If Dylann Roof was black, this is the only picture of him the media would allow you to see.

Let it be clear that there is no excuse for going into a church and executing a bunch of little old black ladies unprovoked. In fact, in such a case, I myself, an “evil neo-Nazi,” would support the death penalty for Dylann Roof.

What differentiates me from Jews and the most visible black activists is that I’m consistent, and can put my own racial agenda aside on genuine questions of justice. I support the death penalty for non-whites who commit similarly egregious crimes as well as whites, while the people on the other side want to let blacks who rape and murder white people to go free.

Corrupt Negro Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fanatically pushing for the death penalty for the bowl-cut sporting perpetrator of the June 2015 Charleston attack, embodies this stark hypocrisy. In 2014, Chuck Johnson dug up material of Loretta Lynch publicly stating that she refused to seek the death penalty during her stint as U.S. Attorney from 1999-2001 specifically because she didn’t want any black men to be executed:
As with all establishment talk of “criminal justice reform,” little to nothing is said about why certain races are more likely to be convicted for crimes categorized as worthy of the death penalty. Myopic, low-agency peoples are trained by a corrupt intellectual class to focus only on disparities in outcome, rather than looking at the Federal Governments very own racial statistics on violent crime. The goal is to weigh the scales against whites in order to execute more and pardon more blacks (irrelevant if they’re guilty) for the sake of racial parity. This is a grave injustice caused by the ideological refusal to look at the actual reasons (both genetic and social) for why the average black is dumber, more violent and anti-social than the average white. It’s the same lazy mindset that drives black public school officials to change their students’ grades to match white averages.

Loretta Lynch isn’t the only one who believes our justice system serves as a bully pulpit for those afflicted with racial animosity towards whites, but she is in charge of this case. Either the law applies equally to everyone, or it doesn’t apply to anyone, which is why Dylan Roof’s attorneys–in light of Lynch’s past statements and actions – must open up a racial discrimination lawsuit against the federal government.

Two-Tiered System

The hidden caveat here is that most Jews and blacks think being “racist” (in present discourse, this means whites asserting their right to live or have borders) is a crime worthy of death, even if they don’t have the numbers to fully impose this… yet.

The lynch mob that came out against Brock Turner, a white athlete who was sent to jail for 6 months for drunkenly fingering and making out with another drunk girl, should raise red flags as to what these ludicrous dirtbags have in store. Blacks are far more likely than whites to actually rape someone, and as in the case of Birth of a Nation director Nate Parker, it’s not unusual for skittish Judges and Bronx juries to let them off if the victim is white. The difference is that the media doesn’t put out call to arms against them, because the people in our media think blacks raping whites should be legal (there is no other reasonable explanation).

Cuckold Armed Mob Outside of Brock Turner’s House, notably absent when the criminal is black.

In 2014, there was far more commotion against the death penalty during the case of the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose actions killed six men, women and children, and forever mauled and made disabled hundreds of others in the name of Jihad.

During his trial the principled, if flawed, Aryan Ian Millhiser wrote a collaboration piece with the Jew Zack Beauchamp pleading to spare Tsarnaev’s life.

Three years later, Millhiser, who is genuinely against the death penalty for moral and ethical reasons, has written a similar article asking to avoid the death penalty for Roof.

But somebody’s missing from this 2016 update. Beauchamp has not co-signed the reiteration of the argument against the death penalty. Does he support executing Roof? Beauchamp has written a number of articles decrying Roof’s racism and talking about the latent terrorist threat inside every single white man, but nothing on his capital punishment trial.

There could be some other explanation, but I digress, the majority of people who oppose the death penalty support it against white males or are silent about it, just look at the comments from “liberals” on Buzzfeed. One black religious leader has notably defended Roof, but he’s in the minority and says that he only wants to show Roof mercy because he thinks it sets a precedent for more blacks to be executed.

There’s no doubt Roof’s case is one that should be tried as a capital crime, but the motives behind it are a taste of what is to come if whites ever become the minority in the United States. If Jews give the Loretta Lynch’s of the world even more power over the white population, we’re going to end up in a Mandela-style South African system, where blacks who murder scores of whites for no reason at church are given complete pardons, while whites who defend themselves against a black home invader are arrested, have a tire put over their heads, and are lit on fire.

Better get going on reversing the current demographic decline, because every minute we waste is a minute closer to our races death. Hopefully people left-leaning but more honorable whites like Ian Millhiser will see the light when the people he thought shared his values are actually just motivated by sheer bigotry against whites.

The Blacks are celebrating as a hero Dwayne Stafford, a dim-witted retard who attacked Dylan Roof in the shower after tricking him into thinking he was his friend.

Roof was arrested last year after strangling 9 Black people to death with a Confederate flag in a church. The world’s deadliest-ever mass strangling with a flag resulted in the government banning to flag to ensure nothing like this ever happens again.

The Jewish media blamed myself, Jared Taylor and the Council of Conservative Citizens for the event, though it was not ever clear why.

I’m not sure why Dylann Roof became friends with this Black guy in prison, or why he apologized to him for the shootings.

The Black guy seems too stupid to have made this up.

NY Daily News:

Dylann Roof’s jailhouse puncher said the accused Charleston church shooter talks a mean game — but that the “dumba–“ failed in his original plan to ignite a race war, and isn’t even clear on the details of the grisly attack.

Dwayne Stafford, who was released on bond after he punched Roof in the jail’s shower last week, once mocked the accused killer for bragging about his hate-filled ideals and heinous crimes, he told news site Black Collective.

Roof was mouthing off to other Charleston County Detention Center inmates about how he killed a little girl inside the church — but Stafford said he stepped in to set the facts straight.

“I was like, ‘No, you didn’t get her. She played dead on you,’ ” Stafford said this week in his first interview since his release from jail. “That’s when I gave him the smart aleck, you know? Saying like, ‘You so bad but you let that child get off on you.’ ”

He continued: “That’s basically how I felt, like, ‘You’re a dumba–’ ”

…

Stafford, who said he frequently talked to Roof through his cell door, claimed that the 22-year-old told him he felt badly about the church shooting. But Roof’s crocodile tears seemed to contradict his hate-filled manifesto, in which he detailed his desire to spark a race war and kill black people.

Stafford said he believed Roof was trying to fool him into offering sympathy.
“This motherf–ker thinks I’m stupid!” he said.

The bond was paid by a mysterious someone.

AP:

The man who authorities say attacked accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof in the jail shower is out on $100,000 bond.

Charleston County jail records show 26-year-old Dwayne Stafford was released after posting bond Friday night, more than 18 months after he was arrested on first-degree assault and strong armed robbery charges.

The records do not show who paid Stafford’s bond.

That is a lot of money, no?

The full interview can be watched on The Black Collective website. It is kinda worth watching. Very goofy.

They are also soliciting donations for Stafford to help him fight his assault and robbery charges, which is hilarious.

This chinless faggot here – smdh.

As our dear friend Hunter Wallace over at Occidental Dissent has discovered, The Daily Beast did a FOIA request for information on the FBI’s investigation into the Council of Conservative Citizens over their alleged link to Dylann Roof, and the FBI responded that they have no file on them because they never investigated them in connection with Dylann Roof.

Beastlike (((Katie Zavadski))) tells us:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said it did not investigate the hate group that inspired Dylann Roof to kill nine black parishioners in Charleston, South Carolina last year.

FBI spokeswoman Jillian Stickels told The Daily Beast that there is no record of an investigation into the Council of Conservative Citizens. This comes after The Daily Beast requested FBI files on the group through the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI did not respond to requests for files on the CCC’s most prominent leaders.

The FOIA request also covered one week following the June 17, 2015 attack, indicating that the FBI wasn’t looking into the group even after it was revealed that Roof cited the CCC in his manifesto.

Yes, Jews. They didn’t investigate it because reading a website does not make you part of a “group,” and in America, no matter how much you Jews whine and gnash your teeth, we still have free speech.

CofCC did nothing wrong. They didn’t “inspire” Dylann Roof. At least they didn’t “inspire” him anymore than Dark Knight Returns “inspired” James Holmes.

This clears the names of myself and Jared Taylor as well.

These Jews accused me, Jared Taylor and the CofCC of somehow being responsible for this man’s actions, and then expected the authorities to simply accept the conclusions of their vicious internet lynch mob.

No dice, kikes.

