Answer me this: why are there so many mainstream voices upset about the Charleston atrocity?
Now, I didn’t say that I wasn’t upset about this. This is a hideous atrocity (not a “tragedy” as some fools try to describe it) and one of those things that sorely tries my opposition to the death penalty. But then, so was the Boston bombing and the murder of a 147 Kenyan students and there were all sorts of pious explanations justifying – sorry, “explaining” that the real reason for the murder was to be found in the provocation of the murderers, that the dead Americans and Kenyans had brought it on themselves.
Why aren’t we hearing similar questions about what the black American community has done to provoke such violence? Of course, I regard such a question as an obscene attempt to blame the victim – but that stance can’t really be taken by the people who always witter that jihadis only slaughter infidels – whether these are Americans, Europeans, Indians or Afircans – because of infidel behaviour, and therefore the onus is on the victim to change his behaviour. I’m not in the mood for any high minded crap from the fans of Glenn Greenwald who republish Stormfront style cartoons about Jews.
Why aren’t people trying to explore the “root causes” of Charleston, finding the voice of the oppressed underneath the verbiage of fascist supremacism? Well, again, I regard something like that as grotesque – but it is the same song that’s been sung after every jihad attack for the last fourteen years.
Why isn’t more being made of the fact that his grievances are plainly political? After all, I’ve been lectured over and over that jihadis only have political goals, and therefore we should accept and accede to those demands. Well, young master Roof certainly had nothing but political demands – his flags are pure proof of that. So why don’t those same voices now say we should accede to those?
Why don’t we hear more about the rape and murder and expropriation of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa? I mean, I believe in something called “two wrongs don’t make a right” – but how can this tack be taken by people who think and say that assaults on Jews in Europe and America in fine – sorry “explainable” – ’cause Israel?
“But!”, my imaginary interolcutors my exclaim, “He clearly has a fascist and wicked agenda – it is not his means that are depraved, but his ends!” I’d agree, but how can this be said with a straight face by people who ignore the fact that huge percentages of Muslims say that they want to see apostates murdered, gays butchered, and blasphemers executed?
Why, in fact, are there so many pretending to be upset by the murder of innocents? Again, I am, but I don’t see how this gels with the worldview of someone like Noam Chomsky, who having started with excuses for Japanese imperialism, went on to defend Mao, Castro, the Khmer Rouge and Milosevic, and is now trying to shill for the genocideurs of Rwanda.
Do black lives matter if they are in Africa? Well, they do to me, but I don’t think that they do to most of the people blowing smoke at the moment.
What’s the difference between the white supremacist murdering blacks because he views them as subhuman and the jihadist who murders infidels because he views them as subhuman? None that I can see, except the latter has way more people ready to shill for him.
Following 9/11, all sorts of white supremacists and other losers crawled out to praise the attacks as a great example of how to rise up against the Jewish-American empire. I saw some article saying that the new atheists sounded a lot like Christian fundamentalists when it came to Islam. Well maybe, but then it is a certainty that many liberal lefties sound a lot like neo-Nazis when it comes to Islam.
I have the small satisfaction of consistency here – I’m opposed to murderous violence directed at innocents, regardless of whether it comes from Mein Kampf or the Koran.
In closing, I’ll just address a question to my racialist opponents. We can have our bloodless jousting here on the internet, but back in the real world, this is what racialism truly looks like. I would like to hear from the likes of Karl F. Boetel (“Radish”): is this what he supports, and if not, why not, and does he take any responsibility to argue against one of his fans pulling something like this in the future?
[P.S.: To the asinine question of whether or not this is “terrorism” – of course, it is terrorism. Terrorism is trying to advance a political end by means of violence and intimidation. The only objection I can think of for using the world to describe this is that it is too mild – I don’t like a term that lumps in the campaign of Umkonto we Sizwe with this bowl-hair creep and loser. Anyone think of a better term, let me know]