This page is in the archetypes section because it involves a melting pot archetype, an attempt by individuals in the melting pot to 'recover' and refine a part of awareness that is natural to indigenous people but generally lost in the melting pot.
In the 1950s communism was promoted as a big threat.
The U.S. communist party was well funded, and large numbers of law enforcers countered them.
As it turned out, the reason they were so well funded was because the FBI gave them vast amounts of money, most of it 'donations' from 'undercover agents'.
A sort of symbiosis developed. The communists got money and publicity, while the FBI got even more money and power. The FBI had enough influence among 'the communists' that it could get them to do things that would require giving the FBI more authority, more funding, etc.
"However, according to CIA agent and later Watergate burglar Howard Hunt, “the Communist Party of the United States, in fact, at the moment, was practically a branch of the Justice Department.”"
Today, of course, the 'white nationalist threat' is different in an important way. Teenage nationalists are quicker to shoot than older communists.
Otherwise though it's the same.
Much of what is called 'law enforcement' involves pretending to find criminals, or creating them.
The police often then prevent people from seeing the evidence, so 'official facts' can't be disputed.
James Patrick Reardon made some very obviously sarcastic self deprecating posts on social media, making fun of white nationalists. Any person with even a bare minimum education should be able to look at what is available of his posts and see it is meant as humor. He has beliefs that offend some people, but he does not take himself too seriously and his humor is a sign that he is willing to discuss anything flexibly.
Veggie Tales is a sarcastic Christian educational video series. Reardon made an obviously sarcastic comment about them which 'authorities' twisted into a threat. The people who twisted his obvious humor so it would appear to be a threat are not acting with any decent motive. They are fabricating a crime and criminal then portraying themselves as having heroically saved some potential victims.
Humor serves a positive purpose in society. Most people are aware of this, but the police would rather portray themselves as heroic, and most people go along with police lies even when they are harmful.
Most people in the U.S. who collect guns have far more guns than he had. If you look at the various reports some try to pretend he had a machine gun and other weapons that he did not have.
Reardon had 'dozens of rounds' when he was arrested. In other words he did not even have enough bullets to sight his gun or go target shooting.
New Middletown Police Chief Vincent D'Egidio appears in a lot of news stories, clearly aroused and excited about having heroically 'saved so many lives'.
He references a right wing rally where he says Reardon appeared.
Reardon appeared in a 2017 National Geographic documentary about the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, D'Egidio told CNN. The documentary is accompanied by an essay by Katie Couric.
D'Egidio told CNN he can confirm that Reardon is the individual being interviewed. He said he based his identification on knowing Reardon since a young age and recognizing his face.
D'Egidio has not spoken to Reardon directly about the video.
In the documentary, an 18-year-old Reardon tells an interviewer that he doesn't consider himself a neo-Nazi, but he considers himself a white nationalist and a member of the alt-right.
"I want a homeland for white people, and I think every race should have a homeland for their race," Reardon said in the video.
If you click on the two actual links in the article that supposedly lead to the video, they actually go to the following two links.
In other words they are articles that try to manipulate people of certain ideologies, rather than providing the actual facts that the link claimed to be providing.
A little research leads to the video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FDIfPhx-Fm0 and at 12 minute 30 seconds into the video is the brief interview referenced. He speaks rationally and honestly.
Graig Graziosi claims he interviewed Reardon several times about his beliefs.
"We spoke about his beliefs and his participation in Charlottesville, and ultimately we decided at The Vindicator not to run the interview because we didn’t want to give his views an additional platform that was playing out in our national coverage."
But if you search for any past indication that Graziosi interviewed Reardon you end up with dozens of circular links all promoting Graziosi's claim that he interviewed a 'radicalizing' Reardon. It certainly seems to give credibility to Graziosi, except that it looks like it was fabricated. Giving Graziosi the benefit of the doubt though, supposing he is telling the truth, what would the purpose of preventing people from seeing the interview be? What would it be that 'the public should not be able to see'?
Reardon appears to believe that every race should have a homeland. Is there anybody who disagrees with that?
He was taught, by the United States, that the United States is a territory started by white people. In fact the United States is an attempt to expand European influence and encourage the notion that North America is indigenously white.
There is truth and lies on all sides in every discussion, but in the discussion of white nationalism in the United States most of the lies come from 'officials' and 'authorities'.
They encourage stupidity and sloppy thinking, then when their protégés shoot random people they respond with more stupidity.
Here is an interesting web page on a website that is usually called 'Nazi'. Whether they are 'bad' or 'good', who knows. But the page is obviously written by somebody who knows a lot about fringe right types and a person should respect the fact that the page is explaining. They have beliefs. They are explaining them. If a person s flustered by their beliefs, incapacitated by outrage or whatever, then don't read what they write.
A similar character is Greg Johnson.
Like anybody, he has some good ideas and some bad ideas. A lot of his core view is built around the incorrect assumption that North America is, or might be, a white indigenous area.
Most of the problematic aspects of new world white nationalism are derivatives of the fallacy of 'white North America'.
North America has been populated for many thousands of years by an indigenous race of people who are not white.
North America is clearly their homeland. What could be more obvious?
Opportunistically sacrificing integrity to get a little more land, trying to promote the fiction of white indigeneity in North America, is crooked.
Unfortunately, forcing white nationalists in North America to have integrity in that matter is difficult, because they would then be the leaders of the progressive left in that regard and would be acting against the interests of the United States.
In other words the supposed 'target' of federal law enforcement, white nationalism, is actually the only substantive pressure keeping the U.S. viable as a colonial power. The United States is not only not fighting white nationalism, at the federal level it is doing everything possible to encourage it. Once white nationalism in the U.S. develops integrity and disavows white North American indigeneity, the United States is largely finished as a world power. Native American nations in North America will be calling shots.
White nationalists who have integrity should push for a negotiated settlement with the actual people who are indigenous to North America. A settlement that takes into account past bad faith negotiations and other factors, and is fair to all sides.
It's very similar to the international 'drug war' started by the United States, which involved creating fake villains and fabricating narratives based on everything except facts.
The drug war has enriched a select few, created mounds of enforcement jobs, but not really benefited anybody.
Anything can be made to appear 'justified' if you have enough power and influence. So called 'authorities' can lie, fabricate etc as much as they want, because they know that in the short term they have enough muscle in the media to portray their narrative as 'fact'.
Ultimately though if your enemy is the truth it doesn't matter how much power, influence or authority you have.
Unlike fictional shooters created by law enforcement, real 'white supremacist shooters' leave an easy to find path that includes manifestos.
A basic conflict at the root of all white nationalist violence, whether in Australia, Europe or the U.S., is whether Europe or the U.S. or Australia is the actual birthplace of the numerous white races. If the U.S. or Australia is to be considered an 'indigenous white' territory, then violence will increase for the simple reason that humans are ingrained with an instinct to exterminate prior residents when they make an area part of their homeland.
Are white people actually originally from North America? Most people do know the truthful answer is that those people indigenous to North America i.e., the land occupied by the United States, are Native Americans. It is a different race. White people in North America are not indigenous. White people may have several generations in North America but they are indigenous to Europe.
TLDR page Summary / White Nationalist 'shooters' are conflicted as a result of the apparent status of both Europe and the United States as the "indigenous white homeland". Until Native Americans have adequate power outside the framework of the U.S. Government, and non Natives have a very clear status as immigrants, these shootings are likely to continue growing.
if anybody wants to present a case that the North American land mass is, in fact, the white indigenous homeland then they should do so directly, publicly, rather than through sneaky political machinations.
The forced melting pot, along with its associated fictions, is less defensible rationally than the actions of the delinquents listed below.
Mass shooters / shootings all have a few things in common.
This page examines some of the commonalities in
a) 'far right' white nationalists who commit mass shootings modeled on nationalist or partisan 'soldiers', legends, etc and
b) 'rebel students' who commit school shootings modeled on 'authorities', usually law enforcers, and
c) converts to melting pot religions who model on perceived peers and historical melting pot 'heroes'.
Even the shooters would acknowledge that there is a rational solution that should have been available to them to avoid the carnage.
A fourth kind of shooter, who doesn't seem to model directly on any class of people is mentioned on the Nouveau Shooter page.
Both Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant used a dialogue as part of their 'manifestos'. Dylan Roof had a website with one page of photos and a manifesto on the other page.
Anders Breivik manifesto https://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf
Brenton Tarrant manifesto https://milnenews.com/2019/03/15/christchurch-mosque-shooter-brenton-tarrants-full-manifesto/
Dylan Roof manifesto http://lastrhodesian.net/data/documents/rtf88.txt
Patrick Crucius manifesto https://thecount.com/2019/08/03/patrick-crusius-manifesto-full-transcript/
The Crucias manifesto is pretty new and an example of a generic manifesto and motive. A few weeks before the shooting his mother had called the police to report he had an ak47. In other words his mother considered 'the police' to be the authority figure in their household. He reacted to that atmosphere at his home in a healthy way, by seeking a more authentic ground for authority, something which is discouraged or forbidden in the U.S.
Likewise when Dylan Roof was being sought his older sister was the first to call police. She had been planning a wedding but felt she had to postpone it. She then started a Gofundme asking for $5,000 to help with wedding, and promised to donate 10% to the victims.
The most important commonality in the shooters is a healthy disrespect for 'political correctness', in an environment or society where perceptions are shaped by fictional narratives. Crucias's reference to Native Americans in his manifesto shows that he is rational and respectful of other people's, he just has not bought in to the melting pot fiction.
That reality, along with the normal youthful disregard for life, and appetite for sacrifice, creates shooters.
"Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement."
As a general rule, the 'official' tendency in the U.S. is to try to minimize people who do things like mass shootings, pretend they are 'stupid' etc, while in Europe the tendency is more toward trying to understand the logic.
In all these cases the young men are clearly somewhat educated, articulate and rational. It is very clear in each case that the 'shooter' is in many ways ahead of many people, bolder, more inventive, independent in some respects, etc.
On the other hand, each shooter is very much at a developmental stage that involves role playing and peer challenges. Breivik likes to put on military costumes, as millions of young men in melting pots do, Tarrant has cultivated artificial muscles and deliberately studied identification signals for 'his' group, Roof, like the others, stages photos that he hopes will cultivate a masculine persona.
Unfortunately it's also clear that the intellectual gaps each 'shooter' has are the result of an enforced stupidity pushed on them. In other words their societies allow certain questions and don't allow others. It's fine to enforce stupidity in rocks, but in kids who can shoot guns it's better to encourage intelligence. Some of the quotes below demonstrate that each of these kids has a simple lack of information. Their lack of information comes from a melting pot that tries to push a false inclusiveness narrative. Breivik was aware of this, his manifesto complains about political correctness, but he himself did not realize his sentiment towards Muslims was his own group's political correctness, which he tried to cover with flawed reasoning.
A common feature of melting pots is an 'enforced fiction', a set of historical lies that people must believe and support if they don't want to be ostracized or otherwise 'punished'.
Here is an example of enforced stupidity.
In that case, a woman has a common belief, a belief that is near universal in many societies, but she lives in a forced melting pot where it is required to pretend that those common beliefs are incomprehensible, mysterious.
In Tibet the Chinese are bringing in ethnic Chinese to enforce their melting pot on Tibetans. The result is obvious and anybody can Google Tibet or any number of forced melting pots around the world to see how it goes.
In the case of the woman in the news article above, she has the right to try to maintain her community as she is used to it, but she loses credibility because she is a European trying to enforce European indigeneity where it simply doesn't exist. This sly colonialism, an attempt to consolidate colonial gains at the expense of the indigenous, leads to dishonest opportunistic themes like Israel's "facts on the ground", and manipulative political shams like http://northwestfront.org/.
The "U.S." is an indigenous American territory occupied by various groups including its original inhabitants, who are kept from power by force of weapons, and manipulated into 'joining' the conquerors melting pot. There is nothing wrong with an Asian or African or European community in North America, except that it has been established in the same way the Chinese are establishing a Chinese community in Tibet.
Pretending that it is proper to do that is only building a foundation for mass shootings. It forces children to first pretend stupidity when they are young, then to gradually become stupider and stupider in reality.
The simple fact of North America, a very basic simple fact, is that it was occupied coast to coast, north to south, by races that are today called "Native American". Those groups therefore have actual rights to the territory, even under the laws of their conquerors.
Trying to legitimize European rights in Europe obviously is the most basic common sense. Who should have rights to make European laws, if not descendants of the first peoples there? But trying to also say that Europeans have the right to political control of the Americas eliminates the validity of European control over Europe. There has to be some minimal, basic amount of integrity. If politicians want to play idiot games then there seem to be plenty of shooters willing to play.
Both the Americas and Europe have distinct indigenous cultures. Either both will have their indigenous groups gain political control or both will be melting pots. It will not happen that one retains indigenous control while the other is controlled by outsiders who 'colonized'.
Europeans are the 'extreme west' of humanity and Native Americans are the 'extreme east'. Europeans who want to protect European indigenousness must first decide whether Europe is one of two melting pots or one of two indigenous regions.
As long as the U.S. is a European sanctioned melting pot sacrificing indigenous people, then Europe must start becoming a melting pot.
Once Indigenous American groups have real power then indigenous European groups will have real power.
Here are some quotes from Anders Breivik.
"The PCCTS, Knights Templar is a European indigenous rights movement"
~He is not being sarcastic, nor disrespectful to 'indigenous rights movements'. Rather, he has a better understanding of their significance than most people. The specific group he mentions is an offshoot of a group in the south of France that is widely respected. They have a pope, a king, a well developed spirituality and history, and are great soldiers still today.
~The problem is that he has a simplistic view of indigeneity. He recognizes for example that a Frenchman of 20 generations is more indigenously French than a Frenchman of 2 weeks, but he has not yet figured out, or doesn't yet have the integrity to admit, that a French villager of 200 generations is more indigenous than his neighbor of 20 generation indigeneity.
"If that was true, then why am I working on a weekly basis with fellow Indian, Jewish, Chilean intellectuals to preserve true, long term democracy, to ensure that the will of the people is respected? Why do we champion Israel’s cause when no one else is? Why do we propagate a military campaign, a military Crusade to assist our eastern Christians brothers – the Semitic Copts, Maronites, Assyrians? Why would we do this when they are not even considered “white”? The old definitions do not apply anymore."
~In this regard, he is confusing race and religion. He does not have adequate knowledge of the history of Christianity, or he would see its parallels to Islam.
~Breivik had the habit of dressing up in military costumes, which is always a sign of a person whose 'ideology' is not their own, in other words a melting potter. He may have felt his intentions were good, but he wasn't old enough to know.
Here are some quotes from Brenton Tarrant.
"Did/do you have ties to any other partisans/freedom fighters/ethno soldiers? I support many of those that take a stand against ethnic and cultural genocide.Luca Traini, Anders Breivik, Dylan Roof, Anton Lundin Pettersson, Darren Osbourne etc. But I have only had brief contact with Knight Justiciar Breivik, receiving a blessing for my mission after contacting his brother knights."
~He is trying to avoid one club by joining another. His thinking is well intentioned.
"Why did you carry out the attack? To most of all show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our people."
~He has some experience with other cultures, and sees the melting pot problem, but he doesn't have enough education to make the assumptions he makes.
"Simple, white, wooden crosses stretching from the fields beside the roadway, seemingly without end, into the horizon. Their number uncountable, the representation of their loss unfathomable. I pulled my rental car over, and sat, staring at these crosses and contemplating how it was that despite these men and womens sacrifice, despite their bravery, we had still fallen so far.I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car, staring at the crosses, at the forgotten dead."
~He is trying to preserve traditions.
~What he misses is that those 'crosses' are graves of people who died defending one melting pot against another. Stupidity does not become intelligence by repeating it endlessly.
"Who do you represent? Millions of European and other ethno-nationalist peoples that wish to live in peace amongst their own people, living in their own lands, practicing their own traditions and deciding the future of their own kind."
~He accurately mentions who he represents. He should research his actual indigenous roots, rather than the confused fantasy roots that put him in a huge European melting pot that he thinks is indigenous.
"No group ordered my attack, I make the decision myself. Though I did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the attack, which was given."
~If he had studied more with the group he tries to follow he would have moved more slowly.
"Secondly an attack in New Zealand would bring to attention the truth of the assault on our civilization, that no where in the world was safe, the invaders were in all of our lands, even in the remotest areas of the world and that there was no where left to go that was safe and free from mass immigration."
~Simple intellectual sloppiness.
~Stories about early Celtic settlers in New Zealand are a) blatantly silly and b) show a disgraceful lack of integrity in anybody who uses that argument.
~Further, anybody who has watched the development of human migration theories in more populated and studied areas knows it is only a matter of time until both archaeological and DNA evidence surfaces additional prehistoric settlements in New Zealand.
"Did/do you personally hate muslims? A muslim man or woman living in their homelands?No. A muslim man or woman choosing to invade our lands live on our soil and replace our people? Yes, I dislike them. The only muslim I truly hate is the convert, those from our own people that turn their backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, turn their back on their traditions and became blood traitors to their own race. These I hate."
~Like Breivik he is missing the parallels between Christianity and Islam, he doesn't understand that religions are melting pots, and he has a competitive view of religion, in other words he has transferred his 'resistance to assimilation' from his race to his religion, which is hypocrisy.
"Did/do you personally hate foreigners/other cultures? No, I spent many years travelling through many, many nations. Everywhere I travelled, barring a few small exceptions, I was treated wonderfully, often as a guest and even as a friend. The varied cultures of the world greeted me with warmth and compassion, and I very much enjoyed nearly every moment I spent with them. I wish the different peoples of their world all the best regardless of their ethnicity, race, culture of faith and that they live in peace and prosperity, amongst their own people, practicing their own traditions, in their own nations. But, if those same people seek to come to my peoples lands, replace my people, subjugate my people, make war upon on my people, ,hen I shall be forced to fight them, and hold nothing in reserve."
~More indication he is a decent person, but trying to join a club.
"Was the attack anti-diversity in origin? No, the attack was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity. To ensure diverse peoples remain diverse, separate, unique,undiluted in unrestrained in cultural or ethnic expression and autonomy. To ensure that the peoples of the world remain true to their traditions and faiths and do not become watered down and corrupted by the influence of outsiders. The attack was to ensure a preservation of beauty, art and tradition. In my mind a rainbow is only beautiful to due its variety of colours, mix the colours together and you destroy them all and they are gone forever and the end result is far from anything beautiful."
~Very well said. Does not justify random killing, but it shows he is acting on a solid base and has a good background.
"Were/are you a Christian? That is complicated."
~He is a step ahead of Breivik, and many steps ahead of most people.
"By living in New Zealand, weren’t you an immigrant yourself? Yes, and it seems we immigrants seem to bring a whole host of issues. Nah, not really.An Australian living in New Zealand is much the same as an Austrian living in Bavaria. They aren’t going to ethnically replace the people, nor change the nations culture.They are the same people, they are the same culture.
~Simple lack of history / knowledge. A free online college course on New Zealand would have made him sharper.
Here are some quotes from Dylan Roof.
"The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?"
The tragedy with Dylan Roof is that he is a decent kid, doing what he has been taught is right, but he has been taught by morons.
On the day Trayvon Martin was killed, the evidence seems to be that Zimmerman was sort of following or stalking Martin. That's the actual truth. A person who claims otherwise is not dealing with facts.
There is nothing wrong with shooting somebody when appropriate, but following somebody around in the hopes of being able to justify shooting them is stupid.
Both Martin and Zimmerman were types who sort of sought thrills, but the evidence seems to be that Zimmerman selected Martin because he was unarmed, an easy target.
As for 'black on white crime' etc, Dylan Roof is not old enough, nor seasoned enough nor well traveled enough to have a worthwhile opinion on that. He is a product of the U.S. 'everybody's opinion is equal' stupidity.
If he went to an indigenous black area in Africa he would find that there are some areas extremely dangerous, with primitive people, and some areas extremely safe, with stable and peaceful tribal peoples. In other words the same as anywhere.
If he studied a bit he would learn that crime correlates to perceived poverty, and education. Most black people in the U.S. are descended from slaves, so several generations ago they had little or no education and very little wealth for the most part. It makes sense that blacks in the U.S. would be behind whites in anything related to education or wealth, for that reason.
The website that poisoned him, gave him inaccurate data in order to manipulate him into following their agenda, have a kernel of truth in their philosophy, but the truth they have is 'forbidden' from mainstream discussion, which causes the untruthful part to expand. Just as Dylan Roof is the product of being educated by morons, those morons were created by the system, the melting pot, the United States, which discourages fact based discussion.
"I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation."
Another example of being educated by morons. Anybody can be made to go along with anything. If Mr Roof was made a slave, eventually he would develop those same attributes. He is just too young to realize that.