Three Trials, Three Verdicts, One Racially Insane Nation
When two or more people of different races are involved in a violent incident, is it automatically “racial”?
What if no one involved in the incident mentions race as a factor? Does the very fact that they’re from different races mean it’s “racial”?
And why is it that the “racists” among us seem least likely to view such incidents as inherently “racial,” whereas those who insist against all biological evidence that race doesn’t exist are also the most likely to view all such altercations as “racial”?
When a Hispanic man named George Zimmerman shot a black teen named Trayvon Martin, the only thing “racial” about it was when Zimmerman answered a 911 dispatcher’s question about whether the hooded stranger lurking through his neighborhood was black, white, or Hispanic. And yet it nearly led to a nationwide race war.
When a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri named Darren Wilson shot and killed a black teen named Mike Brown who’d attempted to grab his gun, the only undeniably “racial” thing about the incident was their respective races — that is, if you want to ignore Brown’s rap lyrics about keeping “whites on the bottom.”
And again, when a hopped-up-on-Fentanyl ex-con named George Floyd gave up the ghost while under the knee of a white police officer named Derek Chauvin, much of the nation was convinced that Floyd was murdered for being black based solely on the races of the respective players.
The alleged “anti-racists” may want to reconsider what they’re implying. Their implication seems to be that whenever you have more than one race in a given area, things will always be racial.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s a pretty racist way of looking at things, no?
As I type this, there are three high-profile trials underway in which race seems to assume even more importance than the loss of human life: the Sines v. Kessler civil trial in Charlottesville, Virginia; the murder trial of three white men in southern Georgia for the death of falsely accused jogger Ahmaud Arbery; and the murder trial of 18-year-old falsely accused “white supremacist” Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The total death toll from the three incidents that sparked these trials is four: one black victim and three whites, or at least three people who would appear white to the naked eye. (I’m looking at you, Mr. Rosenbaum.) But despite the lopsided death toll, somehow this is all emblematic of black oppression and white supremacy.
The only possible evidence of racial animus in these three cases comes from the testimony of an agent in the Georgia Bureau of Investigation who says he heard Travis McMichael refer to Ahmaud Arbery as a “fucking nigger” after shooting him. To my knowledge, this is hearsay and is not supported by audio evidence. I’m only noting what the agent said in the interest of fairness.
Regarding the Charlottesville debacle, the murder trial of James Fields ended in June 2019. James Fields received a life sentence plus 419 years for the death of an obese white woman whom he did not directly hit with his car and whose death, in a fair society not hung-up on the Demon Racism, should probably have resulted in a manslaughter conviction at best.
The current trial involves whether several organizers of, and would-be participants in, 2017’s aborted Unite the Right rally had plotted violence, so the legal issue revolves around intent. There are definitely race-conscious and even aggressively race-obsessed players among the accused, but the stated purpose of the Deadly Rally that Never Even Happened was to oppose the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. And again, nobody black died that day.
But although the defendants in Charlottesville come closest to the dictionary definition of “white supremacists” out of all the accused in these three trials, for some strange reason, this trial is getting the least media attention — by far.
By contrast, the case with the most indirect racial element — Kyle Rittenhouse shooting three phenotypically white “protesters” in Kenosha after the city had been burning for a couple days in the wake of a Jewish cop shooting a black male who’d picked up a knife and run from him against his orders — is sucking up nearly all of the spotlight.
Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re likely aware of how all three cases have been framed in the media: WHITE SUPREMACY GONE WILD!
My task is to fill in the facts that they’re leaving out either by ignorance, malice, or discomfort.
The plaintiffs in Charlottesville are attempting to argue that the event’s organizers plotted to inflict violence on the town. They pored over tens of thousands of online postings in an attempt to plead their case.
Predictably, they have completely ignored the reams of evidence of Leftist violence at that event, as well as the undoubtedly countless calls to “Let’s go smash some Nazi skulls in Charlottesville.” To do so would instantly complicate a very simplistic moral narrative — one so simplistic that it’s fair to call it childish.
Lacking any direct statement by any of the organizers or would-be speakers at the rally to the effect of, “Hey, let’s all go get violent in Charlottesville,” the plaintiffs must instead rely on mind-reading to some degree. Enter one Peter Simi, a sociology professor who claims the ability to decode white-supremacist “doublespeak.”
Simi cited a tweet by James Fields that displayed a picture of a “smiling white family” with the text, “Love your race, stop white genocide.”
Now, a rational person would interpret the text as meaning, “Stop white people from being killed,” but Simi is an “expert” instead of a rational person. “Essentially you have this message that if you love your race, you will be committed to stopping ‘white genocide,’” Simi stated. “People in the know understand that ‘stop white genocide’ is a call to violence.”
Apparently he’s in the know and I’m not.
Along with Kathleen Blee, another professor in the soft science of sociology, Simi wrote a 63-page paper for the plaintiffs that argues the following:
Our exhaustive review of their planning materials makes it apparent that the defendants utilized WSM [White Supremacist Movement] tactics, principally the reliance on racial animus as a motivator, the intentional use of violence to achieve their goals, and a coordinated strategy to obfuscate their aims through the use of “double-speak,” “frontstage/backstage” behavior, and a discrete and new-age communication platform.
In other words, even when it seems like they’re joking about violence, but especially when they’re not even mentioning violence at all, these are sinister dog whistles, meaning that they want you to commit racial violenc — even if the violence at Charlottesville wasn’t technically racial.
Fascinating stuff. Give these authors an honorary crystal ball.
PREDICTION: Despite the gaping lack of a direct and unequivocal call to inflict violence at Charlottesville, at least some, if not all, of the defendants will be found guilty. No riots will ensue. Some of the defendants had, in other contexts, called for racial violence, but as far as I know, none of them directly called for it in Charlottesville. I don’t think that matters to an ideologically insane legal system.
In the trial of the three white men charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery — only one of whom technically shot him — the deceased is, more than a year and a half after his death, still incorrectly referred to as a peace-loving jogger. Outside the courtroom last week, racial ambulance-chaser Al Sharpton, still uncowed by peddling provably false narratives about non-existent hate crimes in the Tawana Brawley and Duke Lacrosse cases, referred to the incident as “a lynching in the twenty-first century” and told a crowd that “You still can’t jog through Brunswick, Georgia, without being shot down, like you are a suspect, only because of the color of your skin.”
Even if it’s true that Travis McMichael referred to Arbery as a “fucking nigger” after shooting him, there’s no evidence that’s why he shot him. I suspect — and I know this is crazy — it had more to do with Arbery approaching McMichael and stupidly trying to grab his gun from his hands (it’s all on video), which is also what led to Darren Wilson shooting Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. I believe, for reasons that have nothing to do with race, that Arbery would still be alive if he weren’t brazenly dumb enough to attempt seizing a gun that was being pointed at him.
According to the official <a href=”https://t.co/DKPI4Q8fCu?amp=1″>police report</a> about the incident: “[Greg] McMichael stated the unidentified male began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot.”
According to a letter from the Waycross, Georgia District Attorney’s office — not the defense lawyers:
A brief skirmish ensues in which it appear [sic] Arbery strikes McMichael and appears to grab the shotgun and pull it from McMichael. The shot is through Arbery’s right hand palm which is consistent with him grabbing and pulling the shotgun at the barrel tip, the 2nd and 3rd wounds are consistent with the struggle for the shotgun as depicted in the video, the angle of the 2nd shot with the rear of the buttstock being pushed away and down from the fight are also consistent with the upward angle of blood plume shown in the video and that McMichael was attempting to push the gun away from Arbery while Arbery was pulling it toward himself. . . . The 3rd shot too appears to be in a struggle over the gun. The angle of the shots and the video show this was from the beginning or almost immediately became — a fight over the shotgun.
During testimony last week, the neighbor of the McMichaels who initially called police on Arbery that day unwittingly destroyed the “he was just jogging” narrative. Matthew Albenze claims that he was doing yardwork in front of his home when he saw Arbery lurking outside a neighbor’s unfinished home. Albenze testified that he then went inside his house, grabbed a gun and a cellphone, and then came outside to see that Arbery had gone inside the partially completed premises. He told the court, “I thought maybe if he hadn’t seen me, he wouldn’t have run away — I don’t know.”
“Run away.” So he wasn’t jogging. He was running away.
Mind you, the false idea that Arbery had been out for a simple, innocent jog, albeit one miles from his home, had already been undermined by surveillance footage that showed him walking around inside the house.
Another witness, Kellie Parr, told the court that she’d seen a black man lurking around the construction site at least twice in the months preceding the shooting, but hesitated to call the cops because she didn’t want them to think she was a racist.
Larry English, yet another witness, had previously called 911 after spotting Arbery hanging around the construction site: “I got a trespasser here. He’s a colored guy, got real curly-looking hair. He’s tattooed down both arms.” But in a deposition, English had also called 911 four times in November 2019 after spotting a white couple entering the residence. So much for racial profiling.
You’ve probably never seen the footage of Arbery arguing with cops that he didn’t steal a TV from a Walmart in 2017 (he did) or arguing with cops during another incident in a park in 2017. And I’d bet my house that you haven’t heard that murder defendant Greg McMichael is a former cop who had worked on Arbery’s shoplifting case and was probably “profiling” him for being a thief with whom he was already familiar.
But isn’t it a fact that cops are often guilty of suspecting blacks of being criminals? Sure, but that may have a wee bit to do with the statistical fact that they’re overrepresented in every area of crime. And it’s also a fact that in 2015, Arbery was indicted for bringing a loaded pistol to a high-school basketball game and then fled the scene — so he has a history of fleeing and no documented history of jogging.
PREDICTION: Despite all the facts in the case, all three defendants will be found guilty of murder. There will be rioting anyway, just for kicks.
Of all three cases, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has the most tenuous connection to race. The shooting deaths of Jacob Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber happened after two days of burning and looting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the shooting of a black man named Jacob Blake, whom police had confronted after an alleged report of domestic violence. On August 23, 2020, Blake was shot seven times by Jewish police officer Rusten Sheskey — who is widely and almost exclusively described in press accounts as “white,” although I’m pretty sure he’d be described as “Jewish” if a white police officer had shot him — after Blake grabbed a knife, turned his back, and moved away from police against their orders.
Blake’s uncle Justin says that despite the knife and the disobedience, this was clearly a racially motivated shooting:
Make the connection. This is clearly black and white. . . . If our country shows that you can shoot Caucasians who support us, then this country can never stand up in any international or global hearing and talk about human rights.
The article goes on to report that Blake claimed “that if Rittenhouse goes free, white people will be able to ‘ride down every African American community and just have fun, like you’re going hunting or something.’”
While Rittenhouse was on the stand last week being grilled about the events that led up to him shooting Jacob Rosenbaum, he began sobbing uncontrollably, leading the judge to call for a ten-minute recess.
My immediate take was that all the stress of being a national pariah facing murder charges and possible lifelong threats and stalking, combined with the fact that he killed two people he probably didn’t want to kill, is what led to Rittenhouse’s outburst.
But those who have a vested interest in seeing the fact that a chubby white teen shot and killed two non-blacks who had attacked him in the midst of violent chaos over the non-fatal shooting by a Jewish officer of a black man who resisted arrest for domestic-violence charges is inescapable proof that evil whites are the impenitently violent aggressors all accused Rittenhouse of crying “crocodile tears.”
In an essay called “White Tears Over Kenosha,” black race-baiter Tony Norman said that he was initially certain that Rittenhouse would be convicted of murder: “My logic was based on the fact that all of Rittenhouse’s victims were white and that you can’t kill white men in America, even if you’re white yourself, and not face severe consequences.”
But in the same article, Norman said that O. J. Simpson was “guilty as hell” in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman even though, as we all know, he walked free.
Something tells me that logic is not this African-American scribe’s strong suit.
Although Bruce Schroeder, the judge in Rittenhouse’s case, has received numerous hostile emails, including accusations that he’s a closet Klansman, promises to burn down Kenosha again, and direct death threats against his children, much more attention has been paid to a simple comment he made before lunch break one day last week: “I hope the Asian food isn’t coming . . . isn’t on one of those boats in Long Beach Harbor.”
Since I’m not racially insane, I took this as a lame attempt to make light of the fact of supply-chain delays on the West Coast, not proof of murderous intent toward Asians, who as far as I know have nothing at all to do with this trial.
The Rittenhouse verdict is likely to be delivered this week. 500 National Guard troops will be on stand-by in the State of Wisconsin, because everyone realizes that the nation is racially insane and that people might riot over a case where neither the perp nor the victims were non-white.
PREDICTION: Rittenhouse will acquitted of murder but found guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government. Kenosha and several other cities will burn. Unlike the James Fields and Kyle Rittenhouse cases, black people will actually die in the allegedly anti-racist hysteria.
That’s because this is not a white-supremacist nation or a nation that discriminates negatively against non-whites. It’s because the nation has lost its fucking mind about race.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
White Identity Nationalism, Part 1
On Racial Humor
The Worst Week Yet: May 15-21, 2022
Animals & Children First
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 444 Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 443 Interview with Jim Goad
Where Do We Go from Buffalo?
Remembering Hinton Rowan Helper