Backlash: Black Killer of White Reporters Sent Manifesto Declaring that Murders were a Response to Charleston

Now, see if you can follow my logic.

The media very softly plays Muslim terrorism stories. Why? Well, they always say they want to avoid "backlash" -- something which has been aggressively warned against 100,000 times for all three times it's actually happened.

The idea is that if you play up the sensational angles of a Muslim terrorism story, you will gin up people's natural tribal allegiances and natural tribal hatreds, and they will take out those natural tribal hatreds on completely-innocent Muslims.

That is, you can easily kindle racial -- or if race is not the right word, tribal -- hatred by giving sensationalistic coverage to murders which involve a member of one tribe butchering members of another.

That's the theory. That's why the media is always very "cautious" -- by their own statement; they say "we're being very cautious here" -- to not speculate that a killer might be a Muslim.

Is that theory right? Well, backlash doesn't happen that often, but I suppose there's absolutely nothing wrong with being cautious in one's reportage of an outrage committed by a member of one tribe against another.

History has shown that that can ignite fires in people's hearts -- very ugly fires.

No one can doubt that when one tribe agitates to start oppressing or actually butchering another tribe, they routinely start tallying up the List of Sins supposedly committed by members of the tribe being targeted for oppression or extinction.

If the Targeted Race hasn't committed enough real outrages, you then invent some (Hey, they're using our babies' blood to make bread, the bastards!).

So I can kind of understand the media's caution here, even if I think they take it to silly places sometimes.

Sure, if you get too sensationalistic, and make this too much into a story of CHRISTIANS MURDERED BY MURDEROUS MUSLIMS, you can inspire some less-mentally well Christians to maybe go on a personal Crusade.

Which is why I'm a bit astonished that the media offers no cautiousness whatsoever in reporting white murders of black people. In those cases, they don't seem concerned about igniting ugly fires in the hearts of a less-mentally stable black person -- in those cases, they seem to take the position of, 'Whatever might wind up happening to white people because of this, so what, they kinda had it coming."

I'm a bit mystified here -- while I can accept the idea of "backlash" and I can further accept the media's extreme trepidation in reporting Muslim on non-Muslim crimes, I cannot accept the media then taking the position that they can gin up as much hatred of white people as Ratings May Demand without any need for similar cautiousness.

But that is the position they take.

Now, Charleston was a serious crime which would be an emotionally igniting thing whatever the media's reaction to it was.

But I do note, with some degree of rage, that the media throws out its vaunted "caution/backlash" template when it comes to white people -- whose lives, it seem, actually don't fucking matter.

So here's the manifesto, and all this ugly weird crazy troll's various hallucinated grievances against White People, who he's pretty sure have been oppressing his weird crazy troll ass since he first hung his wang in a mesh Speedo.

"Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15..."

"What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."

...

It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE ...(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.

Thanks media! No, I can't pin this on you -- but either the caution and worry for "backlash" is a real thing, or it is not a real thing.

If "backlash" is a real thing -- why do you exhibit no concerns about such backlash when the targets of such backlash will be white?

Do we just not matter as much as other people?

Or are white people, alone in the world, the only race capable of wishing to lash out a innocent third-parties due to anger over some other person killing a member of our tribe?

If you ever believed the latter, Christopher Dorn's rage-murders should have already disabused you of that racist conception; and now "Bryce Williams'" rage-backlash killings should certainly so disabuse you.

But you'll keep on doing the same thing, won't you?

You will continue being sober and cautious when a killer turns out to be non-white -- and absolutely gleeful when he turns out to be white, because that's the only color of True Evil in the media's eternal Narrative.

The Narrative never changes; the Narrative can never change. Only the names, dates, and places change daily, but the Narrative remains pure and inalterable like Polaris.

This Part of the Game I Can Cleanly Blame on the Media: When the killer is Muslim, the media tries its hardest to not connect that killer to any other Muslim, or even the Islamist ideology. They want to draw as narrow a circle as possible around the killer, including no other people, so that a hypothetical half-crazy would-be Crusader won't think "I'll get my vengeance by killing one his compatriots."

But when the killer is white, they expand that circle as wide as possible to indict all of white society. In the Charleston shooting, they blamed the Confederate flag and all the white people who admired that flag.

The Washington Post even went as far as blaming the Charleston shooting on a couple of minor jokes about Mexicans (not blacks) told by Amy Schumer.

The Confederate flag, South Carolinans who voted to keep the flag, Amy Schumer, the NRA, the GOP... the circle of responsibility was not just permitted to grow -- it was deliberately expanded by the media and the "experts" it lets past its gates.

Would the media ever do that with Muslims? Would they start making random tendentious connections between a Muslim killer and all other Muslims, or a Muslim stage performer? Would the media blame CAIR?

No, they would not.

But they routinely do that when the killer is white -- they go searching for the "root causes," and the root causes they're interested in are not specific to the killer; they find the sins to dwell within the hearts of all white people.

When a Muslim commits a terrorist act, that's just a lone wolf. But when Dylan Roof goes on a murder rampage, that is a sin that has been encouraged by, and is the direct responsibility of, every white person who is not himself an ultra-orthodox intersectionalist progressive.

So why shouldn't Bryce Williams take the media at its word and decide that Charleston is the responsibility of every white person he takes a disliking to?

Oh and By the Way: This racist was a "grievance collector," as commenters report an FBI profiler called him on TV. He was, get this, a loser, and he filed complaint after complaint blaming other people for his inability to hold a steady job or not piss off everyone who met him.

It was always "racism" that was causing his problems.

Some might say it was because he was a crazy asshole, a fact proven by his cowardly choice to shoot a man and two women in the back; but on Twitter, alas, I see some people taking his side, claiming he was "driven" to this or whatever, and how sad that is.

Which dovetails with the point I was making earlier in the post. The media would not permit any suggestion that perhaps Dylan Roof had a point (and they would be right to dismiss any such horrifying suggestion), but when it comes to non-white murderers, suddenly the media is on a hunt to discover What White People Might Have Done to Provoke This.

Who knows, perhaps the duo who wrote that article for the Washington Post will tell us that Bryce Williams, like Dylan Roof, was driven to murder due to Amy Schumer's "racist jokes."

posted by Ace at 03:17 PM

| Access Comments