Who Commits Mass Shootings?
The man who opened fire at an Antioch church on September 24th, 2017, killing one person and wounding seven more, joined a list many would like to forget.
Emanuel K. Samson. Micah Johnson. Kori Ali Muhammad. Fredrick Demond Scott. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo.
Their names stir painful memories and conjure images of hate and violence. The killers have other characteristics in common too: They either were or are young, black and male. In all cases the men in question targeted and slaughtered their victims specifically because they were white.
Or we can try that one again.
The man who opened fire at the Fort Hood military base on November 9th, 2009, killing thirteen people and wounding thirty-two more, joined a list many would like to forget.
Nidal Hassan. Mohammed Abdulazeez. Omar Mateen. Ali Muhammad Brown. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
Their names stir painful memories and conjure images of hate and violence. The killers have other characteristics in common too: With one exception, they either were, or are, young, Muslim, and male (Malik was female). In all cases, the victims were slaughtered specifically because the individuals in question were committed to the jihad.
Or we can try this one more time.
The man who opened fire at the Cave of the Patriarchs on February 25th, 1994, killing twenty-nine people and wounding 125 more, joined a list many would like to forget.
Baruch Goldstein. Nikolas Cruz. Andrew Golden. Benjamin Smith. Dylan Klebold.
Their names stir painful memories and conjure images of hate and violence. The killers have other characteristics in common too: They either were, or are, young, Jewish, and male.
See how easy that is, CNN?
In other news, regarding the white male shooting epidemic, hot on the heels of Hispanic Jew Nikolas Cruz deciding to execute his peers and educators, Nasim Aghdam took to the YouTube campus April 3rd to protest the de-monetization of her videos in a hail of gun-fire before taking her own life. Aghdam, whom Ann Coulter quips will likely be identified by the media as a “white Iranian,” reminiscent of “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman (and Cruz for that matter), was outspoken in her criticism of the mainstream’s glorification of wanton drunkenness and promiscuity.
Understanding that “Hispanic” or Latino is a far more nebulous category than “white” or “black” (though the U.S. government does its damnedest to deceive with the classification of Arabs as white on the census, and, as I’ve previously covered, the business with often combining the white and Hispanic categories in crime statistics by law enforcement), there is very clearly a narrative at work here, and all circles must be squared. Whites are actually under-represented in mass shootings, but because over 80% of all legal gun owners are white, the narrative must be maintained expressly for ideological purposes. Yes, yes, the paranoia of a right-wing maniac: they’re coming to take our guns! But, indeed, “they” are.
The trans-national project needs to be facilitated in as smooth a fashion as possible, and the rural, self-sufficient and freedom-loving white Americans are probably the most stubbornly persistent in their support for a) the nation-state, and b) maximal human freedom. This is “problematic.” So when the Vegan Reich in the person of Nasim Aghdam strikes out at the very heart of the technocracy, what Jean Raspail called “the beast” immediately has to set to work twisting the course of events into the most palatable form possible. Mashable even went so far as to lighten Aghdam’s skin and color her eyes green in a photo-shopped image of the shooter in order to make her appear more white. Aghdam was, in living color, the ultimate monkey-wrench, an almost exact negation of their narrative—Left-wing, vegan, animal rights activist, female, daughter of immigrants, and Baha’i. Pearls of the Great Globalists simultaneously clutched (not without a sigh of relief Aghdam was not Jewish, though that has not stopped them previously), the obscurantism machine was set into hyper-drive.
Aghdam wrote, not long before heading to YouTube headquarters;
“There is no free speech in [the] real world and you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not supported by the system. There is no equal growth opportunity on YouTube or any other video sharing site.” I’ve previously covered the extent to which media, social or otherwise, are predominantly directed by Zionist interests, and thusly imbued with a decidedly anti-Western stance, but where their leadership or direct control stops (even if there is significant internal influence), international pressure begins. World Jewish Congress CEO R. Robert Singer has been vocal and persistent in trying to get Google, YouTube, and others to target, “Holocaust denial, hate speech, and anti-Jewish incitement” on their various platforms. He’s also gone after Amazon to stop selling literature that “glorifies the Holocaust.” Given the inordinate weight in the West placed on the Shoah, as opposed to, say, the Armenian genocide, we can clearly see what narrative is being advanced in the popular consciousness. The various “phobias” and “-isms” are being used to wall off areas of inquiry while healthy expressions of national and ethnic preference are being pathologized and weaponized against Western peoples.
Any parties with strong nationalist leanings have come under direct fire from the World Jewish Congress. In response to an Austrian politician’s “anti-Semitic cartoon” (Jesus, what is it with the other two Abrahamic faiths and cartoons?), WJC President Ronald Lauer stated, "Clearly, and not for the first time, the FPÖ leader is trying to whip up anti-Semitic sentiment. [Heinz-Christian Strache’s] repeated denials are not credible because his words and actions speak for themselves. This scandal shows that anti-Jewish resentment is still widespread, and unscrupulous politicians are allowed to exploit it for electioneering purposes. That is mind-boggling, and it could have negative repercussions for Austrian Jews.” In Hungary, possibly the most “woke to the JQ” of all Western nations, a WJC spokesman whined that Prime Minister Viktor Orban “did not address any recent anti-Semitic or racist incidents in the country, nor did he provide sufficient reassurance that a clear line has been drawn between his government and the far-right fringe,” regarding Jobbik supporters’ comments that “Zionists…[have] subjugated the indigenous people” of Hungary. Orban himself is fully aware of the influences behind Europe’s self-induced “migrant crisis”:
“We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open, but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world…Large Western European countries bit by bit are losing their own countries, they want to force us to do the same. Africa wants to kick down our door, and Brussels is not defending us.”
What’s telling about the international reaction to Orban, in particular, is that he is not being explicit about who the enemy is exactly, and yet through universal condemnation from the World Jewish Congress and other international organizations, not to mention the commentariat, they have outed themselves. The same holds true for when that same Zionist-minded commentariat went into a mass conniption on Twitter over the term “globalist.” At least as far as I understood it, globalist was not a “dog-whistle” for Jews specifically, it was simply meant to describe individuals who were in favor of the erosion of people’s self-determination and the dissolving of the nation-state, whatever their reasons may be. There was obviously some kind of hypersensitivity to the term which prompted such a strong reaction. Does this necessarily prove anything? No, but it’s highly suggestive.
From 1919 in Versailles, Jewish representatives in the precursor to the World Jewish Congress stated a firm commitment during the negotiations to the following two points:
The protection of the rights of minorities;
Influence on international law to restrict the sovereignty of a state.
A newly-strengthened Germany would obviously present a serious challenge to the new trans-national order, and on March 24th, 1933, the Daily Express in the UK blared the following headline and explanation:
Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!
“The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.”
Shortly after returning from a world Jewish conference in the Netherlands, New York lawyer Samuel Untermyer took to the radio waves of WABC on August 6th to raise support for this “holy war”:
“Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping…We will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.”
This is well before any kind of Holocaust made itself apparent; taking as a given the repugnance I feel for the resultant massacres of both Jew and Gentile perpetrated by Nazi aggression, the tens of millions of lives extinguished and the psychological crippling of an entire generation of Europeans and their offspring (and quite possibly their offspring), Dan Carlin of Hardcore History fame brought up a great point: That to understand this “madness” of Adolf Hitler, we must view the world through his eyes, and what he saw was a decadent West, especially the United States, which was controlled by certain international interests, and a crude and savage East in the USSR, fully in the clutches of Bolshevism. Hitler was not wrong in his assessment, but his actions were informed by a mania that may have damaged Germany—and much of the rest of the European world—irreparably, compounding the deep ennui already present after World War I.
Eventually, Stalin endeavored to purge the Judaic elements from the USSR and the results were predictably grisly, if much less so than what transpired in the Red Terror, the Holodomor, or the Great Purge, though obviously not to diminish the tragic loss of life and ruination of lives. As a matter of course, tens of millions were slaughtered and starved by the regime regardless of how Judaicized party leadership was. Judaism and Bolshevism will always be inextricably intertwined in essence, however. The Bolshevist spirit was not extinguished and ultimately slipped loose, heading Westward. If the defeat of the great nemesis of the second half of the twentieth century—the USSR—is part of the reason for our extended malaise, does this help explain the unwillingness to confront the great nemeses of the twenty-first? Is it that we have no easily-identified enemy with clearly defined borders? Paul Blest writes:
Despite his campaign promise, Donald Trump has failed to get Mexico to pay for his stupid wall because Mexico is a sovereign country and not a gullible NBC executive.
Interesting that a writer for Splinter is suddenly up in arms about a nation’s sovereignty and right to self-determination when every other day brings some paean of the superior, hard-working brown multitudes (even though 73% of foreign-born Hispanics in America are on some form of public assistance) having the inalienable right to swamp America without so much as an application to consider first.
This profound arrogance and entitlement, that anyone can stroll in at any time and that it is their human right to do so, is the manifestation of globalist propaganda that renders the West nothing but a gigantic charity. This is what I mean in saying the Western psyche has been pathologized—it is not very charitable to turn someone less fortunate away, and very subtly this pathologized guilt complex has warped notions of Christian charity into some kind of mal-formed permissive, feckless monster. It is scripturally supported that it is preferable for distinct peoples to dwell separately, and man is punished for his arrogance by constructing the Tower of Babel. As Joan of Arc said, “Yes, God loves the English…in England.” It does not make you a wicked person to acknowledge that we cannot save everyone and that endeavoring to do so will inevitably reduce our nations to the same impoverished state as the Third World, riven with conflict, dissension, and dysfunction.