In the aftermath of the Charleston Shooting, a truly remarkable video has emerged, featuring an interview with the black friend of the supposed racist killer Dylann Storm Roof. (By the way, doesn't that name just strike you as all too apt given what happened?)
In the video a reporter from the BBC talks to two of Dylann's friends, one Black and one one White. Dylann's Black friend does most of the talking as the reporter, apparently a lady of Indian extraction, is mainly interested in finding corroborating evidence for the main media narrative that Dylann was a hate-filled racist psychopath.
She is well out of luck, as the young Black kid has nothing but praise for Dylann, who sounds like an all-round good guy. The reporter clumsily asks, "Was Dylann ignorant, was he racist?" As soon as Dylann's friend answers, the official narrative is in serious trouble.
"No. Everybody's making him out to be racist, but here I am in front of you today as a Black man and telling you I look at him no different today than what I looked at him last week, because he never said anything racist to me, never treated me any different than he treated Justin [the other (White) friend]."One is almost reminded of that delicious moment of shock when Rachel Dolezal was recently asked if she was actually African American, but this time it is the reporter who is stunned.
I am not one to indulge in conspiracy theories. I usually leave that end of the Alt-Right's copious responsibilities in Andy's capable hands, but this video really is a bombshell, and at the very least suggests that there is something deeply wrong with the official narrative of the shooting.
Many on the alternative right will be familiar with the terms "false flag" and "Manchurian candidate." Given the clear evidence here that Dylann was non-racist, is it not impossible that he was in fact some kind of Manchurian candidate, selected as a "suggestible type" and then brainwashed to first pose for a series of pictures with a gun, a Confederate flag, a jacket bedecked with Apartheid-era symbols, etc., and then sent on his mission to kill Black people?
Of course, a more parsimonious explanation of these inconsistencies would be that Dylann had a schizophrenic, Jekyll-and-Hyde personality: on one side a well-adjusted, "post-racial" youth with Black friends, on the other a trigger-happy, racist psychopath. But there are even problems with that rather clichéd and overly convenient explanation, not least the fact that it is exactly this type of person who has the highest hypnotizability of any clinical group (followed by those with post-traumatic stress disorder, like the original Manchurian candidate, a POW tortured and brainwashed by the Chinese).
In all the pictures in which Dylan poses with a gun and Confederate flag, or in an otherwise "racist" context, he has a blank, zombie-like appearance of one hypnotised.
|Dylann as racist. Cue zombie-like expression.|
But why the change of target? If we assume that this was indeed a Manchurian Candidate operation and that the motive in causing Dylann to go on a killing spree was to promote a clamp down on private gun ownership, then another campus massacre would have been ideal – even better than a church.
The fact that Dylann changed his target suggests that he might have been resisting his programming. Accounts of the killing say he sat in the church for around an hour before carrying out his deadly attack. This could either be him psyching himself up or resisting his mind control. This may also explain why he entered a Church, a typical refuge for those wrestling with their inner demons – or their Manchurian programming.
|That expression again.|
Some of the more narrow-minded and trollish commenters on this thread have tried to laugh off the idea that Roof may – and I only say may – have been hypnotised, as if such a suggestion is somehow to endorse David Icle's "lizard people" metaphors as literal realities. In actual fact there is nothing particularly far-fetched about hypnosis. it is a well-known phenomenon, admitted by science, and there even exists an Act of Parliament to regulate it (as yet there has been no Act of Parliament to regulate UFOs and Leprechauns).
To cite one famous case, there has also been constant speculation that the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy was acting under hypnosis. But, having admitted that hypnosis is possible, is there one rational person who would deny the possibility of it ever being misused in the way suggested in this article? Those of a more broad-minded disposition, who refuse to blindly dismiss something they themselves don't understand, may wish to familarise themselves more with the subject by watching this video: