Colin Flaherty on Black ViolenceSpencer J. Quinn
As white nationalists, I think we often find ourselves agreeing with mainstream conservatives, but for different reasons. A good example would be Colin Flaherty, author of the indispensable works ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It (WND Books, 2013) and ‘Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry’: The Hoax of Black Victimization and How We Enable It (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015).
These books chronicle in a methodical manner, city by city, all sorts of black crime, mostly black-on-white crime and the inevitable subsets (black-on-old, black-on-young, black-on-gay, black-on-women, etc.). Black-on-Asian crime gets some play as well. Rarely black-on-black, by the way. Mr. Flaherty also has a thing for black mob violence. He writes about that a lot.
These books are written in such a way that any rational reader will be forced to conclude that (a) blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, (b) they have no excuse for committing these crimes, and (c) this problem extends well past black communities. He also has a refreshing lack of moralizing about this problem. He does not delve into the whys of the matter, as if to let blacks off the hook somehow for their reprehensible behavior. Nor does he prescribe social-engineering or racial mea culpas as a possible solution. He essentially holds the victims of these crimes and “society” to be completely blameless. He just focuses on what is and lets the reader draw his own conclusions from that.
Although Mr. Flaherty does a great service for those who wish to argue for a white ethnostate, I would ultimately consider him a mainstream conservative (albeit a rather brave and unique one). Essentially, he keeps race out of the equation in his writings. But how can this be since he refers to race in the very titles of his two books?
Well, essentially, he doesn’t pick sides. That is, unless you consider the “human beings who don’t commit crimes” as a side. Where a mainstream conservative would lament a black-on-white crime because it is a crime and all crimes are bad, a white nationalist would take it a few steps further by bristling at the fact that the victim is white and confirming in his racialist connections between the perp’s race and his savage behavior. True, Mr. Flaherty singles out blacks, but it is not because of any professed anti-black bias. As far as his professional demeanor goes, he is no white tribalist. He just goes where the data leads him. Further, to his credit, he goes where no mainstream journalist dares to go.
Early in White Girl Bleed a Lot, Mr. Flaherty mentions how YouTube videos of black mob violence will appear, but without any mainstream media reporting. Or, if there is reporting, the topic of race will be conspicuously left out. Also of note in White Girl is how police underreport black crime. In 2011, in Milwaukee, a mob of 50 blacks robbed a convenience store and then mugged 10 whites having a picnic. The next day the victims asked police about the case. The response? “What case?”
The two central premises of White Girl Bleed a Lot are the prevalence of black-on-nonblack crime and the reluctance of whites, especially of those whites in the media, to talk about it. Or, if they do, it’s to punish the messenger (i.e., Mr. Flaherty himself). In one of the more amusing chapters of White Girl, Mr. Flaherty describes the ludicrous way in which Salon.com criticized his coverage of black crime. In one instance, Salon condemned Mr. Flaherty by pointing out niggling or perceived inaccuracies in his writing (what Mr. Flaherty described as a “mobile alcoholic beverage cart” was really, according to Salon, “one of those stupid group bicycles with a beer keg”). In another, they allowed for the possibility that 20 blacks beat up a single white woman not because of anti-white racism but because they were missing a pair of sunglasses.
Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry is essentially more of the same: black violence, white denial. Of course, it has updated information in it, so as a starting point for breaking the black victimhood myth, it is as good as its predecessor. If anything, it is more complete.
One way in which Don’t Make differs from White Girl is its insistence on blacks have no one to blame but themselves. One of Mr. Flaherty’s longer chapters deals with Ferguson, Missouri during the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting. At the outset, he provides a litany of complaints from black celebrities about how blacks are oppressed and are subject to police brutality and racial discrimination as justifications for black rage and discontent. He then proceeds to bust this myth point by point.
Another theme in Don’t Make is the mendacity with which blacks themselves would present their version of a crime. Remember, “hands up, don’t shoot”? or “I can’t breathe?” Well, now there is “they provoked us!” as the excuse for a mob of blacks to attack two white families with small children in South Carolina.
In spite of its great value, there is a lot of monotony in Mr. Flaherty’s writing. Unfortunately, I don’t think this can be helped. In nearly every chapter, you have black crime and white denial, all peppered with world-weary, sarcastic comments from Mr. Flaherty. This does make his work somewhat tedious. On the other hand, someone has to chronicle all this bad news. If Mr. Flaherty weren’t doing all this by himself perhaps he could riff on what other writers have said and spice up his writing a bit. As it stands, however, we have no reason to fault him for leaving no stone unturned.
Mr. Flaherty is, alas, not one of us. At least not publicly. And this is both good and bad. If he were one of us―extrapolating from all these depressing crime stories the genetic inferiority of blacks and the need for whites to carve out a homeland to get away from them―he probably wouldn’t have the exposure he has now. He probably wouldn’t get reviewed in the Village Voice and the Washington Post. And fewer people would be talking about black-on-white crime. On the other hand, it does feel good when you recognize one of your own. We don’t quite get that from Colin Flaherty.
Of course, this is no reason not to buy Mr. Flaherty’s books. They are a step in the right direction, even if for different reasons than we are accustomed to. White people need to know this stuff, and it is shocking how many whites either don’t know it or don’t want to. And we can take comfort in the fact that, in a white ethnostate which completely lacks the problem of black crime, White Girl Bleed a Lot and Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry would be near worthless. They tell us what we already know, and if used well, can help us get from our present state to a better one. Perhaps that’s the point.
I have the Dont Make the Black Kids Angry book; read some of it but never finished it. It was almost like reading the same chapter over and over again. Alas you are right, he is utterly unwilling or unable to take the next logical step, which is: how do we separate ourselves from them.
Jasper, you’re correct. But Flaherty’s complete lack of moralizing is a good thing. By not paying lip service to political correctness, by not prescribing social engineering to solve the problem, and (most importantly) by not blaming white people for black crime, he has given us a work that we can use to justify white nationalism.
Maybe he is aware of this, maybe not. But either way, his works help us.
The fatal flaw of American civilization: the idea that blacks can be improved.
Look at the political aspect of these black perpetrated crimes.
We have had decades of anti-white agitprop from government, academia, media and etc. White people are scapegoated as “oppressors;” from the black perspective, these crimes are acts of “liberation,” a sort of Mau Mau Uprising. Black Lives Matter actually does have something of a political component, whether it is hassling college students or torching a city.
Then again, there may be something more primal at work. A major sector of blacks are reverting to “African” behaviors. They form warlord bands (gangs); stake out tribal territory (‘hoods); and raid into other tribes’ territory (drivebys, flashmobs). Meantime, infrastructure of cities under black majority rule revert to the “jungle” ala Detroit. Genetics determine much of behavior, whether on the veld or in Detroit.
Might be worth studying white military campaigns in Africa in the last half century: Congo mercenaries in the 1960s, Rhodesia, South African bush wars, Portuguese colonial conflict. Small numbers of white troops were able to defeat much larger hordes of blacks. And not only that, but to get thousands of blacks to serve under white officers against black insurgents. All this was based on whites having overwhelming confidence in themselves and the superiority of Western Civilization. That, and some solid training and modern weaponry.
It’s the psychological dimension which is missing today in America. Too many white people abnegate themselves before blacks. This is why all the programs which were supposed to keep black criminality in check — whether war on poverty or war on crime — fail in the long run. Until the Civil Rights Revolution, the cops did not need SWAT teams and armored personnel carriers to maintain law and order. It was that sense of certainty in the supremacy of white civilization.
Of course, the ultimate enemy is not blacks. They are just the front. The thing to do is take on the people who pull the strings and use them as muscle.
“Until the Civil Rights Revolution, the cops did not need SWAT teams and armored personnel carriers to maintain law and order.”
SWAT teams and armored personnel carriers were inserted into beefed-up police forces to keep the white race intimidated, and docile. These people do not care how many white people are tortured, raped, and murdered every year.
These type of people are necessary as a way to bridge the gap between whites who know the truth yet (still) prefer illusion to despair, and full blown race realism.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment