Skip to comments.Dylann Roof Chose Terrorism For This Specific Reason
Posted on 06/26/2015 5:17:36 AM PDT by IChing
Under the dictionary definition of terrorism, Dylann Roof is a terrorist, no question about it. He became a terrorist because he saw that in the material world of politics, it is violence and the threat of violence not mere moral suasion and rational argument that most often bring about radical change.
To understand this fact is in not to excuse nor endorse what Roof did in any way. His sickening act was so heinous as to be incomprehensible. Nonetheless, a realistic apprehension of such a terrorists motives and method of operation is necessary, especially for those who seek to stop such attacks.
People who choose terrorist tactics do so out of recognition that, for better or worse, violence works:
It was not non-violent protest and written legislation which ended segregation; it was the overwhelming threat of heavily armed federal troops deployed against a population.
It was not abolitionist essays and official proclamations which ended slavery; it was all-out scorched earth war with hundreds of thousands killed.
It is not rational discourse nor cultural sensitivity that silences critics of Islam, it is jihad murder and the terrorist threat of it, along with an Orwellian police state.
Even mere voting the entire democratic process, really is only effective because the results are backed by organized government force and its threat of violence against those who do not comply. This is not just my opinion, this is fact.
If the manifesto put forth as his writing is authentic, Dylann Roof turned to the internet and discovered much more honest and thorough reporting about interracial violence than what is officially presented to the public. He saw the staggeringly disproportionate and widespread rape, murder, and other crime done by blacks against whites, and he saw that the established media, authorities, and body politic are mostly indifferent to it, afraid/loathe to even acknowledge it, and often lie about it.
Roof saw modern whites mainly choosing to be rather oblivious to racial reality, cultivating color-blindness as an imagined virtue, while blacks ruthlessly nurse a hyper-awareness of race in all things to further an aggressive, often vicious ascendancy.
Roofs murderous rampage against soft civilian targets at the A.M.E. church (headquarters of black political activism and grievance agitation in places like Ferguson and Baltimore) is not any less despicable than the black violence against white innocents to which he was reacting, however he saw no other way to bring about political change. Call him evil and wrong-headed in his tactics, as I do, but you cannot deny that it is physical violence and/or the threat of it that ultimately determines who and which political order dominates a society. Anyone who believes otherwise, save for exceptional circumstances, is fooling themselves.
Christian love may be morally supreme and transcendent over and above physical political force (and it is) but it is not of this Earthly kingdom. Jesus Christ said so Himself (John 18:36). In the same way, Dylann Roof is obviously not of the Kingdom of Heaven, nor is any other human, by varying degree.
Roofs agenda was not to transcend earthly racial politics. He merely wanted to initiate physical war against a political order in which white society is becoming dominated by black violence and the threat of it, backed up by a federal government wielding overwhelming force on behalf of de facto black supremacy in schools, workplaces, and in government/political office. Notice that when blacks (or members of any other protected group) fail to meet the standards of civility or performance to which white males are held, the government frequently steps in to enforce the political order which demands that minorities failure be sanctified, promoted, and made supreme anyway.
For decades, our society has been led by those who pretend and profess that a multi-racial society can and should exist without any particular race being dominant. Such a fantasy is so detached from earthly political reality that only an Orwellian regime and milieu entertains it, and deigns to enforce it.
The theory of a multi-racial society in which no one race dominates would depend on all members of all racial groups miraculously renouncing natural tendencies toward ethnic cohesion, and declining to seek advantages for their identified group. In addition to being a Utopian political fantasy, we can easily observe that in the United States today, that is about the furthest thing from what we actually have. Whites despite still being the majority in America are the only group which largely renounce cohesion and advantages for themselves based on racial identity. Meanwhile, such unity and power are eagerly and openly sought and celebrated for other racial groups. Whites moreover even work ardently on behalf of other racial groups for the ascendancy/supremacy of minorities over whites own declining power and privilege.
Does right make might, or does might make right? In terms of the mundane and territorial, I honestly do not know. In the transcendental realm, the inseparability of right and might Justice is coming regardless of what we depraved humans say or do. Im sure itll be by Grace, not race, if we meet there.
He mentions incidents wherein slaves sometimes slaughtered innocent whites prior to/sparking the earliest slave uprisings, and how everyone thought the murderers were crazy, etc., yet as we can easily see with the success of ISIS and with every form of political order throughout history, violence and the threat of force is what always prevails over idealistic wishing.
The State Department denies an action is “terrorist” if there are no card carrying ties to officially recognized terrorist groups that claim responsibility for the act.
Therefore even though Nadil Hasan communicated with Al Qaeda, it wasn’t “terrorism” it was workplace violence because of pre-traumatic stress syndrome and microaggression against muslims.
The DC Gay Sniper Duo weren’t “terrorists”, they were lone wolves.
And on and on.
As if anyone ought to go by what the State Dept. says.
If anyone knows about terrorism, it is the Obama Hate Department that had Gaddafi whacked in support of Islamonazi terrorists.
Irony? Dylann Roof’s clearly learned his philosophy from liberals their twisted thought processes are exactly the same! Blame everybody but the perps pure liberal thinking! The only difference was the targets, Roof blamed ALL black people for the crimes of a few, and like liberals always advocate, he sadly punished only those who were innocent.
By all reports, Dylann Roof was a slacker, ninth grade dropout, frequent drug-abuser, and obsessive video-game player, from a broken home with a violent father. He recently lost a bid for a girlfriend to a black guy.
People like Roof, of whatever race, find it hard to answer the question, “Why am I a complete loser and unable to change that?” by looking in the mirror. Racially-charged on-line rhetoric, crime statistics, news of hideous crimes chosen for publicity because of race, a culture that gives idiocy and criminality a pass, are pretty convincing to an ignorant coward who does not really want a solution.
Roof didn’t attack BGI leaders or crooked prosecutors or New Black Panther HQ. His first plan was to murder college students, then switched to elderly church ladies who most assuredly had never raped white wimin or taken over anything. I doubt these targets were picked for maximizing impact of terrorist deeds (i.e., grabbing maximum publicity via outrageousness to undermine public faith in their government to protect them). He chose people who had self-respect, who were trying to improve themselves, their souls, or their community, and as such were a major rebuke to someone who feels worthless but lacks the initiative to do anything positive. Anti-black propaganda gave Roof a convenient excuse. Calling him a terrorist dignifies Roof unfairly.
I noticed that you didn’t say the same about the early slave uprisings/massacres of innocent defenseless whites which coincided with the push for emancipation....play the video in the first comment.
The AME hurch has been behind all the rioting and mayhem in places like Sanford, Ferguson, Baltimore, etc., and Roof’s attack coincided with the anniversary of a black slave uprising/slaughter of whites led by Denmark Vesey who also helped found the AME church. Roof knew what he was doing.
...Vesey’s planned uprising (in Charleston, by the way) was detected and prevented, though. He was alleged to have organized thousands of slaves to rise up and kill all slave masters. If you’ve seen the latest video out of Charleston showing Malik Zulu Shabazz, right outside the AME church scene of the massacre, inciting a crowd of blacks to “finish what Denmark Vesey started” and “kill all the slave masters and their white families” then you know.
The bottom line is that Roof acted because whites are being slaughtered and raped by blacks across the land, for year after year after year, AND NO ONE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT; the information is being hidden from the public, etc.
I have no reason to comment on irrelevant events of over 150 years ago. Why on earth wouldn’t people enslaved and forced to labor often to death to benefit white masters want vengeance against them? Wouldn’t you? Unfortunately vengeance tends to end in atrocity, whether in the case of Turner or Roof, and is an unacceptable policy.
What I hope you will consider is that the blacks stirring things up in Ferguson, etc., carefully nourish a sense of historical grievance and crisis to justify themselves. So Roof mirrored that, and raised his consciousness to a boiling point of irrational, very counterproductive violence. Whites do themselves no honor by taking the Mein Kampf route. That is not to say that honest evaluation of crime stats and social dysfunction does not reveal bleak realities, or that the current political trend towards untruth is sane, or that we should not resist the organized effort to destroy civilization.
Malik Shabazz is a loathsome, dangerous idiot who should be arrested for inciting violence. That is a poor reason to murder elderly Christian ladies.
Do you know how many whites were slaughtered in Vesey's uprising?
Do you know how many blacks were executed in retaliation?
How many innocent whites were slaughtered by William Tecumseh Sherman and in other slave uprisings?
...and how many whites murdered by blacks in just the last few decades?
Did slaves have a natural right to rebel?
You’re asking me if terrorism is justified, then. I suppose in some cases, it is. The firebombing of civilians in Dresden and other Axis cities in order to completely break the enemy’s will, etc., eh? And when is it justified for whites to do something like Roof did about the race terrorism blacks have been waging against random, innocent, defenseless old white ladies and other vulnerable victims for decades?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.