On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, a 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine blacks gathered for Bible study with a 45. pistol, then fled the scene. He was arrested the next day in North Carolina and returned to Charleston less than a day after the killings.
As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. This was a terrible act, an act that was illegal under slavery, illegal under Jim Crow, and illegal today. I hope Storm receives a fair trial and just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the racially charged atmosphere in America today.
We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but apparently the killings were racially motivated. Still, I can say three things with confidence.
First, this could not have happened in a homogeneously white society. I have no desire to absolve Dylann Roof, much less blame his victims. But he would not be a killer, and they would not be dead, if blacks and whites did not live in the same society. When different races are forced to live together in the same system, frictions are inevitable. These frictions give rise to misunderstandings, distrust, alienation, and long-simmering resentments, which flare up into hatred, violence, and social upheaval. Dylan Roof’s actions are predictable consequences of multiculturalism — as are the far more numerous racially-motivated hate crimes committed by blacks against whites, crimes which the establishment and media prefer to ignore.
Blacks and whites have shared North America for almost 400 years, and race relations are getting worse rather than better. If this were a marriage, we would have filed for divorce long ago. Thus the New Right stands for the principle of racial divorce. It is time for whites and blacks to go our separate ways and pursue their our own destinies. We stand for the creation of separate racially homogeneous societies, through the peaceful and humane process of redrawing borders and shifting populations.
In the case of recent immigrant populations, the best solution is for them to return to their homelands. I also think that is the best solution for groups like Jews, Japanese, and Chinese who have been in America for a long time but still maintain strong ties to their homelands. In the case of indigenous peoples and some older immigrant populations (including the descendants of African slaves), territorial partition would seem to be in order.
Second, we should resist dismissing Dylann Roof with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” Sure, he looks dweeby and autistic. Sure, there are reports of illegal drug use, which is often both an effect and a cause of mental illness. Sure, there are reports that he was prescribed mind-altering legal drugs as well.
But I am not going to simply disown Dylann Roof and label him “one of them”: one of those evil, crazy white racists who are fundamentally different from the rest of us, the “good,” “sane,” “tolerant” white people. For the truth is, Dylann Storm Roof is “one of us.”
By “one of us,” I simply mean that he is a white man, and all white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even those who pursue wealth and status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.
Roof and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Roof may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Roof at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
Third, Roof’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people — just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. There is no evidence so far that Roof was affiliated with or influenced by any white racialist group. But his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Anders Behring Breivik, Wade Michael Page, and Frazier Glenn Miller, all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.
By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.
This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.
Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.
Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence. Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way, and we don’t have to all be rocket scientists to do it, since anyone of even moderate intelligence can make real progress by simply repeating Bob Whitaker’s talking points about white genocide.
Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not random innocents. Moreover, killing innocent people (at a place of worship!) has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for the victims. (Even I feel sympathy for them, and I would deport them all tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose gun rights must be taken away.
So Roof’s choice of targets was superficial and frankly stupid. (Yes, he killed a state senator. But what are the chances that he knew that?) Was he even thinking about the greater good of our people? Or was he merely indulging in blind, self-destructive spite? And how exactly does praising repugnant killers help White Nationalists establish ourselves as representatives of the long-term best interests of our people?
I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, and (2) we need draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches.
I just hope I don’t have to do this often. But apparently it will be often enough that I have been able to dust off one of my previous spree-killer essays and merely change a few particulars.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 409 Robert Stark on His New Novel Vaporfornia
La politique identitaire blanche est morale, Partie 2
Audio Versions of Recent Articles
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 407 Gregory Hood on “Their Democracy”
The Worst Week Yet: January 9-16, 2022
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Resources at Counter-Currents
Remembering Yukio Mishima (January 14, 1925–November 25, 1970)
Politique identitaire blanche : inévitable, nécessaire, morale, Partie 1