A couple months ago, it was reported that an autistic drug-addict named Dylann Roof shot up a Black church full of old women in Charleston, North Carolina. Soon, however, it was discovered that Roof had actually strangled these old women with a Confederate battle flag.

The flag was then banned from everywhere so that no one would use it as a murder weapon in the future.

Then, all of the sudden, it was discovered that the publisher of the Daily Stormer had used the Confederate flag to strangle these people using the comments section of his website. This was discovered by one of the world’s top investigative reporters, Duane Pohlman, who took vengeance on Anglin by terrorizing his mother.

Now, the true story of the Charleston mass-strangling has been uncovered by a hotel in Nashville: Jared Taylor actually strangled these old women by giving speeches at hotels.

ABC News:

A Nashville hotel has cancelled a conference by an organization cited in Charleston massacre gunman Dylann Roof’s manifesto, leaving the group scrambling to find a new venue.

“It is an absolutely shocking commentary on the state of freedom of speech in this country,” complained Jared Taylor, a spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens.

“Even at the height of the McCarthy era, the Communist Party could rent a hotel and hold a meeting,” he added.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which says Taylor’s organization is a white supremacist hate group, revealed earlier this week that it was holding its annual meeting at the Guesthouse Inn.

The Guesthouse Inn then canceled the reservation, telling NBC affiliate WSMV that the Council of Conservative Citizens is not welcome at its property.

…

The group, which says it should not be blamed for Roof’s actions, has met the Guesthouse Inn at least 10 times over the last five years, Taylor said.

“Once they get pressure from people who don’t believe in free speech and freedom of assembly, they fold,” Taylor said.

He added that some members flying in for the conference had non-refundable airline tickets.

“We’re going to do our best to see what we can pull off,” Taylor said. “We might not be advertising the fact if we get another venue.”

They shouldn’t be blamed? How is it possible that they shouldn’t be blamed, when they are directly responsible for the actions of another individual whom they controlled the actions of using words on the internet?

And of course we still have freedom of speech in America. You just can’t speak at a hotel or run a website without it being shut down. But I mean, if you want to meet in a basement somewhere, and whisper about something politically incorrect, you are completely free to do so. Though you might have to be stopped from doing that as well soon, because it could obviously directly lead to more Confederate flag stranglings.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Though I could not have figured it out myself, the internet detectives of the SPLC have figured out that Dylan Storm Roof may have commented on the Daily Stormer. This isn’t particularly surprising, given that anyone reading about Black crime or other racial issues on the internet would necessarily have come across this site.

They ran his manifesto through plagiarism-detection software and determined that a specific comment from the generic handle “AryanBlood1488” is very similar to a passage in Roof’s alleged manifesto.

From the manifesto:

The reason for this is that White culture is world culture. I dont mean that our culture is made up of other cultures, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world. This makes us feel as though our culture isnt special or unique.

The comment:

The reason some whites feel as if they have no culture, or that their culture is uninteresting, is very simple.

White culture is World Culture, and by that I dont mean that our culture is made up of ones from around the world, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world.

This makes us feel as if it isnt special, because everyone has adopted it.

For example, forks, doors on hinges, suits, pianos, and other simple things are all part of White Culture, just as chopsticks, sliding doors, kimonos, and the koto, are part of Japanese culture. Most people dont think about this. And they dont appreciate it.

A person using this handle posted around 20 comments on the site over the course of a few months. All of the comments were made from different emails and proxy IPs. The poster’s last comment was in February of this year, and it is possible that the poster was banned. I don’t keep a record of comments which I delete after banning someone, but if he had posted something suggesting violence, I would have banned the poster.

The last post was after the poster called me immature for responding to an email from Kyle Rogers. The SPLC holds that the fact that he defended the Council of Conservative Citizens, which he refers to in his alleged manifesto, implies that it must be him. So if this poster was not banned, he may have left the site in agitation.

Note: I have apologized to Kyle for this post, which was inappropriate.

Most of AryanBlood1488’s comments were typical and of no real consequence.

The commenter commented on what Somalians look like:

Somalians and Ethiopians are really vile looking creatures, with the bulging Arab eyes and negro skin.

Commented on Turkey trying to get into the EU:

Lol at this stupid Turk trying to use mind tricks to get into the EU, just like a Jew. Semitic blood must have a propensity to be sneaky.

Commented on Russian separatists:

I think its funny how the the pro-Russian men are called “the Rebels”. So the government is taken over by protestors and the people who disagree are the rebels?

The commenter commented on my review of American Sniper:

The is the second time you have praised this movie, and the second time you have sounded like some kind of stupid conservative with your comment “Who did it both for American freedom and..,”, the other being your articles on how White Americans are.

Ive seen this movie, its nothing but stupid mainline conservative shit. For example the quote they show in the trailer, “I love this country and I want to do everything I can to protect it.” Protect it from what? The enemy are here not in the Middle East. This movie is shit.

Sorry but I dont have respect for Veterans, they want to act like we owe them something because they are “Protecting our way of life”. Yeah, right, our way of life, LOL. Fuck this movie.

