live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

12 thoughts on “Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty”

  1. But you, RL, are the opposite side of the coin with regards to Flaherty and his anti-Black propaganda. You said you’re anti-anti-White, rather than pro-White. But to not write about all the bad things the niggers do to whitey is allow their crimes to go on unnoticed in the public eye. Mankind is always in a state of war. Neutrality is a luxury rarely afforded.

    Le Griffe du Lion is most likely right. He doesn’t say however that Blacks are actually seeking white victims or plotting to, rather he implies that they view them as juicier, wimpier targets when they share a neighborhood. A perfectly reasonable statement and conclusion. Even Whites preferentially pray on Whites according to Le Griffe.

    “But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right?”

    Le Griffe makes the statistical argument that in a 50/50 Black/White neighborhood, blacks would disproportionately attack Whites. Undoubtfully true. So the having 6x more Whites than Blacks in the general population doesn’t mean anything unless the groups come into contact.

    I don’t condone Black genocide at all. But I am glad when their behavior is brought to the public eye to counter-balance the anti-White pro-Minority sentiment in the media.

    1. “This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.”

      Le Griffe attempts to make this not a tautology with his statistical model. The graph of “probability that a white is victimized” extrapolates what would happened at different black-to-white ratios, effectively making this statement not a tautology, that is, it now has hypothetical situations that could be tested empirically and falsifiable.

      What he is doing is taking the known data of the 6:1 White:Black ratio (which by itself could be used to construct the tautology), then postulating scenarios dependent on this fact which are non-tautological themselves independent of whether or not the 6:1 statement is tautological.

    2. Sure, but do you realize that anecdotal data from the California East Bay suggests that Blacks seek out the Asians as weak, easy targets even more, or much more than they do Whites. So there goes his “They single out Whites like hunters and prey” argument. They seek out Asians just as much. There is no racial hate war against Whites being waged by Black murderers. They do however, like most criminals, sometimes prefer easy targets for victimizations like robbery and muggings. That Asians are sought out probably even more than Whites shows that Flaherty is full of crap and Le Griffe is also flawed. One could just as easily become an Asian Colin Flaherty and make videos and write books about how Blacks are waging a racial hate murder war against Asians.

      They don’t seek out Whites (to some extent). They seek out easy victims (to some extent).

      Besides, neither Whites nor Asians is all that victimized by Blacks at the moment. The rate is only a bit above expected. The point is that at our present rates of avoidance of ghetto Blacks, the average Black you see on the streets is not much of a murder risk. Now if you live in the hood or a large city with many Blacks and a huge crime rate, this is a whole other matter because you’re not avoiding ghetto Blacks like most of us do.

      Face facts. If a White person gets murdered, your odds are that it’s going to be another White who killed you, as 62% of Whites are killed by other Whites.

      1. That’s true about Asians. In fact vulnerability to crime may be inversely proportional to IQ. I don’t know much about Flaherty, but he probably just doesn’t care enough about East Asians. He’s probably trying to reach the White crowd.

        1. He’s a racist asshole selling a big fat dangerous lie about Black people and getting Whites all riled up over nothing, except he seems really reasonable the whole time and he’s actually not racist at all.

          I always thought that those suit and tie nice, civilized racists were more dangerous than the skinheads with swastika tattoos. The latter is scary and no one wants them around while the former is very nice and reasonable so sadly he’s much more able to sell his devious and wicked message. The Eichmann Effect, if you will (h.t. to Hannah Ahrent).

          1. When you say “racist”, do you mean he thinks niggers are dumb or that he actively wants to harm then?

          2. I don’t care if someone thinks Blacks as a race are less intelligent. That’s solid science by now. But when you generalize it to every Black out there “couldn’t possibly be all that smart,” that’s racism, right. I don’t think he’s doing that.

            I don’t think he wants to harm them. He’s just some guy who enjoys sowing racial poison. Apparently he really thinks he is onto something. I guess Blacks are indeed waging some racist violent crime project against Whites. Obviously he believes that. He’s not some guy who sits up there and deliberately lies.

    3. Can he find us some 50-50 black areas, cities, or towns that we can use to test out his statistical argument, which by its nature is of course never provable but only suggestive, maybe profoundly suggestive = 1 billion to 1 odds, etc.

