2,635 words

Man Runs Over and Kills Republican “Extremist” With His Car

In case you haven’t heard — because almost no one in the mainstream media has made a peep about it — in the early morning hours of Sunday, September 18, a drunken North Dakota man purposely ran over and killed an 18-year-old male after a “political argument.” He then fled the scene, called 911, and told them he thought his victim was a member of a Republican “extremist group.” A police affidavit states that the perpetrator “admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car because he had a political argument with the pedestrian.”

According to police, 41-year-old Shannon Brandt confessed to purposely killing 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson. He was arrested.

And now he’s free on bail. How often does a self-admitted murderer get offered bail?

This seems like much more of an open-and-shut case of murder than what happened in Charlottesville five years ago. James Fields plowed through a crowd after having a rifle pointed at him and being trapped amid frenzied throngs of club-wielding rioters in the streets. Yet he was smacked with two life terms plus 419 years, while Shannon Brandt is free on bail.

Then again, James Fields is an “extremist,” whereas Shannon Brandt killed an “extremist,” and that makes all the difference in courtrooms these days.

Brandt allegedly told police that he thought Ellingson was using his phone to call for backup, so rather than singlehandedly facing those notoriously violent hordes of vengeful members of Republican extremist groups that our president recently warned us about, he preemptively ran over Ellingson before his reserves of blood-guzzling foot soldiers were able to arrive.

According to Ellingson’s mother, her son had merely called her saying that a strange man was threatening him and was asking her to come pick him up and whisk him away to safety. But by the time she showed up, the strange man was gone, and her son was dead. It appears to have been one of those simple misunderstandings that end in death these days when people decide to have a random “political argument” on the streets.

“Extremism” in modern parlance means nothing more than “beliefs that were considered completely normal and inoffensive 50 years ago.” Those who vehemently oppose extremism believe, without sensing the irony, that only extreme measures will stop extremism.

And according to polls, Americans seem convinced that things will only get more extreme.

Vietnamese Man Arrested for “Hurling” Racial Slur at Hispanic Man and Trying to Set Him Ablaze

Is it possible to gently lob a racial slur, or are they always “hurled”? Even better, can you merely “hand” someone a racial slur like it’s a business card? It would seem that the racial slur itself is sufficiently hostile and that “hurling” it might be overdoing things.

“Passerby hurls racial slur, then throws gasoline on driver, California police say,” reads the headline in The Miami Herald, which just as easily could have read, “Passerby throws racial slur, then hurls gasoline at driver”:

A stranger approached a man sitting in his car and made a “derogatory comment towards Hispanics” before throwing gasoline on him and trying to ignite a fire, California police said. The victim, who was not harmed, drove away before the man could use a lighter to start a fire in Westminster on Wednesday, Sept. 21, according to a news release from the Westminster Police Department. Danh Nguyen, 36, who was later arrested, fled in a car “he did not have permission to have,” police said. . . . Officers tried to stop Nguyen after finding him near Bushard Street and Westminster Avenue, police said. Nguyen, however, did not stop. A short pursuit ended after Nguyen “ran into a small planter wall” at Brookhurst Street and Hazard Avenue, police said.

Of course he ran into a small planter wall. He’s an Asian driver.

One of many reasons to hate modern news reporters is the fact that they’ll tell you the accused made a “derogatory comment towards Hispanics” without specifying the slur that was hurled. Did he say something about beaners? Wetbacks? Spics? Border Bunnies? Car Thieves? Chili-Shitters? The people want to know!

Orange County, California used to be known as the most conservative county in the United States. But over the years it’s seen a huge influx of yellows and browns to the point where it is now 23% Asian and 34% Hispanic. Events such as these — where one newly-arrived minority group hurls racial slurs and gasoline at another — are inevitable.

Racially-motivated violence between non-whites can be a wonderful thing — not for those who wind up maimed or dead, of course, but because it savagely undermines the brutally anti-white fictitious narrative that whites not only invented racism, they monopolize it by definition. This incident proves that racial violence is a truly ecumenical phenomenon that does not discriminate.

Baptist Preacher Explains Why “Faggot” Is His Preferred Anti-Homo Slur

The Sure Foundation Baptist Church has secured itself an enviable spot on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ANTI-LGBTQ page alongside Westboro Baptist Church and Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME), so one can rest assured that its preachers say funny things about homosexuals.

Aaron Thompson is the “hate group pastor” at the Sure Foundation Baptist Church in Vancouver, Washington, and he recently expressed the hilarious sentiment that although the Holy Bible says that gays should be put to death, it frustrates him that he can’t find the word “faggot” in either the Old or New testaments. He’s unhappy that words such as “sodomite” and “homosexual” don’t convey the revulsion he feels just thinking . . . and thinking . . . about gay sex:

Well, what about “faggot,” can you say “faggot,” what about “faggot”? It’s like, yeah, but, when you say “sodomite,” most of the time people don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s not like everyone outside reads the Bible. It’s not like a real popular word. You can say “homosexual,” but it doesn’t have the negative connotation that it should have. The negative connotation that it should have is that they’re a bunch of freaks and that God pronounces the death penalty upon them in Leviticus 20:13. And I’m not gonna shy away from anything that the Bible says.

Clearly it’s high time for a new Bible translation that makes use of modern pejoratives. I would pay top dollar for a Bible that refers to “sodomites” as “faggots” and “Children of Ham” as “dindus.”

Two Gay Men Go “Head to Head” for New York Congressional Seat

Although the author of Ecclesiastes insisted that there’s nothing new under the Sun, he had no way of anticipating that 3,000 years later, two self-admitted sodomites would square off for a seat in the US Congress.

“New York’s 3rd Congressional District will be represented by a gay man regardless of who wins the general election. . . . This will be the first time in U.S. history that two out LGBTQ congressional candidates are going head to head in a general election,” beams NBC News about this November’s face-off between Democrat Robert Zimmerman and Republican George Santos for New York’s 3rd Congressional District, which covers Long Island’s northwestern shore.

Heh-heh. They said “head to head.”

Not to quibble, but it appears that both Zimmerman and Santos are merely “G” rather than “LGBTQ.” I can’t conceive of a way in which even the most delusional gender theorist could say they’re lesbians, much less cross-dressers. And why does the “Q” even exist? Isn’t it assumed that if you’re L, G, B, or T that you’re automatically queer?

Looking at pictures of Robert Zimmerman (left) and George Santos (right), it’s difficult to decide which one looks more “G” than the other, but they both look extremely “G.” Zimmerman, who has the misfortune of sharing the birth name of Jewish folk singer Bob Dylan, has a twinkle in his eye that suggests he’s sniffed about 400 vials of amyl nitrite dry in his lifetime, whereas Santos clearly used Photoshop’s “blur” feature so many times that it rendered his face as smooth as an underage boy’s bottom.

Not counting obvious closet cases such as Lindsey Graham, NBC News estimates that “There are currently 11 openly LGBTQ people in Congress — two in the Senate and nine in the House — and they are all Democrats.”

George Santos and his improbably smooth face seek to change all that. He says it’s “pretty incredible” that two gay men are going head to head: “I think it shows that our country continues to be the bastion of progress and building equity for everybody.”

So the Republicans are fielding an openly sodomitical candidate who uses terms such as “progress” and “equity.” Can you tell me again why you think voting matters?

Belligerent Black Woman Films Herself Arguing with “Rednecks” at Georgia Bar

Dumb black people and smartphones are a lethal combination for whites. I live in the Atlanta area, and during the Summer of Floyd I had the creeping sense that sooner or later while I was innocently filling my truck with gas, some descendant of slaves would walk up to me, start recording, and ask, “Why did you call me a nigger?”

Black culture is a strange and fascinating thing — although avowedly against both police and “snitches,” they make an exception if they’re somehow able to frame a white person for racist crimes, whether real or imagined.

Hiram, Georgia is a small town about 25 miles northwest of Atlanta that’s more black than it is white. It recently made the news when a black woman was purportedly “Harassed At Bar By Georgia Hillbillies For Coming To A ‘White Place.’”

Mind you, there’s absolutely nothing racist about calling people “hillbillies” or, in the same article, demeaning them as “vile white folks.”

The black woman in question — and there’s no question that she’s black or a woman, only that she was harassed — started recording the incident in media res with her screaming more loudly than anyone else in the entire bar. As a result, we have no idea exactly who instigated the argument, but her entire mien throughout the video is much more belligerent than that of anyone else in the bar.

She alleges that a waitress threw a box at her and that she innocently came to the bar to eat and play pool, just as she’d come so many times before without, for some reason, being racially harassed. It’s kind of odd that these racist hillbillies waited for her to repeatedly frequent their establishment before one of them asked her why she’d come to a “white place.” When she accused them of being racists, one of them casually said that he’s a racist, and she said that she could tell he’s a racist because he’s poor.

