James Hodgkinson was not crazy and I submit that (in most cases) we need to stop using that word to describe people involved in politically motivated acts of violence.
One can examine his history and the known facts of this case and certainly conclude that Mr Hodgkinson was at times an irrational man. We all have moments of irrational behavior and thought. It is part of the human condition. I’m personally guilty of calling every ex-girlfriend and ex-wife “crazy” for their behavior during the relationship and post-breakup, but I openly admit that’s disingenuous. It’s wrong to call our sisters, mothers, aunts, and female cousins “crazy” simply for being women.
Why is the word “crazy” bad, then? Because it’s dismissive. It’s a weak, meaningless word on par with “racist”. It’s tantamount to attempting to describe the human body by only studying the epidermis. And no, it’s not a better choice to use terms like “mentally disturbed” or other politically correct language. As anyone who is paying attention is aware, clinical diagnoses of mental conditions have become fluid and flexible according to the latest social trends. Calling this man crazy for politically motivated violence defies thousands of years of human history where men (and sometimes women) did precisely the same kinds of things to affect change and are subsequently revered for it.
Was Brutus crazy for that famous Ides of March encounter with Julius Caesar? How about John Wilkes Booth? Most of us in the Alt-South consider Booth a hero for assassinating war-mongering Lincoln. Even Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t outrightly dismissed as “crazy” for assassinating JFK. His communist sympathies and activities were well known and his motivations clear. (Setting aside conspiracy theories to objectively examine the indisputable facts).
Exceptions do occur. That’s indisputable. For instance, John Hinckley, Jr. was crazy. He claimed that his assassination attempt at Ronald Reagan was an act of love for actress Jodie Foster. This is clearly more than an anomaly of normal human irrational behavior. Hinckley was, and likely still is, insane.
You may recall in 2016 the case of negress Korryn Shandawn Gaines of Baltimore – who was killed in a standoff with police (that she livestreamed) over her failure to pay traffic fines associated with driving without a license plate (video of that traffic stop also surfaced in which she was behaving belligerently and claimed her “right to travel” was being violated). In the video-recorded stand-off she threatened to kill police with a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun and coached her nigglet child that the police were there to kill her.
Clearly, this woman was a lunatic. Yes, her behavior was politically motivated, but it was also hot-headed, impulsive, paranoid, and aggressive to the point of absurdity. Having said that, I would judge her case to be borderline in a superficial sense (i.e. a case could be made that she was a rational political actor engaging in civil disobedience). In my opinion, two considerations should be questioned. Was it reasonable for this woman to object to obeying traffic laws? Was her behavior and the potential (and in fact actual) personal consequences worth it when weighed against the potential for (in her mind) positive outcomes? I don’t think anyone can make that case logically, so my conclusion is that she was, in fact, nutso.
The Alt-Right, Alt-South, and overall white nationalist movement is an informed, rational and intellectual ideology. We have objectively identified (((nefarious forces))) acting upon the white race in order to facilitate our demise as a people. James Hodgkinson was unwittingly acting on behalf of those forces. He, like many extreme leftists, had been gaslit by the (((media))), and the media is the propaganda arm of the political actors who we identify as the enemy of the white race. Those political forces are not by any stretch of the imagination crazy or irrational. They are calculated, purposeful, and concerted.
Hodgkinson seemed to mostly be concerned with the power of the (((elite))), the bankers and Wall Street investors who pull all the strings. He was caught on camera in a media interview at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration in 2011 denouncing the “1%”. It is unfortunate that he never accepted the fact that it’s actually the (((2.5%))) who control and manipulate everything for their tribal interests. Instead, he used The Tribe’s hate mongering SPLC to obtain information about Republican Representative Steve Scalise who he targeted in his attack. Hodgkinson was not crazy, he was a dupe, a fool.
Prior to the two World Wars, it was a well understood fact of humanity that political violence was sometimes necessary to affect change. The United States was founded upon political violence against the British establishment. Those two world wars and their subsequent chain of events can be logically linked to political assassinations: one, that of Austrian monarch Archduke Ferdinand at the hands of Serbian Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo in 1914. Another, the brutal slaughter of the Russian Romanov family (Czar Nicholas, the Czarina, their 4 daughters and heir apparent son, Alexei) during the (((Bolshevik))) Revolution in 1918.
Since WW2, the very idea of political violence has been intentionally demonized by the globalist machinery, with words like “crazy” and “evil” liberally tossed around. This is because (((they))) wield the power, and they are the targets of that violence. What is the primary difference between the post-war era and all of human history that came before? Television and all encompassing media propaganda. Political violence against the establishment is effectively minimized and marginalized through the weapons of fear, social stigmatization, and reward for “good behavior”. The only kind of political violence that the establishment tolerates is extreme leftists (which by the way has been the dominant source of violence since the turn of the 20th century). This is simply because egalitarianism has been the dominant ideology for at least a century now.
Still, the multicultural establishment puts on a show when this kind of violence happens. The degree to which they dismiss the perpetrator is inversely proportional to his victimhood status. The optics of a white guy toting a gun can be effectively used to crucify “angry white men”, the second amendment, potentially Christianity…even (perhaps) if his victim was “literally Hitler” like Scalise. Every documented move he has made will be scrutinized until the narrative of the crazed loner can be convincingly spun. Conversely, the black or Muslim terrorist will be memory holed as quickly as possible with as little detail as possible.
Identity Dixie does not in any way, shape, or form promote, encourage, or condone political violence. James Hodgkinson, after all, was diametrically opposed to our ideas and thus our political foe. What purpose would it serve for us to endorse his actions? We do not. This does not mean that his actions can’t be scrutinized for fundamental truth. If our movement is to gain momentum, it is imperative that we see things with clarity and honesty and recognize the motivations of our opponents as well as our allies.
For everything there is a season. That’s not crazy, it’s the truth.
Our thoughts and prayers are with Scalise, the other victims, and their families.
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am; For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn! I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won, And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.