Is Barack Obama the new Earl Turner?

Last night (17/6/15) nine black people where shot and killed at a Church in Charleston, South Carolina, US. As I am not aware of any other murders in the area this puts the current daily murder rate at 9. When the daily murder rate in Baltimore, Maryland dropped this low it was a cause for celebration. However despite there only being one suspected murderer on the loose in Charleston rather then nine in Baltimore this is apparently considered more serious and Twitter is full of people demanding that it be labelled an act of terrorism.

To understand why it's not you really need to look back to the Chapel Hill shootings which took place in near-by North Carolina on February 10th (10/2/15). Despite it being well established that these shootings were the result of a personal dispute over a parking space there was a similar clamour for them to be labelled as an act of terrorism including by the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. During the arguments that followed much of the American news media finally worked out that terrorists are very focused on what is known as "The propaganda of the deed." That is to say they carry out their attacks in the hope of creating a media frenzy that will send their message far beyond the scene of the crime.

Since then the US media has, as a whole been far less willing to label things as terror attacks in order to avoid giving assistance to the terrorists. For example the recent May 3rd (3/5/15) shooting in Garland, Texas was clearly a terrorist attack and is being investigated and prosecuted as such. However even Fox News were noticeably restrained in their reporting avoiding much of the hyperbole that we'd come to expect.

As I explained at the time of the Chappel Hill shootings to be considered an act of terrorism in the US an act must involve; "The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." 

Although the Charleston shootings have involved the use of force and violence it is not actually immediately clear whether that use is lawful or not. Also at this point there is certainly nothing to indicate that the act was committed to influence either the government or the public to further a political or social agenda. As such it would be wholly wrong to describe it as an act of terrorism at this time. However that may change as more information becomes available.

The local police have though made it clear that they are investigating this as a possible hate crime and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) have opened a Federal hate crime investigation. Legally this also seems to be a rush to judgement not least because South Carolina doesn't have any anti-hate crime laws making prosecution for a hate crime impossible. As such I think their time would be better spent investigating a crime that actually does exist.

Although the 1994 Violence Against Women Act may also apply I suspect that the DoJ investigation is based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. To commit the an offence under the act a person has to; "willingly injure, intimidate or interfere with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, colour, religion or national origin" or because the victim is attempting to engage in one of six federally protected activities such as attending school, voting or acting as a juror. Attending Church does not count.

Given the circumstances a racial motive is certainly a prime avenue of investigation. However for the Police Chief and the Mayor to come out and publicly declare the incident to be racially motivated and certainly to prosecute it they will not only have to prove that there is a racial motive but also rule out all other possible motives. At this point they have certainly not done that.

If then we are simply projecting wild prejudices onto the situation I would like to claim that the shooter was a gay-rights activist angered at the Church's stance on homosexuality or that he was anti-gun rights activists who carried out the attack in the hope the backlash would lead to tougher gun controls. If you've been following the wars in Syria and Ukraine you would recognise this type of black propaganda as very much a signature of the current US administration.

A big problem in proving a racial motive is the fact that the deceased were not targeted at random in public. Instead they had grouped together on private property with a common purpose. Furthermore the shooter appears to have waited for a full hour inside of the building before opening fire and did not attempt to kill all of those present. This suggests a targeted shooting of specific individuals rather then a random attack. The main target was likely to the group's leader - Clementa Pinckney.

Pinckney is also a member of the Democrat party and represents them in the State senate. At the national level the Democrat Party leader - Barack Obama - appointed Eric Holder as the Attorney General and head of the DoJ. Under the Holder the DoJ harassed George Zimmerman for more then 18 months with an unwarranted investigation over the shooting of Trayvon Martin despite Zimmerman having being cleared by a Jury of any criminal wrongdoing. During this time Zimmerman lost his job, his home and his marriage broke down. Following violent altercations in 2014 and again in 2015 Zimmerman appears to have become a target for vigilante justice. Under Holder the DoJ also launched unwarranted, racially motivated investigations over the shootings of Micheal Brown, Tamir Rice and the death by natural causes of Eric Garner which have had similar impacts on the lives of those wrongly targeted. 

Pinckney is also a member of Al Sharpton's National Action Network and as such organised protests demanding the arrest of Micheal Slager (white) over the death of Walter Scott (black) in nearby North Charleston. Following the events in Ferguson, New York City, Seattle and elsewhere these protests carried with them an implicit threat of violent disorder and murder. This appears to have been a factor in South Carolina prosecutors decision to imprison Slager on an unsupportable charge of murder without a Grand Jury indictment or access to legal representation. In short they denied Slager his civil rights under the 4th and 6th amendments to the US Constitution because it was politically convenient to do so.

As such if I was represented the accused I would argue that he did not carry out the shooting to kill black people or to further a political agenda through intimidation or coercion. Instead he simply acted to kill Pinckney and members of his group in order to protect himself and the wider citizens of South Carolina from Pinckney's groups use of terrorist tactics to intimidate and coerce local government officials into disregarding civil rights and effectively kidnapping white people off the street. Obviously there remains the issue of immediacy and why he didn't pursue more conventional means. However I think it is clear that there is something rotten in the South Carolina legal system.

If though it was a racist attack it is likely that the shooter was influenced by a particularly nasty 1978 novel entitled "The Turner Diaries" because they always are. The book tells the story of an America that has been overrun by a totalitarian Zionist government which triggers a race war that the whites - including the books protagonist Earl Turner - win because, as we all know, whites are supreme. Reading up on it again this morning though I have to say that the comparisons between the books fictional government and the current US administration are rather chilling;

The book begins shortly after the government has repealed the second amendment and confiscated everyone's guns under what is known as the "Cohen Act." Given the Democrats constant demands for stricter gun control need I say more.

The fictional government then goes on to introduce digital passports containing all of an individuals personal information that they must carry with them at all times to allow their movements to be tracked. Some 35 years later I suspect the NSA would refer to these passports as "Smartphones" and I'm pretty sure Blackberry are already marketing a "Passport" smartphone.

Next come a waves of repressive anti-racism laws which would certainly please all of America's race and gender activists who are now obsessed with what they term "micro-agressions." In an effort to rid society from the evils of racism the government mandates anti-racism marches. Any white people who do not attend these marches get beaten up by the mob and have their homes and businesses destroyed in scenes that are worryingly similar to Ferguson and Baltimore.

One of the new laws the fictional government introduces makes it a "hate crime" for white people to defend themselves from crimes being committed by non-whites. The current round on increased racial tension that America is currently experiencing really began on August 9th 2014 (9/8/14) with the shooting of Micheal Brown (black) by Darren Wilson (white). At the time of his death Brown was fleeing the scene after committing a robbery. In a further effort to evade arrest Brown then attacked Wilson and was killed. This is one of the clearest examples of justifiable homicide by way of self-defence ever seen.

However despite being immediately aware that this was the case the DoJ under Holder conducted yet another unwarranted, five month hate crime investigation into Wilson even though he had been cleared by a jury of any wrongdoing. During this time Wilson was forced from his job and his home after receiving numerous death threats against himself and his family. During this time the city of Ferguson was subjected constant disruptive protests, multiple nights of rioting and the attempted murder of two police officers. No action has been taken on these matters despite clear evidence of the Brown family inciting the violence.

Then there was the shooting of Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio on November 22nd (22/11/14). At the time of his death the 12 year old Rice was unsupervised in a public place in possession of a deadly weapon. So although this was clearly tragic again examples of justifiable homicide by way of self-defence do not get any clearer. However again Holder's DoJ launched an 8 month hate crime investigation that cost the accused white police officer his job. Under new leadership the DoJ itself admitted that this investigation had been wholly unwarranted and there wasn't sufficient evidence to even put the matter to a jury. Again there were the usual rounds of disruptive protest and death threats and again no action was taken. This is despite there being a pretty good chance of convicting Rice's care giver at the time of felony neglect leading to the death of a child.

The most interesting change in the law though is that rape is made legal. As the book is written by a racist for the benefit of other racists this is to imply that all black men are rapists so to expect them not to rape would be racist. However in the book the new law is supported by feminists who argue that anti-rape laws suggest that gender is biologically pre-determined. Hasn't America recently become obsessed with comparing Caitlyn Jenner with Rachel Dolezal?

Eventually the white supremacists take over America's south-west and engage in what is termed "demographic warfare" to make sure the area is controlled by the right sort of people. Obviously in the book they force all the non-whites out of the area but the principle at work seems to be the same one behind Obama's immigration amnesty which intends to gerrymander traditionally Republican states so the Democrats can control them.

Finally the "Organisation" as it's known launches a nuclear strike against Israel which sees it's Arab neighbour's swarm into Israel killing all the Jews. This is a stated objective of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

So although it's a nutty book for nutters I can't help by worry that Obama has been using The Turner Diaries as his Presidential handbook.

16:35 on 18/6/15 (UK date).

Edited at around 20:10 on 18/6/15 (UK date) to add the above section on hate crimes as per the Turner Diaries which I missed in my rush to dinner and; 

The suspect in the Charleston shooting has since been arrested and pictures of him wearing a jacket bearing the flags of apartheid-era South Africa and neighbouring Rhodesia have been released. Although it is clear that many people have judged this case before any facts were known this has prompted lots of discussion about whether those flags can be considered racist symbols that would support the hate crime allegation.

This is a difficult question because the South African flag in question is not the flag of the white supremacist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) which featured so heavily during the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. Also having very nearly been born in Rhodesia I have a fair few examples of the flag knocking around in old atlas' and documents. Does possession of those articles prove me to be a racist?

By an amazing coincidence the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today happened to be ruling on just this issue. By a margin of 5-4 it was ruled that Texas is allowed to prohibit the use of the Confederate Flag on vehicle license plates because it can be interpreted as a racist symbol and constitute a micro-aggression against non-white citizens.

So I'm inclined to say that the presence of the flags helps to rule out a racist motive and help to rule in black propaganda by anti-gun rights activists. As such I would advise the accused to plead guilty and offer to implicate his co-conspirators in return for a reduced sentence.

However if we're not going to believe that then the identities of the 9 deceased have been revealed. What is clear is that they have all been active members of Sharpton's NAN - a group that has used violence to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. With the Slager case still very much active I would therefore conclude that it is reasonable to assume the common purpose that brought the group together was to plan and carry out further such action. With this being the cornerstone of a defence of justifiable homicide by way of defence of self/other as per SOCTUS Graham V Conner (1989) there is no way under law that the accused can be convicted of any offence relating to the deaths.

As such I assume a writ of habeas corpus is being prepared as I write. If such a thing still exists in South Carolina.

20:55 on 18/6/15 (UK date).