Until you get your Hillary, we still have our speech freedoms. And your Hillary cannot beat our Donald.

It is the policy of the Daily Stormer to not sensationalize. Except when our tongues are in our cheeks.

Alex Jones, on the other hand, does not do anything without sensationalizing. Leading many of his followers to behave in extremely insane ways.

Recently, he completely sensationalized a military exercise in Texas known as “Jade Helm 15.” The exercise involved military staging a takeover of parts of the Southwest of the US.

Though there are definitely questionable aspects of this – what are they planning with this drill? why is it necessary to prepare American troops to take over parts of America – Alex Jones made out that the drill itself was a part of a secret plan by the government to take over the Texas during the drill, to round people up and put them in abandoned Wal-Marts. So they could murder them.

He said that when the drill started, the military would begin a program to impose “martial law.” Death camps and all. He was literally talking about this for almost a year.

So it isn’t surprising that a few already unhinged people took him seriously, and prepared to fight back.

RT:

Federal officials say three men arrested in North Carolina were stockpiling weapons for a murderous plot against US soldiers. According to the FBI, the trio believed a Special Forces exercise dubbed Jade Helm 15 was a pretext for imposing martial law.

FBI documents unsealed Monday say the three residents of Gaston County bought guns and ammunition and attempted to build explosive devices, all with intent of killing US soldiers they believed were coming to establish martial law. The three were identified as Walter Litteral, 50, Christopher Barker, 41, and Christopher Campbell, 30.

The FBI claims Litteral planned to make explosive devices out of tennis balls covered in nails and coffee cans filled with ball bearings. He also purchased ammunition for a 338 caliber rifle, hand-held radios, Kevlar helmets, body armor and face masks, which the authorities say were to be used in “armed resistance to the feared military occupation,” according to the AP.

Most of the information in the indictment comes from an FBI informant, who opened a military surplus store in Belmont, not far from Campbell’s tattoo parlor, in January. The informant said Campbell approached him with “anti-government” views and introduced him to Litteral.

According to court documents, the two men told the informant that they believed “that the federal government intended to use the armed forces to impose martial law in the United States, which they and others would resist with violent force.”

Litteral and Campbell reportedly began buying military equipment in April in anticipation of Jade Helm 15, a series of controversial military drills in the US Southwest that many believe could be a dress rehearsal for martial law.

Suspicions have been fueled by military maps designating Texas, Utah and a portion of California as “hostile,” the military’s refusal to allow media access to the exercise, and vague official language used to describe the drill.

According to US army documents, the exercises need to place soldiers “outside the normal support mechanisms” and force them to “adapt to unfamiliar terrain social and economic conditions” and an “opportunity to work with civilians to gain their trust and an understanding of the issues.”

All of that is directly from the Alex Jones show.

Just look.

It is pretty safe to assume that without the influence of Alex Jones, these men would not have been doing this.

I don’t blame Alex Jones, however. These men acted of their own volition. But it does beg the question: if “online hate” is going to be blamed by the media for the Dylann Roof shooting, why is Alex Jones not being blamed for this incident?

No one on any website told Dylann Roof that old ladies in a church were coming for him and he needed to defend himself, while Jones was continually – for months on end – telling people that Jade Helm was coming for them and they needed to be prepared to defend themselves.

But in none of the articles about this weird happening do I even see the name of Jones mentioned.

Does this seem like a double-standard?

Following the traditional Jewish playbook for dealing with the multicult, The Washington Post – the very same Washington Post which virtually held The Daily Stormer and Stormfront responsible for the Charleston shooting – has informed us that the Moslem terrorist who attacked military bases in Chattanooga in the name of Islam was not really a Moslem terrorist.

Because how could he be?

Islam is a religion of peace.

Trust Dion Nissenbaum, goyim. He knows what’s best. He’s a straight-shooter trying to get to the bottom of things.

Self-proclaimed "Arabian redneck" who killed five in #Chattanooga suffered from depression, wasn't religious zealot: http://t.co/8bIabJzIHF

— Dion Nissenbaum (@DionNissenbaum) July 19, 2015

After allegedly talking to one of his friends (an anonymous Moslem) who claimed that the shooter smoked pot, the Post comes to this conclusion:

The portrait emerging of Abdulazeez isn’t one of a committed Muslim or vengeful jihadist, but rather an aimless young man who came from a troubled home and struggled to hold down a job after college, said friends and law enforcement officials.