Now, you wait there just a cotton-pickin’ minute, lady. I thought we lived in a white supremacist culture that lavishly rewards white people for being racist. Are you trying to allege our modern society will turn any white “racist” into a pauper? Shucks, I’ve been saying the same thing for years.

The woman posted her highly-edited video of the verbal brawl on TikTok, which might be the worst website the world has ever seen. It caters to the stupidly vain and the vainly stupid to a degree which should be criminalized She inserted little captions such as “Racism at its finest in Georgia,” which is categorically false. This is very weak racism, from all sides. I’ve seen much finer racism in my blandest daydreams.

She also posted a video of herself dancing for you in her bedroom to a song by convicted child pornographer R. Kelly. And another video of herself guzzling booze, shaking her rump, and wondering why she’s “25 and can’t find a man.” White racism is the least of this woman’s problems.

Rednecks: The Canaries in a Coal Mine of Anti-Whiteness

“I don’t have a problem with white people­ — just the ones who act like rednecks.”

Where have I heard this before? Oh, right: “I don’t have a problem with black people­ — just the ones who act like Children of Ham.”

Just like the English practiced abusing the Irish before they discovered Africa, the scions of anti-whiteness practiced on “rednecks” before they broadened the attack to encompass all whites.

Two recent essays by women perpetuate the supremely odd, generations-long American practice of openly demeaning white males from the American underclass and even wishing them harm in the name of racial tolerance.

In the Yale Daily News, a woman named Hannah Mark recently penned “The Redneck Dilemma” about the unbearable angst of being a lesbian with the luxury of taking a summer vacation in Montana, combined with the agony being unable to find a likeminded muff-diver in the entire state on dating apps. She gives us no clue of what she looks like or how tacky her Tinder profile might be, nor of how lonely she sounds out there in that massive Western state, forlorn and forgotten, swiping past pictures of heterosexual cowboys.

Instead, she draws a stale and hackneyed stereotype of what she calls “Montanus idiotus,” because there’s nothing wrong with depicting white people as idiots despite all the statistical evidence about which races are the provably dumb ones. She writes that “one of the most exemplary specimens of Montanus idiotus” left his profile blank “perhaps because he was incapable of forming basic sentences”:

Montana Tinder consists of a cohort of mostly straight, beer-guzzling, cowboy-hat-wearing, Very Country men. . . . I couldn’t exactly put my finger on what made these Montana Men so . . . unappealing. Perhaps it was the subtly-homophobic energy exuded from every snapshot of a jacked up truck. Perhaps it was their identifying odor, a delicate combination of feet, sweat, musty sheets and Axe body spray, which was so strong it diffused through my phone screen like the “before” part of a cologne ad. . . . We also strongly advise that Montana be sold to Canada for spare parts.

Well, aren’t we just a special little wilted daffodil? In the midst of stereotyping white males from Montana, it’s so nice that you could embody every extant stereotype of a snooty, sneering, coastal elitist. I’d also bet my house that the Montana cowboys treated you better than people on Yale’s campus would treat a Montana cowboy.

In a more muted piece for the Citizen-Times of Asheville, North Carolina, Nancy Williams writes that “There’s a good type of ‘redneck’ and a not-so-good type.” She starts out describing the good type:

When I was a teen myself, I thought redneck meant country people. Rural farmers. With necks, literally red from working in the sun. At that point, our country was no longer an agrarian society, but poor people had gardens mostly because they needed them. . . . [They were] as honorable as honor gets.

After describing a video she saw where some drooling “rednecks” shot at a possum they’d just let out of a cage, she goes on to describe the bad kind of redneck:

[They] entertain themselves at the expense of others. Drive big, obnoxiously loud trucks and love to spray smoke on hybrid cars. Make racist comments for laughs. Openly disdain authority. Take all they can get from the government, then badmouth other people who use social programs. . . . Say things and believe things as facts that simply aren’t, but too intellectually lazy to find accurate information. Don’t volunteer anything unless there is something in it for them. Crave attention and being in the spotlight. . . . Judgmental of me? Yes. I openly and firmly disapprove of the bad brand of redneck. Hope those possums they are shooting at for fun bite them hard.

Good job, woman. In your next article, can you please write about the difference between good blacks and bad blacks?

If you refuse, I’ll have to write it instead. Don’t push me.

* * *

Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)

For other ways to donate, click here.