One comment may ultimately prove that AryanBlood1488 is not actually Dylan Roof and this is all just a coincidence:

To be honest Id trust McDonalds more than Burger King, just because McDonalds stores are usually nicer and they are more famous than Burger King.

But Roof prefers Burger King!

But maybe the SPLC, having found these comments, called the cops and told them to refuse any requests for McDonald’s and force him to eat Burger King instead? Maybe they threatened to have them fired for hatred if they did not comply?

Mark Potok needs to issue a statement on the allegations he conspired and used blackmail to deny legitimate business to McDonald’s, as this comments section research I just did is all but conclusive.

So, Yeah – Whatever, Jews

I don’t know if this SPLC conspiracy theory is true or not – there is no clear proof either way. I guess you’d have to ask Roof. If he did post a couple dozen comments on the site, that obviously doesn’t mean anything, as there is zero on this site which directs people should go shoot old people in churches or commit any other form of violence.

But even if the main message of this site was “hey guy, Blacks rape women so go shoot old Black ladies while they’re praying,” this site would not be responsible for Roof’s actions.

Implying that individuals are not responsible for their own actions and instead blaming people who allegedly influenced their thoughts with ideas is goofy and not really worth responding to. And it is only done with White advocates. Even while the Koran tells Moslems to go kill non-Moslems, the media comes out and defends the Koran and continually chants that Islam is a religion of peace.

This is a news site. We report the news. We have an angle, just as everyone has an angle, but we are no more responsible for the actions of our readers than the Daily Beast is responsible for the actions of their readers.

In other words: We dindu nuffin.

There has been some debate as to what the appropriate position to take on the Charleston shooting is.

While I will not apologize for something which had nothing to do with me, I am opposed to the actions based on principle.

I have always been opposed to non-defensive violence, and there is nothing more bizarre than shooting a bunch of women in a church. If Roof had done some type of Charles Bronson Death Wish vigilante action against actual criminals on the street (which could have been done using the exact same amount of effort), we would be having a different conversation. The people he attacked were by far the least threatening members of the Black community.

If the act was meant to be symbolic, then what was it meant to symbolize?

What could possibly be the reasoning or justification for this act?

I am not condemning these actions out of a desire to not be linked to them. The SPLC is already blaming me for this, saying Roof was a commenter on the site. Obviously they are going to blame our ideology. There is no way of avoiding that. But my own ideology does not have anything to do with shooting up a church. If faceless internet posters using proxies from unknown locations believe that makes me a coward, I am comfortable with that.

Anonymous persons pushing the idea that one of the only people in this movement willing to use his real name and face to promote this type of information is a “coward” because they are against shooting old women in a church very much looks like a Jewish attempt to try to push confused people into promoting this type of thing.

If this shooting did have something to do with our ideology, he would have chosen an actual enemy target. These Black he shot did not even have criminal records, which is something the majority of Blacks have. As such, I don’t accept that it had anything to do with our ideology, and if he wouldn’t have killed people with race war as the stated reason, he would have killed people for some other stated reason.

Roof’s Black friend says that he wasn’t even a racist.

Having said this, I agree with those saying we should not respond to the media defensively. Pointing out that we had nothing to do with it is simply a statement of fact. I have reported on this story as I would any other story – by giving the real truth of the matter. The truth, in this situation, is that this shooting relates to the mental state and drug use of the shooter.

What this shooting really does is give us the opportunity to point out the fact that Blacks commit exponentially more crime against us than we do to them, and the obviousness of this is clearly why the media is allowing this story to drop out of the news cycle so quickly.

Here is a short documentary on the relationship between SSRI anti-depressant medications and mass shootings.

It has yet to come out that Dylann Roof was on these medications when he committed his weird act, but it probably will. In any case, he was admittedly on Suboxyn, which is another mind-altering drug, usually prescribed to people recovering from heroin addiction to help them deal with the symptoms of withdrawal.

There has yet to be a mass-shooter who was not on some form of government-approved psycho-pharmacological drug, and yet this is never, ever discussed by the mainstream media. Pat Buchanan did mention it on The McLaughlin Group this week, but that presumably would have been edited out if it hadn’t been on public television.

Pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest sponsors of all major media, and thus are not allowed to even mention the reality of the psychosis caused by these drugs.

People from all different types of ideologies have engaged in mass-shootings, for alleged political or personal reasons, but the common denominator is drugs. As such, it is the drugs, not the ideology, which needs to be addressed.

Yesterday, I reported on the curious fact that The Guardian was admitting that racists want no association with Dylann Storm Roof’s weird act. Today, as the shooting is beginning its slow exit from the news cycle, there are still no major news sites blaming internet racism for the shooting or calling for a witch-hunt against online haters.

Even while the Council of Conservative Citizens was mentioned by name in the killer’s manifesto, Kyle Rogers is getting minimal heat. The Daily Mail did a typically sensationalistic hit piece on him (where they state multiple times that he once referred to Michael Jackson as an ape), and the Daily Beast whined a bit. But that’s about it.

I’ve gotten a couple inquiries from the MSM, but I get those pretty regularly anyway.

There has been no gigantic media storm of “INTERNET HATE MACHINE EXPOSED.”

I have not seen a single news site calling for an end to free speech on the internet, which I had absolutely expected.

So, why not?

Presumably, the media has no desire to include us in their narrative at all, as it confuses the whole thing. If they talk to us, we are all just going to start listing off statistics about Black-on-White crime. If they link our sites, people are going to see endless lists of instances of Black-on-White crime. Merely acknowledging that we exist is more than they are able to do.

You’ll recall that during Operation: Filthy Jew Bitch the entire media simply referred to us as “an American White supremacist website.” We were never directly linked or even named by any major outlet (save one Jewish paper), even as dozens of articles were written on our operation.

They don’t want people to know who we are because what we are saying makes too much sense, even if people are shown our ideas through a story about a mass-murderer who allegedly subscribed to our ideology.

What It Means

This absolutely shows how much the media fears us. It would have been good if they had come down on us, as few in America actually supporting shutting the bitch down, and we would have at least got the chance to get our message out there after denouncing the shooting.

It also seems to indicate that this Roof shooting was not some sort of psy-op conspiracy, and that the manifesto is real. If this had been the case (and I must admit, I did entertain the idea), the media would have immediately jumped down our throats and demanded censorship of the internet. Instead, they aren’t even mentioning us at all, and simply trying to portray Roof as a typical White person.

I don’t think the story is going to get anywhere near the traction that these cop-killings get, at all, because it is so obvious the guy is drugged-out and not connected to or endorsed by anyone. The only thing they can do is keep saying it means Whites are evil and Blacks are oppressed – there is no massive conspiracy to allege, as they have chosen not to allege a massive conspiracy against internet hatred.

This story is already dying out of the news cycle. No one really knows what to do with it.

Probably, this will be slightly remembered, and when we get press in the future they will say “they believe like that drug guy who killed those old women while they were praying in a church.”

But that’s about it.

The Guardian, in a background story on Dylann Roof’s alleged ideology, has admitted that no one in the right-wing supports shooting old women in church and that Roof is not associated with any group.

Almost exactly 20 years ago, Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing dozens of innocent civilians including 19 babies and toddlers in the hope of triggering a race war that would overthrow the American government.

Instead, his act prompted only revulsion and put any thoughts of a radical right-wing revolution on indefinite hold.

Now Dylann Roof, the young white man who has been charged with killing nine black churchgoers at a Bible-study meeting in Charleston on Wednesday, has met with similar disgust and outrage – from the very people he seemed most anxious to impress.

“If starting a race war is what this kid is about, he did it in the worst possible way,” said Kirk Lyons, a prominent lawyer who has defended Ku Klux Klan members, supporters of the old southern Confederacy and a notorious Holocaust denier.

…

On far-right online comment forums, avowed white nationalists and white supremacists substantially agreed, worrying that the Charleston killings might become an excuse for the government they hate to arrest them, crack down on gun ownership and suppress public displays of the Confederate flag many of them revere.

“More bad news for nationalism, no matter his political beliefs,” one poster, using the name Defend Our Homeland, wrote on the white supremacist site Stormfront.

The available evidence suggests some stark differences between Roof, a troubled kid with no known history of affiliation with extremist groups, and McVeigh, a decorated army veteran who steeped himself in politics on the gun show circuit for more than two years, knew most people in the movement and planned the bombing over a period of months.

It is rather surprising that we don’t appear to be getting directly blamed for this, even while the Council of of Conservative Citizens’ website was mentioned in the manifesto.

I expected there to be a massive witch-hunt going on by now, calling for all websites to be investigated for potential extremism.

I think we are all doing a very good job stating that while we sympathize with the alleged viewpoint of Roof as far as the political situation, we do not in any way condone his actions, which seem to be right out of the prayers of the Blacks and Jews who run America and have been looking for any possible way to prove that White racism is a cause for alarm.

At the same time, we should not approach this defensively. We have nothing to apologize for.

The Guardian also mentioned the possibility that this could have been some type of manufactured event.

One much-forwarded comment on Vanguard News Network this week read: “The whole thing smells of psyops.” Even Lyons said he detected a “Manchurian candidate-ness” to the attack on the Emanuel AME church.

“Where do these guys come from, all over-medicated and weird looking?” he said. “I’m just wondering what’s going on here … There’s a lot of people in the system that benefit from racial antagonism.

“I don’t know – I don’t have any evidence. But the conspiracy nut in me thinks there’s maybe something.”

Though we here at The Daily Stormer generally stay away from this type of theorizing, the whole situation is so “too good to be true” for the establishment that I think that the possibility must be seriously considered that there was some type of strange happenings surrounding this event.

The fact that Roof’s best friend was Black, that a third of his Facebook friends were Black, is obviously strange. There is some speculation as to when the manifesto was last edited (it may have been after the attack took place), as well as speculation as to whether Roof even wrote the manifesto.

And as Lyons says – where do these drugged-out looking people who commit these acts come from? It may merely be that they are a product of a sick society, or it may be something weirder.