Meanwhile, at the same newspaper, less than a month earlier…

But whereas Roof was totally clear-headed and on the ball when he shot those old ladies, maybe the Moslem was mentally ill when he attacked a military base in retaliation for wars in the Middle East?

In a statement, his family said Abdulazeez’s mental illness had contributed to the crime. “For many years, our son suffered from depression. It grieves us beyond belief to know that his pain found its expression in this heinous act of violence,” the statement said.

Abdulazeez had been in and out of treatment for his depression and frequently stopped taking his medication, despite his parents’ pleas for him to continue, said a person close to the family.

I would personally like to know if he was on SSRIs at the time of the shooting, but the media isn’t going to tell us that part.

However, whereas with Dylann Roof we can see that he was insane by the fact he targeted old women in a church (which makes absolutely no sense, and is connected to no ideology I’m aware of), Abdulazeez acted against military personnel, something which any Moslem would consider a valid target of jihad.

Roof’s act is comparable to Sandy Hook or Columbine, whereas Abdulazeez’ act is identical to every other Moslem terrorist attack. If he is mentally ill, than so are nearly all Moslems, and the “War on Terror” should change its name to “The War on Mentally Ill Arabs.”

And he openly identified with fighters in the Middle East, the friend claims.

The friend and Abdulazeez — along with two other young Muslim men — spent hundreds of hours together over the past four years, including the weeks and months leading up to the violent attack. Sometimes they talked about the Middle East’s bloody wars, such as the battles between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and the chaos in Syria.

Abdulazeez blamed some of the bloodshed on U.S. foreign policy.

Again, stupid goyim – understand that he was not a real Moslem and this has nothing to do with Islam.

It is a random event, committed by a mentally ill human being. Very different from that church shooting, which was committed by a hardcore White supremacist neo-Nazi terrorist inspired by internet hatred.

On Wednesday night, the friends exchanged texts for the last time. The friend was struggling with how to balance his Muslim faith with the more secular demands of his work, which included serving bacon to customers.

Abdulazeez responded a quote from the prophet Muhammad — that speaks to the tensions in the world between believers and non-believers. “Whosoever shows enmity to a wali [friend] of Mine, then I have declared war against him,” it begins. It ends by encouraging devout Muslims to keep the faith and draw closer to God.

Although the exchange suggests Abdulazeez was devout, he often seemed to struggle with his faith. Abdulazeez was fasting for the Ramadan holiday, which requires Muslims not to eat or drink during daylight hours. But he doesn’t appear to have regularly attended his parents’ mosque in the months leading up to the shooting, according to members of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga.

This is insane, this emerging narrative of “not a terrorist.”

And you can guarantee this is going to be the line used by all these SJWs. They are also going to push for him to be treated, legally, as a mass shooter rather than a terrorist.

It isn’t surprising.

What else are they supposed to do? They can’t question multiculturalism, and the obvious question one is going to ask when people we bring to this country for no clear reason start murdering us is: “what is the reason we brought these people to our country?”

The second question being: “can we please send them all back to wherever they came from now, so they don’t kill more of us?”

Simple.

Common.

Sense.

A Brief Review of: Asne Seierstad, One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway, Translated by Sahar Death (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015).

I recently finished reading One of Us, a book on Anders Breivik by the well-known Norwegian journalist and author Asne Seierstad. The book was published in Norway in 2013. The English language edition was released this spring. July 22nd marks the fourth anniversary of Breivik’s attacks, and the subject is topical due, in part, to the June rampage by Dylann Roof. There are significant similarities and differences between Breivik and Roof.

Everyone recalls the news reports of the 2011 attacks, but this book details Breivik’s life, the events of July 22nd, and his trial the following year. Assuming that Seierstad’s account is accurate — and despite some left-wing bias, it appears to be, this can be said about Breivik:

He was not a National Socialist, nor even a racialist. He supported Israel. He was a cultural Christian. Although he did not have a strong religious faith and rarely went to church, Christianity was important to his identity. He was anti-Islam. He considered himself a revolutionary conservative and an intellectual, not a warrior.

It is unclear when Breivik became radicalized. He claimed he began planning his attacks back in 2002. Seierstad believes he became a revolutionary sometime between 2008 and 2010, one to three years before the attacks. Breivik was 32 years old in July of 2011. He had already gone through a number of transformations during his relatively brief lifetime.

In his early and mid-teens Breivik was a tagger — a graffiti vandal — and part of the Oslo hip hop scene. In his late teens to mid-twenties, he was active in the Progress Party, Norway’s neocon opposition. He attended Oslo’s Commerce High School, but failed to graduate. As with Roof, he was an intelligent high school dropout. For a time Breivik had success as an online entrepreneur. After some financial reverses, due in part to the Great Recession, he retreated into computer gaming.

Breivik’s father was in the Norwegian Foreign Service. He and Anders’ mother separated when the boy was very young. The elder Breivik was married four times and ended up estranged from all of his children — a good marker of sociopathy. Anders was living with his mother at the time of the attacks.

Breivik killed 77 people with his bomb and guns; probably 70 were ethnic Norwegians, a majority teenagers. He killed them for ideological reasons. His bomb at the government center in Oslo was a strike aimed at the ruling Labour Party. The shootings at Utoya Island targeted the party’s youth organization. The Norwegian Labour Party has Red roots, but is now social democratic. It supports multiculturalism at home and a globalist foreign policy.

One perverted and ironic element of Breivik’s violence was the killing of his own people for their ideological beliefs. Yet he himself had gone through many metamorphoses in his thinking.  To shoot a fifteen-year-old girl because she belongs to Labour’s youth group is sick. In four or five years, she might have changed her politics. Even if she did not change her beliefs, she might have become the AFP PHOTO / ODD ANDERSEN (Photo credit should read ODD ANDERSEN/AFP/GettyImages)mother of healthy White children. Breivik needed to think more biologically, less ideologically.

Was Breivik psychotic? No doubt he suffered from mental illness, but he fought against an insanity ruling, and the court found him competent to stand trial.

It was important to Breivik that he be found sane so that his manifesto would be taken seriously. One of the motivations for the attacks was to publicize the lengthy online document. This reviewer has not read Breivik’s manifesto, reportedly to be over 1500 pages. The first thousand pages have been described as a cut and paste job, the last 500 a personal testament. One purpose of the Roof shootings was allegedly to call attention to his short online manifesto.

There is no evidence that Breivik’s Knights Templar organization existed except in his mind. In fact, one remarkable aspect of his attacks was that he carried them out completely on his own. No one helped, no one even knew. With no military or explosives training, he assembled, delivered, and detonated a large bomb in central Oslo, and smuggled arms and ammo onto the island where he systematically executed 69 people. At times, Seierstad’s description of the Norwegian police brings to mind the Keystone Kops. The forensic investigation after the fact, however, was meticulous.

A couple of miscellaneous observations: There was no fight, just flight or freeze among the campers. With over one hundred young people on the island a small group armed with sticks and rocks could have, with a little organization and leadership, overpowered him. Perhaps that is expecting too much, but these youths were selected, in part, for their organizational and leadership abilities.

There is no evidence that Breivik was sexually attracted to men or boys. He had a couple of brief relationships with women including a six-month affair with a Belarusian girl. Yet some of those who met him were convinced he was gay. He was not gay, but he was narcissistic. It is interesting that even in this “enlightened” age, negative characteristics are often associated with homosexuality.

If one is curious to learn more about Anders Breivik and contemporary Norway, by all means read One of Us. It would probably be best to get the book from a library as the author is donating any profits to the En av Oss Foundation which, presumably, supports left-wing causes.

James Holmes, the Batman shooter, has been found guilty on 165 counts in the Aurora, Colorado massacre.

Even as the families of the victims continue to mourn the deaths of their loved ones, the US government continues to refuse to address the cause of these unnecessary deaths. Holmes was radicalized by the Batman franchise of films, as well as other related Batman and comic book media.

Not only has Batman not been banned in America, the Federal Government has refused to even investigate Batman, who, according to numbers provided by the Northern Guano Law Center, is responsible for 85% of murders in America.

“Baticalization”

Some people think that enough is enough, and it’s time for a change in the way our legal system deals with Batman and related merchandise.

Jakob Steingold, Chairman of the NGLC, says that there is easily something the government can do. We can keep free speech, he says, we just need to curtail Batman by applying laws which already exist.

“We can easily maintain free speech in America while shutting down the menace that is the Batman,” Steingold told me over the phone. “We have a deep history of valuing free speech in this country, but Batman speech is not free speech.”

Steingold explains that young “lone bats” are being radicalized by Batman toys, comics and films without any central authority.

“Back in the 80s, we had gangs of Batmen roaming the streets, but they were infiltrated and shut down by the FBI. Now, we’re in the era of the lone bat – Batman fans buy these toys and comics, get radicalized on their own, then act on what they’ve learned from Batman stories.”

The decentralized nature of Batman fans makes prevention almost completely impossible, Steinberg says.

“We are either going to have to act against the production and distribution of Batman and Batman related products, or we are just going to have to accept the fact that thousands more innocents are going to die in the name of Batman. How many innocent lives is it worth to allow Ben Affleck to dress-up in a BDSM costume and look sad?”

“Why So Serious?”

Analysts and psychologists have long struggled with the drive of young men to become involved in Batman.

Dr. Shekels Goldtown of Stanford University has posited that it is feelings of ineptitude and anger at the world which drives young men to start reading Batman comics, watching the films and playing with the toys.

“You grow up, you have no future because you live in a basement and work at Seven-11. Then you see your first porno, and realize your penis is much smaller than the ones on the screen. You need an outlet for your rage, and you find Batman, start saying to yourself ‘maybe it isn’t me that has the problem, maybe this is the fault of the Joker, the Riddler or the Penguin?’ Batman allows total failures a big guy to blame for their tiny penis and failure,” Dr. Goldtown explains.

Dr. Goldtown agrees with Jakob Steinberg that unless something is done to counteract the ability of Batman to spread his ideology, millions will die.

“There’s always going to be plenty of repressed homosexuals with small penises living in basements ready to respond to the Batsignal. If the government wants to stop random shootings, they’re going to have to deal with the Bat. We need laws against Batman speech. Batman speech is not free speech.”

Burying the lede? In a front-page article about the danger of “White Supremacist” websites in the wake of Dylann Roof massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the New York Times reports an extraordinary fact as a mere digression: investigators believe that no online “white supremacists” either “encouraged or assisted in the deadly shootings.” [White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites, by Michael Wines & Stephanie Saul, July 5, 2015].

This is becoming standard Main Stream Media practice when faced with Narrative Collapse: report the inconvenient fact, then carry on regardless as if it didn’t exist.

Thus while a few other news articles mention the lack of any “white supremacists” encouraging him, and the NYT also briefly mentioned it in a previous article about Roof’s connections to online “white supremacy” [Charleston Suspect Was in Contact With Supremacists, Officials Say, by Michael D. Schmidt, July 3, 2015], I could not find a single article that devoted more than one sentence to this key fact.

This is not new for the New York Times or the MSM in general. For example, the day Eric Holder’s Justice Department cleared Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing in the shooting of Michael Brown, the New York Times’ lead headline was Ferguson Police Tainted by Bias, Justice Dept Says [By Matt Apuzzo And John Eligon, March 4, 2015] with a subhead for a shorter article On Civil Rights, No Case Against Officer [By Erik Eckholm And Matt Apuzzo, March 4, 2015]taking second billing.

The NYT also ran a lead editorial on the Justice Department’s report, which devoted only 26 of its 564 words acknowledging that the Justice Department’s “investigation did not support federal civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the officer who shot and killed Mr. Brown,” instead changing the narrative to argue that the riots, which NYT and other MSM false reporting encouraged, were only “partly about his death” and instead were also about a “lamentable history of abuse suffered by African-American citizens” [A Chilling Portrait of Ferguson, March 4, 2015]

Indeed, it’s now standard journalistic practice to bury a lede that exonerates alleged racists of specific wrongdoing that the MSM has been harping on in a stories about the larger problems of racism. Rather than issue a mea culpa for blaming Roof’s on misdeeds the Council of Conservative Citizens and other right wing websites—whose actual offense is to accurately report black-on-white crime that the MSM routinely suppresses—NYT simply notes their non-involvement in a thruway aside, saying that Roof “clearly embraced their worldview.”

