If you were to see someone making the following statement, where would you peg him as standing on the ideological spectrum?
“There’s a certain ritual of apology that white people and all white advocacy groups are expected to go through immediately following any incident of white violence. . . . This expectation we place on white people, to be absolutely clear, is anti-white bigotry. The denunciation is a form of apology: an apology for being white. The implication is that every white person is under suspicion of being sympathetic to white violence unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. There is no legitimate reason for white racial advocacy groups to need to condemn Dylann Roof or Stephen Paddock.”
What about this one?
“While politicians and anti-whites continue to pressure whites into nonsensical apologies based on our identity, many whites have, unfortunately, internalized the narrative of collective responsibility, leading them to issue condemnations of acts of violence and terrorism based only on the fact that we share the same color of skin. Coupled with the ever present voice of those calling for whites to speak out against white racist violence, those who have stepped up to this plate . . . [have merely internalized] the dominant narrative where whites are guilty until proven innocent.”
If you’re a regular consumer of mainstream media, or a liberal, you’d probably assume that both of these statements were made by people you’d label “Nazis.” The worst group of white people possible—because any white person who would react to another white person committing an act of mass violence and leaving dead bodies in the streets by making the issue about how they’re the victims because of their skin color would be a downright piece of shit. For God’s sake, why not just make it clear you think violence is bad?
Actually, the first quote is amended from a 2015 article from the liberal outlet Vox titled: “Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It’s bigoted and Islamophobic.” The second one is amended from an article by a Muslim woman at the “peace & collaborative development network” titled “I’m sorry I won’t internalize collective responsibility.” Non-whites are routinely allowed to say things, openly and publicly and with the tacit support of the media outlets sharing their words, which become open bigotry that we could only imagine coming from the lowest of the low the moment they’re placed in the mouths of whites.
Nevermind if there is in fact legitimate cause for concern, revealed in polls which find that 27% of American Muslims under the age of 30 “decline to express an opinion” when asked how they view al–Qaeda, or which find that 78% of Muslims in the UK believe anyone who publishes cartoons of Muhammad should be punished by law (which strongly suggests that nearly as many might support vigilante justice which picks up the slack when the laws fail to uphold justice properly). I don’t really need to spell out what the mainstream reaction would be if a single poll ever found that almost 30% of whites “declined to express an opinion” when asked how they felt about the KKK.
And yet, we still continually see things like this:
Just today, I saw liberals in a comment section repeating the trope that Dylann Roof was given a bulletproof vest by the police who captured him because of “white privilege.”
Well, here’s a history lesson: in October of 2002, 42-year-old convicted murderer and Nation of Islam member John Allen Muhammad and his 17-year-old partner Lee Boyd Malvo planned to kill six white people per day “to terrorize the nation,” including plans to bomb school buses and children’s hospitals: “He wanted to kill a policeman, then set off a bomb at his funeral.” Over the course of three weeks, ten people were killed and three more were critically injured.
Guess what it looked like when Lee Malvo was captured by police?
That white thing is a bullet proof vest, assholes.
And this is a great place to address another prevalent meme . . .
In 1993, Nathan Dunlap gunned down 5 people in a Chuck E. Cheese’s in Colorado to “get even” after he was fired for declining to work extra hours. The Colorado Observertells us that “In their clemency petition, they contend that Dunlap . . . had undiagnosed bipolar disorder and was experiencing his first mania episode the night of Dec. 14, 1993 . . .” when he opened fire.
A CBS News article on “Mass Shootings and Mental Illness” discusses “Colin Ferguson [who, in 1993] killed six commuters on a New York Train.”
In 2009, Maurice Clemmons murdered four police officers and continued to evade capture for two further days—“the largest number of law enforcement officers killed by one man in a single incident in U.S. history.” The Huffington Post published an article titled: “Maurice Clemmons: Mental Illness Does Cause Violence.”
At The Washington Post, we see that “[DC sniper] Muhammad’s attorneys had argued that the sniper is mentally ill and that he should have been granted a competency hearing before his trial, at which he represented himself briefly.” And The Associated Press published the following headline about his accomplice: “Psychologist: Malvo Has Mental Disease.” In fact, Malvo was even spared the death penalty for his part in that racist rampage because of his presumed mental disease (dissociative disorder from brainwashing).
Of course, the real argument here is that conservative whites only want to talk about mental illness as a disingenuous way of humanizing a perpetrator, and bring sympathy to them, when they want to achieve these things because the perpetrator was white.
But they’re wrong here, too. The last time the national media had its full attention focused because a black guy published a manifesto and then went out killing, guess what the white conservatives at The American Thinker did? They published articles about the social impacts of mental illness and the consequences of psychotropic drugs.These leftists are so desperate to imagine double standards in conservative points of view that aren’t there that they keep screeching on about them even when they haven’t actually read a damn word those conservatives have written.
If you don’t remember that case, it began in February of 2013 when a black ex-cop, Christopher Dorner, declared “unconventional and asymmetric warfare” on the LAPD in response to his firing from the department. As one of his first actions, he shot Monica Quan and her fiancé Keith Lawrence in the parking garage of their condominium simply because Monica was the daughter of Randal Quan, who had represented him at the hearing where he reported Theresa Evans for an alleged case of excessive force—even though Randal had opposed his firing.
Large numbers of leftists found this “kind of exciting,” as did the Distinguished Professor of African American Studies at Columbia University, Marc Lamont Hill, when he said: “he’s been like a real–life superhero to many people. . . . many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people; they’re rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watching ‘Django Unchained’ in real life.”
White serial killers are deranged symptoms of mindless indoctrination into a racist culture . . . but black serial killers are kind of cool. How prevalent were these kinds of views among the general public?
A number of much larger pages were shut down on Facebook in February 2013—for example, see the broken link in the third paragraph of this 2013 article—but one of the largest Facebook fan pages for Christopher Dorner still has nearly 17,000 fans. The I Support Christopher Dorner page, with more than 13,000 fans, was started by someone who, according to The Huffington Post, wanted to steer the conversation away from Dorner’s mental health: “I knew that the media was going to turn this into just another ‘He’s a psycho ex-cop ex-military that went insane’ story . . . There is a huge underlying story of police corruption and the plight of a man that tried his best to do good and was relentlessly punished for it.”
Hold up just a second, here. Talking about mental illness is a despicable way to humanize white killers, and only white killers, by making us sympathize with their plight and personal struggles, and we only do this for white killers because we’re racists who only want to humanize whites . . . but when we do it for non-white killers, we’re simply dismissing non-white killers’ valid grievances.
Bloody fucking hell, which one is it?
Just like white society was blamed for refusing to police the problem when the crack epidemic first began in the 1960s—but now white society is blamed for creating the war on drugs as a racist conspiracy. Just like whites are slurred as racists for “gentrifying” non-white areas when they enter, and yet still slurred as racists for “white flight” when they leave. If we mention a white killer’s mental condition, we’re racists who want to humanize them; and if we mention a non-white killer’s mental condition, we’re racists who want to dehumanize them by dismissing their legitimate concerns.
Multiracial societies inevitably turn everything into an issue of race.
As far as the number of Facebook followers these Christopher Dorner fan pages have, the closest white parallel to Christopher Dorner would be cop–killer Eric Frein. Guess how many ‘likes’ the largest Eric Frein page has? 400. In other words, the Christopher Dorner pages have more than 40 times as many adoring followers. So just when exactly are we allowed to draw grandiose lessons about the current state of American culture from facts like these?!
“Terrorism” and “Lone Wolves”
When Muslim U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Hassan, who opposed our involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, killed 13 people and injured 30 more after extended contact with Anwar al–Awlaki, the U.S. government did not classify this as “terrorism.”
Officially, this was designated as an act of “workplace violence.”
Guess how reports described Hasan? Socially isolated and stressed.
Officials even described him as a “lone wolf.”
The BBC and The Washington Times both described the Tsarnaev brothers who worked together to perpetrate the Boston Marathon bombing as “lone wolves.” Omar Mateen, the previous holder of the record for most deadly mass shooting in recent history, was described as a “lone wolf” by the New York Times and the FBI. So were the San Bernardino attackers.
Again, multiracial societies inevitably turn everything into an issue of race—but there is absolutely nothing racial about the application of the phrase “lone wolf” at all.
In 2010, a 43-year-old Asian man named James Lee entered the Discovery Channel building and proceeded to take hostages, carrying a handgun and wearing what he wanted observers to believe was an explosive device. His motives were revealed in a manifesto originally posted at SaveThePlanetProtest.com:
The Discovery Channel and its affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots . . . on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. . . . Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! . . . Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet! . . . Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. . . . For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!
Despite the obvious ideology of Lee’s manifesto, it’s safe to say no one should hold their breath waiting on the mainstream media, or Alternet or Salon, to pin even any partial blame for Lee’s action on people like Al Gore, or extreme predictions like his 2007 statement that the polar icecaps would be completely melted by 2013, a prediction which “if anything . . . is already too conservative.” (In fact, that prediction that was “proven to be off . . . by 920,000 square miles”; 2013 blew away the record for icecap growth). Suddenly, the same people raving that talking about mental illness is just a disingenuous “way to avoid saying other terms like ‘toxic masculinity’” will realize that it’s perfectly sensible to think Lee might have been both mentally unstable and influenced by environmentalist rhetoric to go to this extreme because he was hearing and interpreting everything he heard through an unbalanced mental state.
On February 10, 2015, a white man in Chapel Hill, North Carolina walked into the home of three Syrian- and Jordanian-Americans, killing them execution-style. A few early reports claimed in haste that the man, Craig Stephen Hicks, was a “Christian terrorist.” In fact, Hicks turned out to be not only an atheist whose Facebook profile photo was the LGBT-themed “Atheists for Equality” and whose Facebook cover photo pronounced in bold letters his “ANTI-THEISM,” but a long-standing fan of progressive causes ranging from “HuffPost Black Voices” to “Forward Progressives” to “The Atheist Empathy Campaign,” to Rachel Maddow and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
How did the writers at Alternet respond? By stating that, that while many have “portrayed Hicks as a liberal, by reporting his Facebook likes included Rachel Maddow, gay marriage groups, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others . . . that relabeling is absurd on many levels, because Hicks appears to fit the psychological profile of violent extremists—regardless of their ideological stripes . . .” Once again, suddenly, the fact that violent extremists might fit a certain psychological profile “regardless of their ideological stripes” isn’t so foreign to progressives.
The kicker for all of this is that it was just a few days ago that a black man in Tennessee shot up a white church on explicitly racial motivations. In almost every way, this case was a perfect parallel for the Dylann Roof case. Can you imagine a headline which read, “Man Charged for Charleston Church Murder May Have Sought Revenge for Massive Black-on-White Crime Rates?”
On his Facebook page, the shooter repeated the vicious and pernicious myth (debunked here) that:
Will headlines now tell us that “Anti-White American Media is Complicit” in his actions? Will articles tell their readers that “Black America may be unwilling to face its history of disproportionate criminal violence, despite a mounting pile of white bodies that forces white victims of black violent crime to reckon with it daily. But Samson is more honest than those—and there are so many—whose complicity lies in looking the other way . . . ?”
In any case, of the 40 attacks which liberal outlet Mother Jones has collected from June 2009 through to the Las Vegas Strip massacre, a total of 20 were committed by non-white perpetrators. That’s 50% of the total, which surpasses non-whites’ 37% representation in the general population across this period of time. (I chose 2009 as my cut-off point because the non-white percentage of the population stays relatively constant across this period of time. Prior to 2009, the non-white percentage of the population begins to fall.) That means whites are currently around 63% of the population, yet—even including this most recent attack—only 50% of the mass shooters. The kinds of imbeciles who write articles at mainstream outlets about how “White men have committed more mass shootings than any other group” want to think we’re all too stupid to understand the basic concept of looking at acts like these per capita.
Considered against population numbers, whites are not disproportionately likely to commit mass shootings. Non-whites are. From 1982 to 2017, blacks represented 16% of all mass shooters despite accounting for just 12-13% of the population across this period of time. That is not including gang shootings. And these numbers from Mother Jones don’t even include Emanuel Samson’s attack on that Tennessee church at all. Samson claimed 1 victim, and injured 7. But the only reason he didn’t claim more lives is because a white man with a gun was there to stop him from killing more. I’ll give you one guess as to why the same media that blatantly lied about the George Zimmerman case—a local matter for a small town in Florida—has so little interest in covering that.