  2. Here’s the answer from S. B. from Quora:

    Why do people see Colin Flaherty as a racist?

    “Because he is. His hatred for Black people is beyond pathological. It’s violent insanity mixed with genocidal intentions. I want to show the world who he really and truly is, a pathological racist with an unhealthy, irrational view of Blacks around the world. He’s not the only one. Jared Taylor is another. He may have cloaked his racist views on Blacks in coded words such as crime, social problems, and deviancy and is careful not to use crude racist language, he still comes off being as such.

    Colin fancies himself as a sociologist and race realist with an abnormal obsession about Black people and what Blacks do or don’t do. He’s also a concern troll. He pretends to be concerned about Black on Black crime, but he’s really threatened by Black people in general. That’s why his audience is composed of White Supremacists, non-Black racists, and self-hating Blacks.”

    I also name Pat McCrory as another one. Have you checked out his radio show, The Pat McCrory Show? Google it, then try to listen to his podcasts. It’s similar to Colin Flaherty. Which is why I say down with Colin Flaherty and Pat McCrory.

    1. It’s not a good look to always punch down.

      Antisemitism is probably more intellectual than nigger hating, which is common among non-racial normies. Jews tend to hate Jared Taylor because they know the racial path ends with a well-earned distaste for Jews.

      I don’t think Whites have to answer anyone for being pro-White in lands Whites built up. I see Whites kneeling and washing Black as pathetic. Jews and non-Whites seem more than ok with Whites being silenced, fired, etc. because some snowflake gets offended.

      I’d like to hear what non-PC Whites have to say now they are censoring the fucking Internet. Some great Whites are being marginalized. Instead of asking, “How racist?” People should ask: “How creative, knowledgeable, etc.?”

      1. I’d rather hate SJW’s and cops, I mean pigs, excuse me. I can’t tell you what I feel like doing to them because I’m afraid the site get shut down. I was liking cops ok but then they banned me from a cop forum for a provocative but basically decent piece. Which reminded me that they’re actually pigs, not cops.

        And then I started looking at their responses and they all tended to be short, curt, blunt, and rather rude, like some asshole redneck doing let’s keep it short, sweet, and common sense. Also they sounded a lot like conservatives, and I dislike them. Then I realized that they were sort of mean in a rude way. It just seemed like there wasn’t much if any empathy, love, or kindness in their hearts. Their hearts had been brutalized, like some guy who’s been to war.

        That’s when it reminded me once again that they’re still pigs, and they haven’t changed that much from my arrests 40 years ago, which I am still mad about to this day.

        The pigs I dealt with in my arrests were quite frankly sadists.

        Not all of them. Some were just cold assholes. Others were sort of half-apologetic.

        And every time you go to jail, you always meet one cool person. One time I met the fingerprint guy, and immediately he started telling me all about fingerprints. Another time I met the jailer, and he was pretty nice actually. His attitude was, “What are you doing in here? You’re not scumbag. WTF. A university student?” Same thing with the fingerprint dude. He probably saw I was not a typical scumbag, and he also figured out I was smart (some people can figure that out scary fast) so he opened up to me.

        I have an open heart to cops, and a lot of time lately the ones around here have been pretty nice to me. Some of them were real nice. A lady cop came up to me in a coffeeshop, and I could have sworn she was hitting on me.

        But some of them are still huge assholes. They just act like dicks for no good reason at all. It’s like they’re trying to pick a fight.

      2. Punching down looks bad, man.

        With Jews, one is never punching down, that’s for sure. You’re always punching up, but there’s times when punching up is perfectly valid.

        Punching down seems pathetic. It’s just bullying. And you are usually picking on some person or group who everybody beats up on, so you’re just joining in the bully party against some hapless group of people who hurt themselves more than they hurt anyone else. I’m not interested in beating up on Blacks.

        Blacks, no matter how the race acts, are like the guy at school that everyone beats the shit out of. Yeah, he acts kind of bad, but still. I don’t join blanket parties. I don’t join bully gangs that beat the shit out of hapless folks with a lot of problems. It’s rather disgusting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *