Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 21, 2015
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.