Counter-Currents
The Top 5 Reasons Why the NFL Protests are Bullshit
Huntley Haverstock3,134 words
1
First of all, we have no choice but to begin this discussion with the most uncomfortable fact of all: blacks commit more violent crime. That’s not because I’m obsessed with this topic, or get any kind of intrinsic joy out of it, but because it’s necessary information for the subject at hand.
Nationwide, blacks are thirteen percent of the US population, and approximately fifty percent of those perpetrating murders.
Is it possible that these numbers are biased by racist police? No.
Here’s how we know: the National Crime Victimization Survey collects data from victim and witness reports. This data is dependent only on those who testify about crimes they witnessed directly, or on testimony from the victims of violence themselves. Police bias doesn’t even enter the equation.
What does this data show? It shows very clearly that when a person calls in a crime naming a black perpetrator, the cops are less likely to pursue than they are when a person calls in a crime naming a white perpetrator. (So does data looking at the rate at which suspects shoot and kill police. So does the best and most recent experimental data in controlled trials.)
What does that tell us? It tells us two very important things. Not only does it prove that racist cops are not skewing the arrest statistics by pursuing black perpetrators to the exclusion of white ones, it also proves that the black:white ratio in violent crime is in fact larger than what is shown by the arrest rates.
Now, when we take account of these numbers, guess what we find? A given white individual who commits a violent crime is in fact more likely to be shot by the police than a given black individual who commits a violent crime. So blacks are thirteen percent of the US population and more than thirteen percent of those shot by police, sure—but this disparity is entirely explained by blacks’ overrepresentation among violent perpetrators. Police don’t interact with a disproportionate number of blacks because of racism, but quite simply because they are going towards where the violent crime actually is.
And that’s their job.
The reason we hear more about black victims of police brutality is simply because more people get more outraged and make more noise about it when a black person is shot by police than they do when a white person is shot by police. I can prove this to the satisfaction of any literate person reading this article in one paragraph.
If you’ve been paying attention for the last two or three years, there’s a good chance you still remember the name Tamir Rice. Rice was the young black boy killed in Ohio for walking around with a toy gun. Have you ever heard the name of a single white person shot while holding a fake gun? The answer is no. But guess what? We have numbers on this: in 2015, there were a total of five black individuals shot under these circumstances . . . and twenty-two whites. More than four times as many whites were shot in that year while holding fake weapons than blacks—and yet, even if you remember the name Tamir Rice, you can’t recall a single white name.
That’s not because there aren’t white people being shot under the same circumstances. It’s because nobody makes the kind of noise about it that they do in the less frequent case where the victim is black.
There’s no question you’ll remember the name of Michael Brown in Ferguson. But did you know that in the very same month in which Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in self-defense, a black officer, Bron Cruz, shot a white man, Dillon Taylor, in the very same state? You can even watch the bodycam video for yourself. And it is harrowing: Bron Cruz approaches the situation by walking up behind the unarmed Taylor with his pistol already drawn and aimed at Taylor, and shoots him within seconds. Officer Cruz was cleared of any wrongdoing. Do you remember their names?
Of course you don’t.
2
The NFL is sixty-eight percent black. If ever there were an institution which refuted the claim that America systematically discriminates against blacks, and demonstrated that group outcomes depend on a combination of ability, dedication, and preference, it would be the NFL.
And ayyo, hole up, hole up. Before you go all Ta-Nehisi Coates on me, you can’t make this about some nonsense about how America simply has some crazed fetish for watching “black bodies at work.” Why not?
Ninety-eight percent of professional hockey players are white. And of the top hundred tennis players in the Association of Tennis Professionals in 2009, just three of them were black: the French duo of Jo-Wilfred Tsonga and Gael Monfils, and America’s James Blake.
If you’re going to offer an explanation for the predominance of blacks in American football, that explanation had better also be able to account for the dearth of blacks in hockey and tennis. You can’t simply claim that we privilege blacks in football because we’re racist, and then turn around and say that we also keep them out of hockey and tennis because we’re racist.
If you’re going to offer an explanation for one of these facts, then that explanation had better be able to explain both of them at the same time. Otherwise, it’s really obvious you’re just making this stuff up as you go along. “We don’t want to let black people live the dream of being professional athletes and prove that they can out-compete whites” fails as an explanation in relation to hockey and tennis because of football, whereas “we just want to make black bodies work and sweat for white entertainment because we’re sick, perverted, racist voyeurs at heart” fails because of hockey and tennis.
A more straightforward way to ask the pertinent question might be like so: how many white people would love to join the NFL and earn a minimum $7,200 a week for an average $2.1 million dollar salary? You’d better believe a whole hell of a lot of them would. Black overrepresentation in professional football is a privilege, not a symptom of racism.
3
“Oh no! How dare President Trump weigh in on what technically is a private controversy? This is an egregious violation of free speech! People shouldn’t be fired for their jobs over opinions!”
Here’s why you should probably just shut up now: it was barely a month ago that Senate Democrats spoke out in support of Google firing James Damore for an internal memo which politely discussed the reality of average differences in cognitive tendencies and lifestyle preferences between men and women which countless experts agree stated no facts that weren’t supportable by evidence.
James Damore made it clear that he was not sympathetic to the Alt Right. His memo was not “anti-diversity”—it merely asked that efforts to increase diversity take account of reality. So the solutions for increasing the participation of women in STEM careers which Damore discussed in his memo sounded like this:
. . . make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration . . . allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive . . . allow and truly endorse (as part of our culture) part time work . . . [and] allow men to be more “feminine.”
Does any of this sound like woman-hating to you? Does it even sound like conservatism? The man thought that part of the solution to lagging diversity in STEM was to let men be more “feminine.”
For God’s sake, that’s not some kind of anti-diversity fascism, it’s fucking liberal feminism.
So where was the Left during this free speech case? Outraged that career politicians were weighing in on private controversies? Stepping out in support of free speech?
No.
. . . to the attendees at the free speech rally that was held in response to Damore’s firing in Boston which, once again, its organizer made very clear had “nothing to do with the Alt Right.” There were so many Leftists at this event throwing rocks and bottles of urine that the attendants themselves were vastly outnumbered.
As a result of that violent outnumbering, they ended up packing up and going home early.
I’ll be impressed if anyone can name a single liberal that spoke out against this egregious lack of concern for free speech demonstrated by the Left at every stage, from the original firing to their preposterous and often violent treatment of the people who subsequently showed up in Boston to meekly say, “Hey, support free speech and stuff, guys . . . maybe don’t fire people for discussing legitimate facts and trying to create an open discussion about solutions?”
4
“Social justice warriors” have been hard at work for years to convince us that when someone is offended by another person’s actions, the intentions of the offending party don’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you mean no disrespect to Native Americans when you innocently go off to have a good time at a Halloween party in a mock headdress. It doesn’t matter if some of your Native American friends know you mean no harm, or even if they think you’re funny. It’s offensive because some Native Americans are offended, so your job is to shut the fuck up and listen and then take it off, or else.
It doesn’t matter if you meant no disrespect to blacks when you showed up at a private costume party dressed as Tiger Woods (and wearing “blackface”). Do something like this once, and it will continue to haunt you and ruin your career twenty more years down the line—because your intentions are irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter if you mean no disrespect to blacks when you allow your hair to form dreads. Your black campus intern still has the right to physically corner you, prevent you from walking away, and threaten to cut your hair off with scissors right then and there, physically restraining you while sending another black man to get the scissors—and the black student union on campus will openly make statements in support of her actions.
Even a lighter-skinned black woman like Zoë Saldana can’t cosmetically darken her skin in order to more accurately play the role of the very dark-skinned Nina Simone, because blackface was used in racist minstrel shows over a century ago. Zoë Saldana’s intentions don’t matter. Nor does it matter whether those who are offended can rationally justify that an actress in 2017 can’t apply cosmetics to more accurately represent the role she is playing because some people were racist over fifty years ago. Her intentions are irrelevant; people are offended! Therefore:
Everything else be damned.
But now, when conservatives are offended by what they perceive as NFL players’ lack of respect for the values and underlying meaning that they believe the flag represents, suddenly their offense doesn’t count for shit, and the intentions of those doing the offending are all that matter. What if they feel that way because their relatives came home from war in caskets wrapped in that very flag, committing their very lives to what they believed it represented, to the best of their ability?
It doesn’t matter. Now the intentions of the people who are triggering these feelings are all that count.
Here’s the thing you need to get through your thick skulls, though: you can’t have it both ways. Either intentions trump offense, or offense trumps intention. Pick one.
4.5
Jonathan Haidt’s work in moral foundations theory has shown us that while liberals care about what he calls the “care/harm” dimension almost exclusively, conservatives care about this dimension as well, but they also include the dimensions of “fairness/cheating,” “loyalty/betrayal,” “authority/subversion,” and “sanctity/degradation.” It’s this last dimension that is relevant for my current point.
As Haidt explains in his book, The Righteous Mind:
Sanctity . . . makes it easy for us to regard some things as “untouchable” . . . If we had no sense of disgust, I believe we would also have no sense of the sacred. And if you think, as I do, that one of the greatest unsolved mysteries is how people ever came together to form large cooperative societies, then you might take a special interest in the psychology of sacredness. Why do people so readily treat objects (flags, crosses), places (Mecca, a battlefield related to the birth of your nation), people (saints, heroes), and principles (liberty, fraternity, equality) as though they were of infinite value? Whatever its origins, the psychology of sacredness helps bind individuals into moral communities. When someone in a moral community desecrates one of the sacred pillars supporting the community, the reaction is sure to be swift, emotional, collective, and punitive.[1]
The instinct that causes conservatives to be revolted when someone violates a symbol of their “moral community” (as Haidt calls it) is, in other words, literally one of the very roots underlying the human ability to form large, complex cooperative societies at all. If you think that this is as simple as people getting mad because someone did something to an inanimate piece of cloth, you’re really missing the point, and you actually just don’t understand the values that motivate conservatives at all.
If you want to get an audience that is predominantly conservative on your side about the problems you believe are facing your community, doing that by disrespecting symbols that represent belonging to their shared “moral community” is exactly the opposite of what you would want to do. It quite literally is exactly like protesting gang violence in black communities by walking around in ghettos making the symbols of local gangs and then spitting on your hands. Or like going into a church to appeal for charity while yelling “Fuck Jesus Christ! I denounce and reject the Holy Spirit! Goddamn the Bible! Hey, good Christian people, would you please give me some money?”
5
I haven’t created or discovered any of the facts explained in this essay. I’ve merely pointed them out; but they were true for a long time before I restated them here. Nevertheless, knowing these things hasn’t changed anything. “Let’s just offer the people who continue to inject these hostile and false political narratives into our daily entertainment and violently attack free speech rallies a more accurate take on the facts” is not a viable strategy for changing anything. The organizers of that rally made it perfectly clear that they had nothing to do with the Alt Right from the outset, but Leftists still showed up with bottles of piss and rocks and shut it down. No one cared, and it didn’t change anything. The facts I’ve laid out here have been out in plain sight for a long time. No one cared, and it didn’t change anything.
“Let’s make sure people hear as much about white victims of police brutality as black victims” isn’t, either. Do you think the families of those white victims aren’t doing everything they can already to fight for justice? Of course they are. No one cares. And it hasn’t changed anything.
“Let’s give them an in-depth psychological explanation of what symbols like the flag mean to conservatives, and an evolutionary analysis of why it matters” won’t work. Jonathan Haidt is already in academia offering that kind of analysis. No one cares. It hasn’t changed anything.
The fact is, you know the name Tamir Rice and don’t know the name of a single one of the twenty-two whites shot and killed while holding toy guns because the media and the identity politics-based voting blocs care more about a case like Tamir Rice’s. The fact is, the people who care more about the death of Michael Brown than about the death of Dillon Taylor don’t have the same visceral response to the desecration of your national symbols as you do.
And that’s because they don’t belong to what Haidt would call the same “moral community.”
When Alejandro Villanueva stood out as the lone member of the Pittsburgh Steelers to sing the national anthem while the rest of his team stayed off the field in protest, the Steelers’ black head coach, Mike Tomlin, responded with disappointment: “I was looking for one hundred percent participation. We were gonna be respectful of our football team.” In criticizing Villanueva for participating on his own, Tomlin made it clear that respect for the (seventy percent black) collective football team he belongs to matters more to him than respect for the symbols of the (thirteen percent black) collective nation he belongs to. That’s quite simply because the people he works with are his “moral community”—not “the United States.”
The point that I’m arriving at now may seem surprising if you think I’m condemning Tomlin for this attitude, but here’s the thing: this is perfectly normal and natural.
It is perfectly normal and natural for blacks to care more about Tamir Rice than Dillon Taylor. It is perfectly normal and natural for Mike Tomlin to feel more responsibility toward fellow blacks, from similar backgrounds, on his football team than he does to the idea of America as a collective nation. All of this is just basic human nature, and we’re not going to change that anytime soon.
What we might productively change, however, is a reorientation of our concept of nationality. Rather than believing we all belong to the same “nation” the moment we step foot on the same landmass, we might come to adopt the more realistic view that a people actually form an organic “nation” when, and only when, they show a commitment to the same sacred symbols, and thereby demonstrate that they belong to the same shared “moral community.”
Were we to adopt this realistic view, then we would see these protests for what they actually are: a declaration of willful non-belonging to one “moral community”—those who see themselves first and foremost as citizens of the United States—and of allegiance to an entirely different “moral community” which defines itself precisely in opposition to what they perceive as the history of the former.
Then and only then might a real and meaningful discussion of long-term solutions be possible—and it would involve discussing the option of giving members of resistant or hostile “moral communities” their own symbols to unite around, and their own territories to unite around those symbols within. The only possible alternatives will necessarily require forcing some group of people to pledge allegiance to symbols which are not their own in order to pretend to feel affinity with “moral communities” to which they don’t actually organically belong. That isn’t fair for whites, and it isn’t fair for blacks, either. Peaceful and voluntary separation, with a focus on proactively building and contributing to the “moral communities” we do belong to, is the only choice that can possibly be fair to us all.
Note
1. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Random House, 2012), p. 149.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
20 comments
It’s a shame that Tucker Carlson didn’t say, in a recent interview with a black lawyer, “let’s have white and black America divorce. You guys can have Florida and we’ll build a razor wire border along that state line.”
I think Trump & Tucker fabulously revealed tactics we should use. We need to make blacks to demand separation. We need to make them attack us. And they need to make it clear is because of the race. I cant imagine a better red pill.
Thanks,Huntley.I wish more people would read and absorb this article.
Fantastic article, it has everything.
This entire situation of Negroes taking a knee during the anthem remind me of a situation that occurred nearly 20 years ago when I was a salute battery commander for my division in the US Army.
We were tasked to provide the cannon-fire for a band to do the 1812 Overture during the halftime show at a local college football game. The battery went to the stadium with our shiny M101 howitzers and a bunch of black-powder C440 rounds. We wore chrome helmets, white gloves, and scarlet red ascots with our division’s patch sewed on it.
One of the cannoneers in the salute battery was this discontent black nationalist troublemaker that hated his white section chief. The section chief was easily the best NCO in the battery. This was down to up resentment and unappeasable hostility on the part of our sambo-soldier. Any rate, the discontented black was in uniform and refused to salute during the national anthem at the start of the game. I had to intervene to keep him from being lynched by the white NCO section chiefs. He was also a troublemaker in other ways throughout the affair.
So, one black malcontent caused grief for a hand-picked battery of soldiers doing what should have been a super easy, super fun job.
Any rate, these problems can really scale up. Donald Trump and the rest of America are tripped up by these Negro Knee Takers. We should be worried about two separate situations that are quite serious.
1: What are we doing in Korea? Kim, Poo Poo is lighting off H-Bombs, launching rockets, and making threats. Korea is a long ways away, defending South Korea harms the US Economy, the Cold War is over… This absurd situation should be lead to a national conversation on our strategy in Northeast Asia.
2: Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico have been wreaked by Hurricanes. There should be a national effort to help out and a national conversation on making infrastructure as hurricane proof as possible – i.e. underground electrical wires, drams and ditches in Houston, etc. While we talk about monkey-ball, there are a great many Puerto Ricans in desperate need.
If you are watching the Ken Burns documentary you see that he glosses over that fact that the guys who fragged their officers were invariably blacks!
See LePre’s exhaustive study of the 500 fatal cases of fragging in Nam. It’s surly black men all the way down.
” While we talk about monkey-ball, there are a great many Puerto Ricans in desperate need.
Who cares about Puerto Ricans, they are not white.
I disagree.
1. Many Puerto Ricans are white. Some of Puerto Rican ancestry publish on this site – i.e. Ricardo Duchesne.
2. I was in the same Army as you and found that Puerto Ricans are not like blacks. They are different from Anglos, but they don’t have near the attitude as blacks.
3. While many Puerto Ricans are likewise not white, one can hardly blame them for the problems in America. The International Puerto Rican is not the World’s Foremost Problem.
4. Regardless, if one doesn’t want Puerto Ricans or anyone else from America’s Near Abroad coming here – make sure their homelands are doing well enough so their people stay put.
5. Puerto Rico is effectively a colony of the United States. We chose to conquer them in a war of choice in 1898. The United Sates has a duty to protect its colonial subjects. It might be a good idea to let Puerto Rico go, however that is not the circumstance at this time.
6. Helping out Puerto Rico is a noble, Aryan endeavor in and of itself, and it isn’t pointless virtue signaling like Missionaries in the Congo because many Puerto Ricans are white. The NFL controversy is a distraction.
Apache: “Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico have been wreaked by Hurricanes. There should be a national effort to help out and a national conversation on making infrastructure as hurricane proof as possible”
1) We Whites do not care about PR, they are a third world basket case and anyway, they are always against Whites in the social/culture war. Simply because that “war” is in reality a race war. No, not a military battle style race war. But a conflict about/against race nevertheless. No need for us Whites to spend our dwindling resources helping someone who is/would vote against us because we are White.
2) Focusing on financial/economic issues is a common pratfall of the political Right/conservatives. The culture war, one battle of which is Trump vs NFL negroes, is the most important. Whites need to wake up to the undeniable fact that every non-White is against Whites simply for being White. While non-Whites wail/harp/bitch about Whites acting in their own racial interests, the non-Whites are doing for themselves just that. They are an alien presence in this country/nation. They need to be removed and deported somewhere. Whites need to start calling, figuratively that is, a spade … a spade. Stop calling non-Whites “Americans”. Only White/Euros can be “American”. America was created by/for Whites. If other races could create such a thing as America, they would have done it. But they haven’t. Most likely because they will not and/or cannot.
Even orientals are against Whites. Orientals are known to vote heavily Democratic; a political party that has long been against Whites and recently come out into the open about it. As a White I never had any sympathy for Korean people harmed by the 1992 Los Angeles episode of negro chimp out. They voted for that party that used the fed gov’t Just Dept to make local cops, like LAPD, go easy on negroes and their incessant criminal behavior. Negroes are never placated and finally felt safe enough to pull an episode like that.
Very good again. I think the concept you are searching for is the roman notion of “pietas,” embodied by their epic hero of the Aeneid. It’s a loyalty to family, hearth gods, and culture and country. We have different pietases (pietates?) in the US, within one country.
2,100,000.00 money average is $40,384.62 per week.
$7,200.00 x 52 = $374,400.00 per year.
$7,200 is the minimum weekly salary, for NFL practice squads (see here). $2.1m is the average yearly salary for all members of the NFL (see here). The highest yearly salaries actually go all the way up to $32m.
“…blacks are thirteen percent of the US population and more than thirteen percent of those shot by police, sure—but this disparity is entirely explained by blacks’ overrepresentation among violent perpetrators.”
Thank-you so much for sharing this. Instead of saying cops are 2.7 times more likely to shoot blacks, the (((media))) should compare how often cops shoot black perpetrators vs how often they shoot white perpetrators, since 99% of the time cops only shoot perpetrators. How evil the (((media))) is to be so sneaky as to leave this out!
Also, cops shoot more unarmed blacks than unarmed whites at an even greater rate, but this is probably because blacks have lower IQ than whites and when a mind which is weak to begin with is even further impaired by drugs, you have a recipe for a higher percentage of unarmed blacks charging police. This is not to mention that blacks have a higher percentage of genes associated with violence and higher testosterone and thus more aggression.
So if your race produces more perpetrators, expect that more will be shot. If once the police identify you as a perp and tell you to stick them up you’re more likely to charge them, run, or refuse to cooperative, don’t be surprised when more members of your race are shot.
I believe one of the biggest bylines of this entire kneeling protest is not so much the black players who kneel, but rather, the white players who stand.
The average white American “normie” football fan is actually really uncomfortable being vocally critical of blacks for anything. The only reason that this gesture hasn’t already destroyed the NFL is that there are white players who continue to stand during the anthem, which allows people to dismiss it as a minor or permissible offense that only a handful of blacks are doing.
If there were white players disrespecting the anthem – the condemnations would be so loud and the withdrawal of support would be immediate – especially if it were a highly visible white superstar (Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, JJ Watt, etc…) Or if it was a majority white sporting league such as hockey, NASCAR, or tennis. The sense of betrayal and disloyalty would be magnified, and there is far more social permission to unload public vitriol upon whites, whereas public condemnation of blacks carries a far queasier tone.
I think the NFL realizes this aspect about its fanbase and will not go into panic mode so long as the protests are isolated to a small number of black malcontents.
Those who wish the death of “sportsball” should really push to get white players to join or lead the protests and push the league into suicide as a result. Right now, people can still cling to there being patriotic white members of the NFL, no matter how many blacks make this gesture.
One of the greatest obstacles to a future white ethnostate are pozzed conservatives who still cling to Civic nationalism and the myth of a proposition nation… until whites look at the flag of the new, judaic, anti-white America with the same distaste as black activists on the field, our goals are not palatable. Problem is there is still the memory of the old America which was a default white nation. It’s time to wake up and smell gefilte fish whitey. And I was at the Boston event and had to get Paddy wagoned out twice by cops cause the sjw mobs i.d.’d me as a knot-see. Wearing a metal shirt with a deaths head wasn’t the smartest idea. On Puerto Rico..I think it’s time that any European descended Hispanics in general pick what racial team they’re on and stop trying to profit by being part of a minority group…as for the island itself, time to give them independence, not aid. It’s not our burden that hurricanes are racist.
” On Puerto Rico..I think it’s time that any European descended Hispanics in general pick what racial team they’re on and stop trying to profit by being part of a minority group…”
We don’t want Puerto Ricans on our team, because they are half black. Puerto Ricans are descendants of Spanish Conquistadors, and black slaves. I spent a lot of time around Puerto Ricans in the army, and there is no difference in behavior, and character in a Puerto Rican, and a black. On a side note, I was once told by a mestizo that they did not like Puerto Ricans, because they were black. Mestizo, as you know, are the descendants of Spanish Conquistadors, and Indians. Puerto Ricans are not white!
Great article, with which I agree. Myself I don’t care if blacks disrespect the American flag, because I view it as a symbol of Jewish oppression. I think that Trump is manipulating this phenomenon in a masterful manner. First of all, this is not going to blow up in Trump’s face, because people that disrespect the flag are prime targets, remember Trump said that the left always overplay their hand, and he is right. The longer blacks stay on this course, the stupider, more arrogant, and more selfish they look. Second, is the fact that these are highly paid athletes, and at the end of the day it is just a stupid game; this does not play well in a country that has been in a financial depression since 2008. Blacks come across as spoiled brats! This is good for white nationalism, just as Obama being president was good for white nationalism; I hope they keep it up.
I’ve noticed that many, many, many White NFL fans wear the jersey of a negro player. I remember very, very, very few negro fans wearing the jersey of a White player. Says a lot, right there, about “raysis”. You can be assured that if very few White fans wore negro jerseys they MSM would notice it and stand outside/inside stadiums on game day and ask a random White fan why they wear a White players jersey when the NFL is @70% negro. MSM looks for that kind of thing.
I am glad that Trump started the exchange with NFL negroes but he is dead wrong that it isn’t about race but rather patriotism/flag. Since I don’t know what he’s actually thinking in doing this, maybe he meant that about himself and left unsaid what the NFL negroes are really about. I can attest that the NFL negroes are all about their race, against all others no matter what. When they raise their fist in the “black power salute” it is really doing the equivalent of the “up yours” with fist going underneath and then up in front of the other arm. Same thing with bringing down Confederate/other statues. It is an attack on Whitey.
Many of the White-cop-abuses-negro-civilian episodes turn out to be hoaxes. Many more negro civilians are harmed/injured by negro cops than White cops; no negro outrage. Tons more negro civilians are injured somehow by other negro civilians; again, no negro outrage. Either negroes are the low IQ dimwits we claim they are, or negroes are being devious. If it is deviousness, I would chalk that up to the jew behind the negro, pulling the negro’s Pinocchio strings and dancing him like a puppet; jews are well known for such things.
I know Trump most likely will never say what he very well knows; NFL negroes are protesting against Whitey. I do wish he would point out the real cause of physical harm to negro civilians; other negro civilians and negro cops. He could at least do this because he has statistics to back it up and show the fake/pseudo/false outrage.
For anyone not aware of Colin Flaherty’s work, this is an excellent time to check it out:
— [ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEbta5E_jqlZmEJsriTEtnw ]
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment