The Culture of Critique Cries Out in Pain as it Strikes MacDonald

Has anyone provided a more thorough, more reasonable critique of jewing than Kevin MacDonald? From what I’ve seen, the mild-mannered professor makes a meticulous case, constructed mainly by citing prominent jews. Judge for yourself. MacDonald focuses on immigration in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. The specific link I most often refer to is […]

Dilemmas False and True

Kikemagician

Elaborating on a brief exchange on Twitter concerning terminology, logic, and identity.

A_Linder on Twitter: “Whites won’t even divide up verbally, but persist in using language of the conqueror. “Antisemtism” & “racism” = #antiwhite clown concepts.”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 likewise xeno/homo/islamo-“phobia” – the jew psych-warfare packed right into the word”

Sigmund Freud and pseudo-scientific Freudianism is the best known example of this characteristically jewish psychological warfare – the identification of fear as not just irrational but wrong, psychopathological, baseless.

The seminal work of the Frankfurt school, the source of what is referred to as cultural marxism, is The Authoritarian Personality:

Some observers have criticized what they saw as a strongly politicized agenda to The Authoritarian Personality. Social critic Christopher Lasch[26] argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book’s goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” Similarly, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek wrote, “It is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity, however, that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in Gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views differed from theirs was insane.

Richard Hofstader pushed a similar agenda in 1964 with The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT the jew’s verbal strategy is forced false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy. works only if you control mass media.”

A dilemma is any problem with two potential solutions. It’s more than just a fork in the road. A dilemma has negative connotations, captured in common expressions such as “caught between a rock and a hard place” and “stuck on the horns of a dilemma”. “Choosing between the lesser of two evils” captures the essence of the US selection/election process over the past several decades.

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that leverages a strong tendency toward binary thinking. “My way or the highway” and “noose or loose” are examples of this tactic. Binary thinking is baked into Aristotlian logic, the premise being that any statement must either be true or false, with nothing in between – the law of the excluded middle.

I’ve often encountered a false dilemma when arguing against the suicide meme. Apologists who describe what’s happening as White “suicide” are implicitly assigning jews 0% responsibility, and when challenged they pretend the exact opposite, that jews are 100% responsible, is the only other possibility. Neither extreme fits the asymmetric, parasitic nature of the relationship and the genocidal effect the jewish agenda is having on Whites.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT all their terms amount to: you’re either with us or agin us. and if you’re against us, you’re evil and should be suppressed”

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT One problem is PhDs on our side use clown terms like ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism,’ thereby validating them.”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 they fear being seen as stupid/crazy/evil by their enemies, fear to even acknowledge that the enemy is an enemy”

The failing of our most intelligent, our would-be/could-be elite, is to clearly distinguish between peers and enemies, between Us and Them. To make a clear distinction is to expose oneself to ridicule and attack.

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 thoughts shape language, and vice-versa, when us/them-recognition works the proper language follows, reinforces it”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 which is why jews psychopathologize/demonize White us/them-recognition most of all – “put down the gun Whitey, do it now””

Terms like “racist” and “anti-semite” are terms of abuse, used to identify and intimidate enemies. They are “buzz terms”, packed with a pejorative payload, weaponized by repetition by supposed authorities, experts in academia and media. The mere recognition that such terms are used by enemies and represent an attack deprives them of their psychological punch and inspires a healthy response instead.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT it’s sickly funny that the only verbal recognition of jew-commies’ mass murder of 100m last century is: political correctness”

See Master List of Politically Correct Terms (and Arguments, Frames, Concepts) at Vanguard News Network Forum.

Political correctness is the only term (or one of a few) which represents some form of pushback against the jewish agenda and jew rule. Joe Sobran suggested that it would be more appropriate to call it semitic correctness. “PC” is just a “PC” euphemism for SC.

Sobran also noted that “anti-semite” used to be someone who hates the jews, now it’s someone the jews hate. It hasn’t actually changed, both meanings co-exist. Whites almost always mistake it for the former, whereas jews have almost always used it to mean the latter. Before “anti-semite” was popularized in the 1870s the word jews used to identify their enemies was “Amalek”. Since the 1930s “Nazi” has been used for the same purpose.

A_Linder on Twitter: “It’s not hatred when jews attack whites. It’s humor. Edgy. Daring. Boundary breaking. It’s hatred, rather, when whites criticize jews.”

Excellent point. Charlie Hebdo is a recent illustration. Jews define “hate”, which is criminalized, but also “humor”/”satire”, which is given a pass. Semitically correct “humor”/”satire” can be magically transformed into “hate” by simply swapping the target.

There is a true dilemma facing Whites which jews take great pains to misrepresent as a false dilemma. Are jews White, or not? Jews clearly want Whites to see them as “white”, as allies, as Us, and to see anyone who argues otherwise as a stupid/crazy/evil “racist”, “anti-semite”, “hater”, as the enemy, as Them. For the most part they succeed. Yet jews also clearly see and speak about themselves as distinct from and at odds with Whites. Jew regard Whites not only as an Other, but as their bugbear, their eternal mortal enemy. The tragedy is that Whites generally do not recognize this enemy and their hostility, much less reciprocate.

Calling Out the Cuckery

aipac_politics

The term cuckservative is shaking up the American political discourse. It originated outside the corporate judaized mainstream, in reaction to the destructive, destabilizing, degenerate policies of the anti-White/pro-jew regime. Cuckservative is as insult, an accusation, an indictment aimed at those who participate in this poisonous regime by those of us who are sick and tired of being poisoned.

Cuckservative has gained traction so quickly because it strikes a big, fat, pulsing White nerve. The term is an expression of White racial grievance. It has crystallized and brought forth decades worth of pent up White anger, resentment at being lied to and betrayed by White political leaders who have been going along to get along, dog whistling what they have to to get elected, and then giving the country away to aliens, people whose thoughts and desires and behaviors are so different from ours that they alienate us even when they’re not physically hostile and dangerous.

There are many aspects of the term cuckservative and the reaction it’s creating that are good and indicate a shift in a positive direction for Whites. There are also a few aspects that cause some concern.

On the good side, the cuckservatives and their cuckers haven’t yet figured out how to effectively deflect or defuse the accusation. The main response has been no response. The relatively few defenses have so far been along the lines of, “that’s racist, this is coming from White supremacists”, which only confirms the charge that cuckservatives, and the system they serve, are anti-White. Another type of reaction – the insinuation or counter-accusation that the term is being pushed by “liberals” – reflects the blinkered bunker mentality that afflicts those Whites who continue to work within the anti-White regime. They so want to keep on working within it that they pretend it is all that really exists.

The term cuckservative is breaking through and spreading through White minds faster and more broadly than other explicit attempts to craft language to express White interests have been. Bob Whitaker’s mantra, which has been spreading gradually for years, was too wordy and ironically stated. Even the more recent, shorter slogans expressing the same basic sentiments – that anti-“racism” is code for anti-White and to fight White genocide – just haven’t spread as quickly as cuckservative has. I think these other terms have helped. They’ve prepared the ground, and they’ll probably enjoy more use going forward. Many Whites don’t want to be discriminated against for being White, but they still aren’t willing to identify positively as White. The polarization created by the term cuckservative will surely encourage more Whites to see that they do have a racial identity, that they do have racial interests. More will find the nerve to say, “Yes, I’m White, and I’m angry, because I can see the media, the schools, the laws, the government, the whole system is anti-White. It has been working against me and my kind. That’s not right, and it’s got to go.”

I’m also glad because I think cuckservative also takes the wind out of the sails of “White pathology”. That’s the truly pathological idea that Whites are a race of catladies, that we’re driving ourselves to extinction because our ancient altruistic hunter-gather personality traits are reasserting themselves, causing us to want to smile as we give everything over to the hostile, alien invaders flooding our former homelands. “White pathology” is the idea that we’re doing this to ourselves, or at least that we’re literally programmed to be exploited by others. That it’s in our DNA.

The attack on cuckservative demolishes this “White pathology” suicide meme in two ways. First, if it wasn’t already obvious that many Whites oppose the anti-White regime, the popularity of the cuckservative attack demonstrates that the White opposition is broader than many of us imagined. So, no, we’re not a race of catladies. Second, it takes two, or more, to cuck. Cuckservative better fits the reality than catlady, in the same way genocide fits better than suicide. The leaders who are selling out and betraying us aren’t catladies. They’re not impoverishing themselves serving nameless, faceless, agentless cats. They’re enriching themselves personally by serving the interests of anyone and everyone but Whites, other people who every day more freely express their own “vibrant” non-White/anti-White racial identity. The word cuck evokes the biological roots of the injustice, the despicable, disgusting, deplorable, exploitative nature of the crime.

I’ve made the argument many times that parasitism is a more accurate term for what’s happening. Cuckolding is just one aspect of parasitism. Cuckholding hints at sexual deviance and gives perverts a cheap thrill, whereas parasitism more completely encompasses the sick, subversive, collective nature of the phenomenon – the infiltration, manipulation, and exploitation of one group for the benefit of another.

So on the downside, the term cuckservative is not as clear or racially explicit as parasitism or “White genocide”. In fact it’s more popular because of that, because it offers some wiggle room for the merely less squishy Whites to point their finger at the more squishy Whites and say, “they’re the problem”. Some Whites are using cuckservative only because they think they can tell themselves and their critics that, really, they’re not racists, they’re just upset about their money being given away or their Christian values being trashed, by other White people. In other words, they’re not really conscious of their racial interests, much less that they have racial enemies.

Another reason the term is so popular (and another downside) is because it plugs into the mental mold of the existing system – it focuses attention on just one half of the left/right, liberal/conservative, two-faces-of-the-single-party that is judeo liberal democracy. There are in fact White cuckees and jew cuckers in both halves of the anti-White/pro-jew system. The left side is certainly more explicitly anti-White, and it is the increasing obviousness of this hostility which has brought the anger at cuckservatives, who are seen as capitulating to this obvious enemy. There is a false impression, which is only reinforced by the partisan roots of the word cuckservative, that the source of the hostility is “the left”, that it arises more from some abstract ideological wonkery rather than from an inherent and implacable racial animus.

The White traitors on the left are just more out of the closet about it. As Robert Frost put it way back in 1961, “A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.” That captures a good part of the cuck mentality. We could call White liberals cuckerals, to match cuckservatives, but from what I’ve seen the terms libtard and shitlib are already far more popular.

There’s also some ambiguity to the term cuck which isn’t good. Calling someone a cuck could be taken to imply they’re a victim, that they’re the one being harmed. In the strict, biological sense of the word, you’re only being cuckolded if it’s your resources being taken and used to the benefit of another. That sense of the word technically fits someone like Jeb Bush, who married an anti-White mestiza, better than it fits a mere closeted queer RINO, like Lindsey Graham. But in both cases the outrage aimed at these two cuckservatives and others is collective, not personal. The politicians being called cucks are being accused mainly of giving away other people’s resources, the resources of their partisan base or race, not their own.

Which brings me to the last nit I have to pick with the term cuckservative. It mistakenly implies the traitor is weak, effeminate. In this way it is similar to the catlady slur. It’s easy to mock and taunt weaklings. They don’t fight back. But when you call these traitors out, and calling them cuck works well enough, they will fight. Generally speaking these are men and women who have risen to where they are in the poisonous anti-White environment because they have a lack of racial loyalty and a lack of scruples, not because they lack the will to seek and hold fast to personal power.

Still, as powerful as they may seem, the White traitors aren’t running the show. As I’ve just pointed out, they’re generally self-interested individuals. They aren’t really any more loyal to each other or their party or its abstract ideology than White voters. They aren’t in cahoots with each other either. The old boys club of White supremacy is long gone, not much more than a figment of jewish imagination at this point. It lives on in the imaginations of others mainly because of the propaganda the jews produce and distribute via media and academia.

What’s so demoralizing about the Whites at the top is that even the ones who aren’t actively selling out are keeping their mouths shut. They know that to even say something sympathetic about Whites, as a group, is “racist”, so they don’t. You occasionally hear someone say that cuckservatives, or other White politicians, are just afraid of being called names like “racist”. That isn’t accurate. A good part of their motivation is fear of pain. Fear of being punished, fear of being ostracized. It isn’t pain alone, and it isn’t a desire for power, fame or fortune alone. It’s both. It’s carrot and stick.

The jews are the ones wielding the carrots and sticks. The jews aren’t cucked. The jews aren’t White. The jews are the ones who are organized, and have always been organized, as a group. They’ve been organized and aggressing against Whites, from within White societies, for millenia. The jews are the source of the racial animus against Whites. The cucker is not “the left”, or “the right”, but the jews who fund and dictate the policies of both sides of the system. That’s why it is not just an anti-White system but a pro-jew system. That’s why the one unshakable principle that none of the White cucks, left or right, dares to question is jewish privilege. Jewish power is so thorough-going and secure inside America that jews have for decades been able to control American foreign policy to the painfully obvious benefit of Israel, a foreign ethnostate of jews, by jews, and for jews.

In the 1980s the well-known cuckservative William F. Buckley purged Joe Sobran from conservativism specifically for being insufficiently respectful of the jews and Israel. Since then jewish power has only grown. Nowadays every significant politician from every “Western” country sooner or later makes a pilgrimage to Israel to pay symbolic tribute to their jewish overlords.

Some of the people tossing around the cuckservative charge don’t realize it, yet, but the reason that term is bound to cause a real backlash from the regime isn’t because it embarrasses the traitors, or upsets the blacks or browns. It will be because it displeases the jews. The charge that White politicians are ignoring or betraying White political interests is a direct challenge to the jews and their narrative. Under the current zeitgeist Whites aren’t supposed to advocate for their interests as a group, that’s “racist”. If you do so with any hint that you understand that the jews are your opponents, not just standing in the way but the ones who are actively deconstructing and destroying White racial interests, then you’re a “nazi”.

Everybody knows the jewish narrative, that “racists” and “nazis” are not just wrong but crazy and evil. But the pols and pundits at the top also know that the first rule of jew rule is that nobody talks about jew rule. The notion that the jews and their interests are at the crux of it all this cucking business is already visible in some articles and comments. This may grow. I hope it does. That would be good for Whites.

The traitors certainly know who’s got the carrots and sticks. Super-cuckservative Mike Huckabee just recently provided an excellent example of both the dominant and unspeakable nature of the jews’ narrative and power. Huckabee tried to explain how he objects to the recent US nuclear agreement with Iran because he thinks it’s bad for the Israelis, and used the jewish holocaust narrative when he did it. He was immediately upbraided by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a jewess politician from “the left”. His crime, apparently, was using terms that the goyim aren’t supposed to use, even in service of the jews. She actually demanded an apology.

Politicians who aren’t traitors also know about jewish power. They also understand that there are penalties for speaking against it. From France there is news that the nationalist politician Jean-Marie Le Pen is going to be prosecuted, again, for confronting the primacy of the jews and their narrative. As The Independent reports:

The decision to prosecute followed the aging politician’s comments on French television in April when he said: “Gas chambers were a detail of the war, unless we accept that the war is a detail of the gas chambers.”

He responded to the new charges by referring to the recent public protests that followed the muslim attack on Charlie Hebdo. He said:

“I thought that millions of French people had marched for freedom of expression”

“I thought that included the right to blaspheme. And this is blasphemy, isn’t it? It is after all an almost religious point.”

(For context see Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do and Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy.)

But that’s the moral of the jewish narrative, that the jews are paragons of virtue, the highest moral authority. Thus it is right that they dictate what’s good and bad, what’s allowed and not allowed. The White race traitors say and do what the jews tell them to, even if it makes for something that looks like a glaring contradiction – arguing open borders and multicult for the US and security and ethnic homogeneity for the jewish state, for example. Whether any of them actually believe the fairy tales the jews tell, or not, they know the jews will punish them if they misbehave. That threat, and the fear it inspires, is what looms behind all the cucking.

Dylann Raises the Roof

the_last_rhodesian

What is morality? What is sanity? What is heroism? Let’s start with the last one. The hero is an ancient European archetype, indeed it’s characteristically Aryan:

A hero or heroine is a person or character who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, displays courage or self-sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good. . . . Historically, the first heroes displayed courage or excellence as warriors. The word’s meaning was later extended to include moral excellence.

Stories of heroism may serve as moral examples.

Last month Andrew Anglin wrote an article, White Legends: Heroes Ransdell and Heimbach Troll Black Baseball Whiners! Matt Parrot and some other men whose names I don’t know were also there, in public, verbally confronting “yet another ‘racial injustice’ event, wherein a group of crybabies was giving a press conference about how sad it is that Black people get arrested for committing crimes”.

That is heroism. They faced danger and adversity from a position of weakness, displayed courage and self-sacrifice for the greater good. The greater good of their people. White people.

They didn’t make the ultimate self-sacrifice, but nobody has to lose their life in order for their act to be seen as heroic, just as they don’t have to escape with their life in order for some cowardly act to be seen as such. A hero doesn’t have to succeed, though it’s more likely he’ll be remembered if he does. Heroism isn’t a popularity contest. You can be a hero in the eyes of just one person, or nobody, while everyone else sees you as nothing better than an enemy or a troublemaker. This is true of Ransdell, Heimbach, Parrot, the others who accompanied them, and all the Whites who have ever acted in the face of danger in the interests of their race. They are heroes.

A few days ago I wrote a short article, Dylann Goes Through the Roof. I wanted to make just a few simple points, then and now. It was and still is difficult to be sure what happened and why. I think the comment Roof was purported to have made at the time was telling: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. You have to go.” I think his purported manifesto is in line with that sentiment and fleshes it out. Hopefully he’ll get a chance to speak for himself in court and make it even clearer.

My main purpose in writing was to highlight the broader backdrop, the poisonous influence of the jewsmedia and the miasma of implacable non-White anti-White hostility. To confront this situation I said Whites need positive, unapologetic leaders who understand, even if only intuitively, that White concerns and morality, starting with the very definition of right and wrong, can only be legitimately rooted in what is healthy or unhealthy for Whites, as a group.

I think that was not quite right. I think the problem is that it’s not just leaders but Whites generally who need to understand this, because if they did, then they wouldn’t tolerate anything less from their would-be leaders. I don’t want to tear down those who put themselves forth as leaders. I’m not fit to lead myself. But I do think Whites need to reexamine their values, to think about and get the basics straight. We need, for example, to understand what morality and sanity and heroism really mean. I think the root of the problem lies in our minds, in the general confusion on these elementary concepts. Because Whites think within the limits and using terms which are literally defined by a hostile, parasitic group which is only concerned about it’s own best interests. Blacks are violent and destructive, but it is the jews who define any such understanding as out of bounds, as “politically incorrect” “hate speech”.

When Roof’s manifesto came to light his motives became clearer. Thanks to the internet, even though he was only 21 he apparently understood the basics. He understood enough to make many of the White racialists who have criticized or condemned him look foolish for leaping to the conclusion that he must have been stupid or crazy or evil.

Alex Linder twitted, Roof is a hero. The Holocaust is a giant hoax. Whites are the good guys. Jews are the bad guys. Any questions? #vnnforum and I personally thank Dylann Roof for his sacrifice. I appreciate that he did it to protect my race, which is under genocidal assualt. #hero.

My initial reaction was simple caution, to avoid senseless speculation or condemnation. I have to admit I felt reluctant to think of Roof as a hero. But I think it’s more fitting than condemning him. If he wrote that manifesto and that’s really why he did what he did, then Dylann Roof is a hero. Literally. He faced danger and adversity from a position of weakness, displayed courage and self-sacrifice for the greater good. The greater good of his people. White people.

White racialists can criticize his actions and argue about whether this actually was his purpose, or whether he helped or harmed that purpose. But that is the measure, the moral compass, the moral standard they should be using. Does it serve the greater good of Whites? That is the moral attitude Whites need to have in order to survive and thrive. Right now most Whites lack this basic understanding, this very basic healthy sense of group identity, the willingness to take their own side, together, against anything or anyone harmful is why we are currently in a one-sided race war.

Whites won’t organize along racial lines, and are running away from the reality of race rather than confronting it. It’s no surprise why. We’re propagandized from birth that Whiteness is not only stupid and crazy but pure evil. In other words, immoral. Forget about fighting back with guns. Even thinking that there’s something worth fighting back for is depicted as evil. Roof saw through this fraud. More than that, he eventually saw that it was a deliberate lie, not random. He was shocked when he realized that the mass media was lying about race. He says he understands the Jewish problem. I don’t think he appreciates the depth of it. But for that matter many older and more experienced racialists don’t either. As it is he understands more than I did at his age.

My point is that to be good leader, a moral leader, in fact to be a good moral normal healthy White person, you don’t have to say anything positive about Roof, or what, why, or how he did what he did. But you shouldn’t be joining in the mindless chorus condemning him out of hand. If you’re afraid you’ll look bad unless you say something negative, waving your hands about morality and senselessness, stop yourself. Who will look bad to whom, exactly? What might you say that could help your race? If you can’t answer such questions then say nothing. If you’re put on the spot, recall the Five Words: “I have nothing to say”. That bit of wisdom doesn’t only apply when you’re being questioned by the police.

My point is that nervous Whites condemning one of their own and explaining how sad they are about dead niggers only further demoralizes Whites, because we sense that it’s a lie, a sign of White weakness. It also emboldens the non-Whites, who get the same sense of it, but even more clearly because they’re more racially conscious. As Roof explained, he felt compelled to act because he saw nobody else was doing so. Whites have been apologizing and retreating since before Roof was born.

Let’s move on to sanity. Here I’m thinking of the many White critics who called Roof’s actions senseless.

As with morality, racialists often talk about sanity without identifying or perhaps even thinking about it as such. I’ve talked about it quite a bit over the past six months – “White pathology”, “pathological altruism”, gaslighting, narcissism, and even trans-reality all have as much to do with sanity as they do with morality. The two are closely related.

Like morality, sanity is a basic concept that most Whites misunderstand. In general terms we see sanity as something good and desirable. Nobody wants to be insane. As it turns out, even the psychologists and psychiatrists who specialize in understanding such issues have trouble agreeing what exactly constitutes sane versus insane or unsane behavior.

None of the specialists will say it, but the reason for the confusion about sanity is the same as the confusion over heroism and morality. The jews literally define what these terms mean. That’s why when Bruce Jenner decides he’s a woman, that makes him a hero in the eyes of the jewsmedia. And for the same reason, anyone who thinks Jenner is just insane is regarded as morally defective. Intolerant is what they call it, meaning you don’t agree with what the jews want you to believe. Thus you’re not simply wrong, you’re evil.

It works by extension, indirectly. Jews set the tone. Others adopt their definitions because they hear the media megaphones, they see the herd mooing a bit and changing direction. They maybe even tell themselves it’s “sane” to want to keep in line with everyone else rather than defying what everybody else seems to have accepted and getting trampled or left behind or roughed up as a consequence.

Is it sane for White politicians to advocate that their country take in more “migrants” and “refugees”, to seek them out and escort them in? Of course it is, if sane means recognizing and doing what is most likely to advance your career. Some people misdescribe this as “suicide”. It’s really the exact opposite. It’s somebody doing something that they fully expect will benefit themselves personally, regardless of what harm it causes others.

Now here’s the nub of it. Anders Breivik, in Norway, very deliberately targeted this traitorous class and their children. Alot of people said he was insane. But do you think those traitorous politicians would still consider what they’re doing sane if there were more supposedly insane attacks like Breivik’s? Wouldn’t it actually start to concern some of these highly self-interested politicians to think that beside the reward there might be some real cost for their treason? Might some of them come to see the sense in finding a new definition of sanity? Maybe start arguing that it would be right and just to start sinking those damned boats full of invaders?

Likewise, do you think blacks would be more likely or less likely to attack Whites if there were more counter-attacks like Roof’s? That’s the hypothetical I’d like racialists to consider. Do you think your people would be better off with more Breiviks and Roofs, or less?

I think more. I think that the White race’s problem is that there aren’t more White men who see the world around them in the truly sane and morally clear terms Breivik and Roof (apparently) think in, and act accordingly. I think there aren’t more because White men are confused and demoralized. I think there are plenty who are deluded by the jewsmedia and their propaganda, who end up wasting their lives on truly senseless, insane, and immoral pursuits. They may face danger and adversity. They may display courage and self-sacrifice. They may even be called heroes by the jewsmedia and their deluded friends and family. But they’re not doing it for the greater good of their people, or even their country or family. Instead they kill and get killed for the benefit of aliens, to advance the interests of hostile racial enemies, maybe for a bit of money or excitement for themselves. It’s pathological. It’s immoral. It’s insane.

Those who condemn Roof especially because he attacked blacks in a church, describing it as senseless, aren’t thinking very clearly themselves. The conclusion of Roof’s manifesto outlines a perfectly sensible reason:

I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country.

That church has great anti-White significance, or as the jewsmedia puts it, a “rich history”:

Civil rights luminaries spoke from its pulpit and led marches from its steps. For nearly 200 years it had been the site of struggle, resistance and change.

Also:

The Wednesday evening shooting occurred a day after the June, 16, 1822 slave rebellion, organized by Denmark Vesey, who was revered as one of the founders of the Emanuel AME Church. The house of worship is the oldest AME church in the southern part of the country.

That church has very likely been a hub of recent activism too, during this past year’s worth of #blacklivesmatter, #handsupdontshoot, #icantbreathe complaining. Given the contents of Roof’s manifesto, it’s likely he understood that the target he selected, like many other “black churches”, has historically served essentially as a racial headquarters for pro-black/anti-White warfare. Much like mosques serve muslims.