But in fact the NYT itself reports a major difference in “worldview:” Roof’s was frustrated with the “movement’s disavowal of violence,” and made this clear in his manifesto, which concluded

We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the Internet. Well, someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

In a previous column, I compared Roof to Family Research Center shooter Floyd Corkins. But Roof’s connection is really more tenuous. The Southern Policy Law Center ($PLC to VDARE.com) specifically listed the Family Research Center as a “Hate Group,” but there is no mention of any “white supremacist” website saying anything negative about Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Moreover, while the majority of the Left who whipped up anti-police hatred disavowed violence, there were many who did encourage violence against policemen.

In contrast, the New York Times’ Wines and Saul could not find a single instance of even an anonymous commenter advocating violence or defending Roof’s actions.

Instead, W&S story focused on three websites: the Daily Stormer, an openly neo-Nazi website; Stormfront, the largest white nationalist message board on the internet and its founder Don Black; and the National Policy Institute, a think tank headed by Richard B. Spencer (which VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has addressed). Oddly, though W&S briefly mention American Renaissance, they apparently did not interview Jared Taylor, despite that fact that he served as the spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens in the wake of Charleston.

Although the bar is set low, Wines and Saul did a bit more than point-and-splutter at the views that Stormfront’s Black and NPI’s Spencer espoused. Black is quoting giving some matter-of-fact information on the size of his website and describing why he rejected more radical organizations like the Klan. Spencer gives his views on American influence across the world and his dream of a European Revival (which W&S maliciously misquoted as an “Aryan Revival”) in America. [Responding to the New York Times, by Richard B. Spencer, Radix Journal, July 6, 2015].

Yet the purpose of the W&S article was not to understand Spencer or any other “white supremacists,” nor was it to understand Roof. Rather as Spencer says:

The Times article is thus an effort to “understand” Roof by linking him, however irrationally and tangentially, to writers, thinkers, and activists whom the Times already disliked.”

The NYT goes further and used the lack of encouragement from any other “white supremacist” to vindicate the Department of Homeland Security’s maligned 2009 report on right wing extremists, which asserted: “White supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat.” [Right Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, April 7, 2009]

Yet even if this were true, there is little evidence that cracking down on “white supremacist websites” would have any impact.

W&S concluded by interviewing Columbia University political science professor Donald P. Green:

Gauging [the white supremacy movement’s] impact on the Charleston murders, he said, is even harder.

“The idea that you could reaffirm someone’s ideology and maybe even sharpen or focus it on a particular target is something these sites are capable of doing,” Mr. Green said.

As for the church shooting suspect, Mr. Roof, “We don’t know whether that was a marker for his violent predispositions or might be the cause of them,” Mr. Green said. “It might be both.”

It may be giving Green [Email him] too much credit to try to untangle these sentences, but the first one appears to be arguing that “white supremacist” websites may make people who agree with them feel more strongly about their beliefs and make some deranged people select targets based on their ideology. I’d be curious to know if Green believes this does not apply to every ideology.

As for Gates concluding thought, if these sites simply attract marginal people who are already likely to commit violence, then their effect in increasing violence would be marginal.

And Green does not seem to explain how a movement, which by the NYT’s own reporting vigorously condemns violence, could cause Roof’s “violent predispositions.”

But in today’s political climate, he doesn’t have to.

Malcolm X is alleged to have said: “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent.”

The attempt to tie right-wing websites to Dylann Roof’s massacre even while acknowledging he had no ties to them and opposed their disavowal of violence is just the latest example of the media “making the innocent guilty.”

The SPLC’s Richard Cohen has done in interview with Salon where he flat-out admits that you can’t drastically transform the face of an entire nation through mass immigration and not expect a backlash.

I want to return to something you said a moment ago about how demographic changes are part of what’s driving the modern white supremacist movement. If that’s true, doesn’t that mean that we should be thinking about how this problem might get worse in the short- and medium-term? It’s not like these trends are going to dramatically reverse themselves, after all.

I think that’s exactly right. When the Southern Poverty Law Center was founded, back in 1971, fewer than one-in-five persons in our country were non-white. Today, that figure has doubled; and there’s been a backlash to it. In the next 35 to 40 years, what we call the majority today will be the minority, and I think the country will continue to have a backlash and continue to have flash points.

In the end, the country will be fine. We will draw upon the talents of not just a diverse population in this country, but the population of the world. But I think we would be Pollyannaish to think that these types of demographic changes, against a backdrop of uncertain economic times, are not going to produce a significant backlash.

Besides the part about the country being fine, I would have given the same basic answer. You obviously cannot commit a massive program of ethnic displacement and expect at least a few of the displaced not to get rather upset about it.

The question is, why are you committing this genocidal act act of ethnic displacement in the first place, Mr. Jew?

Salon didn’t ask him that, but it truly is the question of the age.

It’s worth thinking about some basic psychology in relation to the Charleston events. Cognitive psychologists study heuristics that people use to make judgments about  the likelihood of events that are complexly determined — things like airplane crashes or shark attacks. A heuristic relevant to Charleston is the availability heuristic, where people make judgments and form attitudes based on their memories of past events. Such memories are greatly influenced by media coverage.

From Wikipedia: 

After seeing news stories about child abductions, people may judge that the likelihood of this event is greater. Media coverage can help fuel a person’s example bias with widespread and extensive coverage of unusual events, such as homicide or airline accidents, and less coverage of more routine, less sensational events, such as common diseases or car accidents. For example, when asked to rate the probability of a variety of causes of death, people tend to rate “newsworthy” events as more likely because they can more readily recall an example from memory. Moreover, unusual and vivid events like homicides, shark attacks, or lightning are more often reported in mass media than common and un-sensational causes of death like common diseases.^[9]

For example, many people think that the likelihood of dying from shark attacks is greater than that of dying from being hit by falling airplane parts, when more people actually die from falling airplane parts. When a shark attack occurs, the deaths are widely reported in the media whereas deaths as a result of being hit by falling airplane parts are rarely reported in the media.^[10]

The application to Charleston is obvious. There is wall-to-wall media coverage, so people will easily recall what happened there. Such memories will be easily available to influence attitudes and judgments. Whereas Black-on-White crime motivated by racial hatred is vastly more common than the reverse, such events are rarely reported in the national media, and even local media typically ignore racial designations and downplay racial motivation in such attacks.

On the other hand, racially motivated crime by Whites gets much more coverage. So most Whites have no idea about the racial disparities unless they read sources like Pat Buchanan, Vdare (this article by Ilana Mercer includes data from both) or AmRen.  As a result, the prediction would be that Whites as well as Blacks would assume that murderous, racially motivated attacks are far more common among Whites than among Blacks. Such memories are much more available than memories about racially motivated Black-on-White crimes.

Whereas the “White racist” narrative of the Ferguson and Baltimore events completely fell apart upon further scrutiny and the riots only confirmed stereotypes of the Black underclass, Charleston will live on as a paradigm of pervasive White racism, and will be used to attack anything remotely connected to White identity. There have been numerous calls for banning the Confederate flag and for stricter controls on guns. Last night on O’Reilly a Black man blamed Fox News for the events in Charleston. But that pales compared to Hillary Clinton’s allusion to Donald Trump’s comments on illegal aliens being responsible for Charleston. On local talk radio I just heard a caller demand in a very morally self-righteous manner that any website or media frequented by Dylann Roof be shut down. I’m sure the SPLC would love to do just that.

The deluge of media coverage and White guilt induction will cause even many who are now on board with the need to assert White identity and White interests to feel less confident about their beliefs. I recall during the Andres Breivik affair getting an email from an ethnically conscious Swede noting the deluge of hatred raining down on those who opposed non-White immigration from the media and political class. The wavering self-confidence was apparent. Under such circumstances, it was psychologically impossible to be negative about immigrants and immigration, at least publicly. It’s hard to oppose such a unified front emanating from the highest, most prestigious places in one’s society — another very basic feature of the human psyche that figures in the acceptance of all the movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. The result is that, at least in the short term, Charleston is likely to be a very negative event for White advocates.

Finally, it’s yet another reminder of the importance of the media. Events like these create irrational psychological reflexes in many. Having struck out with Ferguson and Baltimore, they have a gold mine with Charleston.