Print this post Print this post

Understanding the Charleston Church Massacre

roof1,292 words

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.



  1. New-Right Thinker
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    If White people had a country of our own, this wouldn’t be happening.

  2. Bjørn
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 2:14 am | Permalink

    Excellent article. I could not agree more on the narrative that we, as the new right, have to go about our mission by intellectual means primarily, and not by violence.
    But your sentence “Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose gun rights must be taken away.” contains a bit more sinister truth than what seems to be your general take on the incidence.
    I do believe we have an enemy here that has manipulated Dylann Storm Roof into these actions. He may be a violent old right loner, but just as in Anders Bering Breivik’s case, I do not believe he operated alone. I think ideas like Mossad’s ‘war through deception’ is part of the backstage.

  3. Posted June 20, 2015 at 4:04 am | Permalink

    You are right Greg, the South Carolina bloodbath was counter productive as well as criminally insane. We can advance our cause without using extremist language or tolerating mental defectives. Spending forty years in prison spaced out on Prozac, or being killed by the State, achieves nothing. We need writers and thinkers not assassins.

  4. R_Moreland
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 4:07 am | Permalink

    Supposing some time in the near future a Dylann Storm Roof approaches any of the White Nationalist, Race Realist or Alternative Right websites and says, “Look, I am tired of seeing white nations lose territory to third world invaders, of our people being assaulted by pathological minorities, of the national media promoting the destruction of the white race. How can I do something constructive?”

    What’s the answer?

    Is there some organization out there which can mobilize such young people and have them do positive work for White Nationalism?

    Look at how the Left operates. They have fronts for students and for artists and for lawyers and for people who want to go to Cuba and harvest sugar cane. Heck, the Revolutionary Communist Party used to have a youth brigade which tried to enlist ravers who were disgruntled with crackdowns on dance parties. In other words, the Left has an organization, an apparatus if you like. The apparatus can channel otherwise destructive impulses into useful political activism. And there’s a payoff such as we see in the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore.

    But how does a Dylann Storm Roof join the White side in North America?

    As for the church shooting itself: whether Roof was a sincere white warrior who believed he was committing an act of revolutionary violence, a drugged up punk looking for a venue to rampage, or a MK-Ultra puppet on a mission from the Illuminati — who cares? Incidents such as this one take on lives of their own. The image counts, not the reality. Look at Che Guevara and Nelson Mandela. Both committed more than their share of terrorism. The Left turned one into a pop icon and another into the patron saint of brotherhood. It’s the beret, beard and slightly sinister grin that sell the t-shirts and have liberals sniffling over rainbow nations and unicorns.

    So it gets back to Dylann Storm Roof. Right now, there are a lot of people who are getting their ideas from the mainstream media. And judging from my conversations, they see him either as either (a) one of those crazed white supremacist gun nuts they’ve been warned about by the thought police; or (b) at best some armed loner on drugs.

    But the buzz which the media is creating can be exploited by WN. The issue of white resistance is now on the national table. People are receptive to ideas. The Matrix has been disrupted and there are those seeking the Red Pill.

    How about: this incident demonstrates why America needs to listen to the “voices” of real white people. Because if not, we may see more incidents like this, and we really do not want that, right?
    Or: let’s take a look at the statistics on who is committing a disparate amount of inter-racial violence (hint: it’s not whites).
    Or: why does the media cover up black-on-white crime but go bonkers over white-on-black.
    Or: since Roof apparently has the old Rhodesian and South Africa flags affixed to his jacket, let’s look at what has happened to white people in those countries ever since blacks got “majority rule.” And will that happen to you and your family when whites become minorities in their own countries?

    Orwell provides some mighty fine scenarios of how to switch public outrage from target to target, the enemy going from Eurasia to Eastasia in the click of a microphone. And it’s worth digging out that old tape of Wag the Dog and giving it a new look-see.

    Let’s see if this incident can be spun into building an apparatus. Let’s see the next Dylann Storm Roof enlist on the side of his fellow white people.

  5. Verlis
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.

    I’d put it a little differently. I’d say these sorts of incidents result from the deplorable influence of the Willy Pierce school of race-relations, a chief principle of which is: race, therefore war. That’s to say, race matters, so kill everyone. If one buys into the Pierce school’s premises, if races, when you get down to it, are nothing but evolutionary competitors, if non-white existence cannot help but offer negative value to whites, then killing everyone is at least justifiable but more likely simply necessary. It’s hardly surprising that someone who thinks along such lines would eventually decide that he knows exactly what is required to advance his racial interests: start a race war!

    Also, Roof misjudged the circumstances. He wanted his act to precipitate a race war. Had he instead been aware that whites are already in a “race war” and have been losing it for decades – institutionalized anti-whitism is the order of the day – he might have acted differently. He might have realized that massacring church-goers would play directly into the opposition’s hands, supplying them with “proof” of what they’re so desperate to believe – that blacks are innocent lambs and whites are always and everywhere the guilty party. This is why the metapolitical work that sites like CC carry out is so crucial.

  6. Petronius
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    That guy has an annoying name if I ever saw one. Were his parents retards? What’s the business of Dylan with a double-n???

    I’m not sure whether this would no happened if the USA was an all-white country. The choice of victims would have been different, but there is probably more about American non-culture that creates such things. School shootings have occured in Finland or Germany. They have become export articles, and come all along with the spread of Americanisation.

    Thinking of the Sandy Hook massacre and other spree killings where white people or people regardless of race of women are targeted, I wonder if the racial aggression is really that crucial a point in this case. Psychos pick all kinds of targets, harbour all kinds of obsessions to release their tension, and this guy got hooked on multiracialism dysphoria, and, well, “overreacted”. In the end, this has nothing to do with politics. From a political point of view it was the stupidest and most destructive thing one could think off. But again, I would not over-analyze it. This was definitely a pathological case, as sad and insane as it gets.

  7. Peter Quint
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    I agree with this article with one exception. If we had white countries of our own these incidents would be greatly reduced. Fratricidal wars, serial killers, pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, violence, drug and alcohol abuse will always be a considerable factor as long as Christianity is the dominant religion. An authentic racial religion promotes spirituality and cohesiveness; it does not destroy it. Christianity energizes and elevates the wrong kind of individual to power. Christianity has pursued a two-fold strategy from the beginning; it suppresses, diffuses, and pacifies white dissidence and it energizes, focuses, and militarizes non-white dissidence. In over 2000 years Christianity has not made a success that redounded to the benefit of the white race, nor has it committed an error that redounded to the benefit of the white race. Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; TRICE IS PLANNED!

    Posted June 20, 2015 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Excellent text of Greg Johnson. The worst thing we can do for our Cause is acting like Roof. He was a product of modern world, where emotions dominate over rational thinking. People like him should read more Evola than playing stupid computer games.
    Best regards from Poland!

  9. Sandy
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    An interesting essay which echoed a few pithy comments that Greg has made over the years was written by on the harm that these loonies do (although they do all seem to be on anti-depressants?).

    The bit on why we don’t support our advocates the way our enemies support theirs was particularly good. Gosh, Greg, if you would only trim your beard and wear more sensible ties I might send you $2!!!!!!!

  10. Tom Raleigh
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    The truth is that the people in our movement trying most to distance themselves from Roof’s actions are the very ones most responsible for them. Roof is really a victim in all of this, he is just a white man that wanted to do something positive for our race whereas those in our movement who should be directing the fears and desires of young white men to do something positive for their race are too busy worrying about page views, personal finances and maintaining a respectable image.

    If there is one thing WNs need to understand its that we will never accomplish anything without real world activism. WNs don’t need “eActivism” or “metapolitical frameworks” we need to meet and organize in real life. Going further, since America is such a large place, and since we need to meet and organize in the real world, we also need get as many activists to move to one region as possible (and anybody with any understanding of our situation will conclude that only the Pacific Northwest fits the bill).

    Again as a committed WN in his mid-twenties I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Roof. The articles written to give advice to young WNs that I’ve come across in the WN-sphere normally advise young WNs to build families and careers. Is this really what we want to tell our young committed activists, who want to commit their lives to the movement? Personally I think this is awful advice. Do we really want our most committed people to have to worry about sustaining a family? sending their children to multi-cultural hellholes? having their children rebel against them? working jobs which will sustain multi-cultural society? paying taxes which will benefit non-whites? and siphoning their time which could go toward activism working a job?

    I also would like to say that it is the moral obligation of all WNs to do everything they can to implement the 14 Words and bring a White Nation into existence as soon as possible. The sooner we accomplish this the more crimes we can prevent against our people, the stronger we can make our state, the more we can develop a culture uniquely our own, and the more white children we can bring into a world with a place for them. Every WN needs to ask him/herself whether their time is being spent productively and if not, how can he/she make improvements?

    This incident prompted me to go on the online-WN sphere for the first time in months. Years ago I reached a point when I simply grew tired of reading about the never ending list of horrors being inflicted on our people and the increasingly degenerate state of society and decided to try to do something about it. I would advise all WNs to try to find local people to meet with through the local stormfront board, through local WN organizations, and through militias. I’ve personally met many individuals and since I’ve started to become involved in real-world WN I feel far more self-respect and feel far more productive than I ever did when my WN activities was limited to typing behind a computer screen. So too would I advise moving to the Pacific Northwest, which I unfortunately have not yet done, since this will be the battleground from which we will secure the existence of our people and build a future for white children.

    Lastly, I think having public discussions over the internet is not very productive when it comes to talking about organization and strategy and so WNs should be better about dispersing (pseudonymous) contact information with their comments. Now that this incident has started to blow over, I’m probably going to go back into “hybernation” so to speak, but if anybody has read my comment and wants to have a deeper conversation about possible solutions and the NW strategy, feel free to contact me at [email protected].

  11. Posted June 20, 2015 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    From a White Nationalist perspective if a person strangled a baby would that be classified as an act of evil? Or would the question of the baby’s ethnicity need to be established first in order to determine if it qualified as evil or not ? If this future White Nation is to appear in any real sense not just as an idea, what place will decency, compassion & ethics have in it ? Or are these no longer Aryan virtues ?

    • John
      Posted June 24, 2015 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

      I am not sure what your point is, Jeff. What are your views on segregation and the biological differences between whites and non-whites?

  12. Lew
    Posted June 20, 2015 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    CC readers,

    I’ll send you the price of a nice dinner with your wife/husband if you can give me screen cap proof of major media quoting the line about turning Jews blue.

  13. Celestial Time
    Posted June 21, 2015 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    I usually like what Greg writes. This is really no exception. But I do want to ask about something that may seem trivial. Since certain quivering lumps of flesh are too scared to actually address something not covered in Politics 101 or at Ma & Pa’s sociology shindig, I figured I would see if Greg could expand a little on his “I feel sympathy for them” statement. This isn’t directed at you, Greg, but more in your general direction:

    Should any innocent people anywhere in the world be gunned down, raped or assaulted in any way, whether they be in church, their home, a shopping center, or just walking down the street? Of course not. But why is that a question that you feel you must assertively answer as though you held a contrary position before this shooting? Why must you jump through hoops to repudiate a person whom you had no association with, and who, when presented with the fact that he had many black Facebook friends and black personal friends, was the antithesis of the type of racial separation that you claim to be a proponent of?

    Is the media going through its own little inquisitional process and having to incessantly explain its hand in creating a society full of racial animosity, and a society where law and order and civility are slowly eroded because they might offend the delicate sensibilities of blacks? Do any of the anti-White groups and people get put under the microscope when tens of thousands of victims of black-on-White murders and other violent crimes happen every single year? Is the pharmaceutical industry expected to atone for the fact that it has helped to create a drug-addled society full of zombies with homicidal impulses? That would be a resounding NO on all accounts.

    At the end of the day, you’re doing the exact same thing that many pro-Whites have always felt the need to do when facing opposition—go on the defensive and expend a great deal of energy trying to convince people that you are just like them, when what you should still be doing is trying to convince them that they should be more like you. How do you do this? Unwittingly, you do this by keeping up the narrative that “innocence” and “outrage” and “sympathy” are relative to how black the victims happen to be. It all comes down to how much you can focus on the rare occurrence of actual White-on-black crimes, while never getting even more vocal and incensed that the outrage against the more common attacks on your people is never reciprocated. You’ve convinced yourself that you are making positive PR moves and doing something groundbreaking by joining the professional Mea Culpa Club. As the years go by, you will slowly come to understand that indifference is probably one of the most powerful leverage tools you can possess. It’s right up there with empathy. Most people just have no idea how to use indifference properly, so they double down on the sympathy and empathy and hope they can ingratiate themselves to people that never cared about them before. This only works when you are squaring off against other people who don’t know how to use indifference. I can assure you that many of the anti-White architects are master manipulators and understand indifference better than you might believe you understand empathy and sympathy.

    To anyone who views sympathy as a reflexive characteristic or feeling that must given freely, then feel free to leak and gush until you’ve convinced yourself you’ve met the required dosage and that it’s actually helping your revolutionary idea to move forward. After you’re done, take a look at where you are on the socioeconomic and political landscape as a racialist and compare that to where the anti-Whites are. I can guarantee you that you will be in the same position of backpedalling and losing ground as you were the day before. Nothing will have changed all that much. Someone perceptive enough might even make a case that sympathy was strategically used to curtail your previous anger and throw a little water on that flame that was starting to grow brighter. As callous as it might seem, you might have been better off not caring at all.

    Frankly, part of the reason the pro-White sphere — I’m mainly talking about the USA — fails to organize is that it hasn’t learned to not care about things that shouldn’t matter all too much, and to unabashedly and unapologetically care more about what actually does matter most. Why do I care about some things? Because it’s the only way to save my people. Why do I refuse to care about other things? Because it’s the only way to save save my people.

    Unless someone is willing and able to detach themselves from the emotional/reactionary chip that has been indoctrinated and embedded into them since birth, then they really have no business pretending that they are capable of achieving revolutionary ideas in an atmosphere where only the most single-minded revolutionaries have gained ground. You either learn to accept the transmutation and evolution of emotion that is necessary for survival, or you just sit back, enjoy the spiraling descent and wait to die.

    The bottom line is that WE(pro-Whites) should be directing the narrative in what matters to Whites, not them(anti-Whites). Why is it mandatory for an entire nation to care about nine blacks being killed, like we are all Pavlov’s little project waiting for the right stimuli, while the entire spectrum of media, academia and government distorts reality in order to completely ignore the thousands and thousands and thousands of Whites being murdered and assaulted every single year? If we’re being all fair and equal and all that lovey dovey stuff, then shouldn’t not only Whites care about this obvious genocidal hypocrisy, but shouldn’t non-Whites care just as much? Can you name a non-White group or website that is geared toward shining a light on this truth? Probably not—I can’t. So if they have a tactical advantage by not caring when I care, then I really don’t have a logical reason to care when they care. The only logical conclusion one could make is that it is a weakness or liability as long as we are sharing territory.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 21, 2015 at 2:37 am | Permalink

      I think you are overthinking this. I said I feel sympathy for these people because I do. And I am not normally warmly disposed towards blacks. In fact, I don’t want to share the same society with them.

      But I know what you are worried about. There is a verse from the book of Proverbs 28:1: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Meaning that men with guilty consciences seek to justify themselves even when nobody is asking them to. There is definitely a bit of that going on. For instance, I think Andrew Anglin protests a bit too much.

      But I also think we need to guard against being and seeming embittered. Bitterness is the tendency of damaged and angry people to basically switch off their moral faculties when confronted with the pain of others until the cosmos acknowledges their pain. Bitterness is basically a kind of neurosis, because bitter people lose contact with reality because their psyches are too scarred by suffering. Here’s an example of embittered, morally imbecilic commentary on this event from Age of Treason:

      Syndicated negro columnist Leonard Pitts on the Knoxville Horror:

      “I am … unkindly disposed toward the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand. I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized. Cry me a river.”

      Just as a reminder, he’s referring to the brutal torture, rape, and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

      Psychopathy and animal-like viciousness are found even in the “smart’ blacks. They cheered when OJ escaped justice. They taunt the family members of murdered Whites during their courtroom trials. When Whites ask for a little sympathy from blacks, blacks mock them. They simply don’t care, not even when it’s White children like Autumn Pasquale who are strangled to death by empty-eyed, empty-headed negro animals.

      Cry me a river. That’s my response to the dead blacks in that church, as well as slavery, Jim Crow, and every other so-called “injustice” on our part.

  14. cecilhenry
    Posted June 21, 2015 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    The SJW keep saying ‘Say no to racism’

    WE must respond: ‘Say NO to White Genocide’ NO.

    And keep saying it.

  15. Greg Johnson
    Posted June 21, 2015 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Let me pose a question to you. Money is chronically short in our movement. I know I could do a lot more if I had the capital to hire another full-time person. Contributing to a hypothetical Dylann Roof defense fund is basically pissing away money on a kid with NO FUTURE — a kid who THREW AWAY his future — when that money that could be better spent capitalizing our cause and making it more effective. Do we really want to send a message to ZOG that they can clean our movement out, and defund our own projects, simply by setting somebody up every couple of years (like Chester Doles, for instance)?

    I think it is, however, worthwhile to compile documentation that Roof’s beliefs about our racial situation are well founded. I want to thank the people who have contributed to it so far.

    • NC
      Posted June 25, 2015 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      « Do we really want to send a message to ZOG that they can clean our movement out, and defund our own projects, simply by setting somebody up every couple of years (like Chester Doles, for instance)? »

      Do we really want to send a message to ZOG that they can do that whenever they want and we won’t do anything about it?

      Do we really want to send a message to potential recruits that we will not help them if they are set up by ZOG?

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted June 25, 2015 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        I think movement people should make the system pay for their defense, not the movement.

  16. Simple reader
    Posted June 21, 2015 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    I never posted on this website although I’ve read a few pages of it.

    I applaud Greg Johnson’s condemnation of this gruesome and awful attack. However I think to claim that racially homogenous societies would solve conflicts is being too optimistic. At times when the United States had an 80% white population race riots were not uncommon between different white communities. Take for example the lynching of 11 italians in NO back in 1891 or the 1908 anti-Greek riot in Omaha where a mostly Irish mob burned down the community neighborhood.

    Tomislav Sunic elaborated on this: “”In the Europe of tomorrow, in the possible best of all the worlds — even with the aliens gone for good, it is questionable whether the climate will be conducive to great brotherly hugs between the Irish and the English, between the Basques and Castilians, between the Serbs and the Croats, between the Corsicans and the French. Let’s be honest. The whole history of Europe, the entire history of Europeans over the last two millennia has resulted in endless fratricidal wars. This still applies to “l’Europe orientale”, namely “Eastern Europe,” which continues to be plagued by interethnic hatreds. The latest example is the recent war between two similar peoples, Serbs and Croats. Who could guarantee us that the same won’t happen tomorrow again even under the presumption that the influx of Asians and Africans would come to an end?”

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 21, 2015 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

      Racially and ethnically homogeneous societies are the best solutions to strife. Even ethnic diversity among Europeans is a cause of strife, which means that grandiose nationalist ideas of European unity are prescriptions for disaster as well.

    • Celestial Time
      Posted June 21, 2015 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that racial separation and homogenous societies would completely solve/eradicate conflicts. It’s safe to say that the human condition pushes people to eventually find conflict wherever they are exposed to other people, and where resources become less abundant and “diversity” slowly replaces homogeneity. It’s just that some races and combination of races in a single society are very adept at causing and creating conflict.

      The cases you’ve stated are generally pointed to as recent immigrant populations either being slow to assimilate or being perceived as refusing to assimilate. In many cases it was truly a clash of cultures and people not understanding the customs, but it was most certainly and obviously not a clash of races in most cases. Sure, there were some groups viewed as “not White” or “not White enough,” but that sentiment faded as those groups proved that assimilation was a value that they knew they must provide.

      There’s a reason you had to use examples of late 19th and early 20th century. That reason is because that was the time when the European immigrant population was at its height. The country was still young, still looking to establish a solid identity and assert its position in the world. It’s not surprising that there was conflict.

      What you conveniently fail to mention, however, is that after one or, at most, two generations, the lines of separation slowly faded and animosity toward various groups faded as well. White people simply became White Americans. Italians were able to assimilate. Greeks were able to assimilate. Irish were able to assimilate. There was still division and still small rifts between various ethnicities, but assimilation was achieved because White people inevitably have an easier time identifying with White people. For the most part, only the first stages of immigration were the most tumultuous and caused the most conflict, as things progressively improved as time went on. There were things like Italian streets and Italian neighborhoods, but we’re not talking about an ethnic identity that was in total conflict and clashing daily with the traditional WASPy majority.

      Compare that to the black and brown populations and you have something totally different. What you see with the black population is a group that really seems to make things progressively worse as time goes by and they become more entrenched in a society. No White area on the planet that I’ve heard of has an influx of black people and magically decreases its crime rate and improves race relations. They just don’t have the ability to amalgamate into a society to any great degree without falling behind and eventually blaming those ahead of them for their failures.

      What you see with the brown population is almost a perpendicular kind of growth as far as national identity goes. As they grow, they become less inclined to assimilate and pretty much try to steer things in a direction that will cement their racial/ethnic position in society as dominant and ultimately supplanting the current majority. More and more of them will now emphatically tell you that this is true. They don’t hide it. They don’t wan’t to be “American,” they want America to be more like them. Multicultural/Multiracial America Inc. agrees with them.

      You pose an odd question asking about a guarantee that there won’t be conflict in a more monolithic and homogenous society. Odd because you’re the proverbial cynic standing naked in a never-ending rainstorm with no shelter in sight, wanting a guarantee that should you choose a different path, you won’t be stuck standing naked in a rainstorm with no shelter in sight. How about a guarantee that this fantasy of a multiracial utopia will some day produce an ounce of proof that it does anything but degrade society and cause strife… can anyone guarantee that? I can start listing examples of more homogeneous societies producing more stable and viable nations, with much less animosity, crime and tension. I just can’t seem to find even one example of a multiracial society coming close to doing the same. But you want a guarantee that more racially homogeneous societies won’t ever find themselves in conflict? Like I said, really odd question.

  17. witty tongue
    Posted June 22, 2015 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Basically speaking, homogenous society = Utopia !

  18. White Rose
    Posted June 22, 2015 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    It just seems to me that this is right out of a movie plot, perhaps penned for a nice Steven Shekelberg production. Evil anti-government White nationalist guns down innocent blacks in church, by the Gods it has the stink of Hollywood all over it. You can almost see these idiots trying to actually recreate the chaotic hell that must have been the Sixties. How interesting that Obama had a little meeting with Spielberg and Katzenberg almost immediately after the event, in order to discuss gun control.

    I don’t believe White Nationalists are the intended target for the anti-Whites from this event. My belief is that they will be coming for a full-blown attack on gun ownership and freedom of speech, and it’s just icing on the cake to continue to make swipes at White nationalists. They can feel their house of cards starting to come apart and they are just going balls to the wall and pushing every bit of agenda that they hope will collapse what is left of Western Civilization (please see transsexual and trans-racial productions that aired early in the month). I think it will have the opposite effect that is intended, however, which is why most of these evil clowns have their dual-citizenship to take them “home” should things get a little out-of-hand.

    It’s a good time, as others have already mentioned, to step out from just being a presence online and moving into real life activism. There are many ways to advocate for White rights that will not necessarily entail getting physically targeted by hate groups like Anti-fa, and our people have never been more ready. In fact, I think most Whites will be surprised how very sane and reasonable the sentiments are in that manifesto. If they can get beyond the expected White guilt for relating to those sentiments, we may be closer to deconstructing the multicultural Berlin Wall and ending the nigh 2000 year parasitic reign of terror on our people in a non-violent and permanent sort of way. Gods willing.

  19. Posted June 23, 2015 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    ” 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.”


  20. Posted June 23, 2015 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    In fact, the SPLC has decided to pitch in and help, using the NYTimes:

    They are happy to help the White Genocide meme grow, so long as they can grow with it.

    Hopefully pro-Whites all over the world will take their cue from Dees and Cohen in that piece and realize that hammering the White Genocide meme is where the action is at.

    So much better than when media cued pro-Whites that nazi uniforms and nazi flags was where the action was at.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace