= new reply since forum marked as read
All the references to previous killers, language copied and slightly edited from others, Internet allusions and memes, even the choice of music and call-outs.
He had a keenly ironic stance in his actions and writing. He'd write something, and then later flat-out contradict it. He'd make a claim, and then at the end make some tongue-in-cheek references that causes the reader "in the know" to reconsider whether he's been mislead or not. He's too self-conscious. He played to an audience while playing his audience.
Take what he says and does under advisement. He might mean it. He might not mean it. He might mean it in a way different from how you interpret it, but which his intended audience finds obvious. He might mean it but say things intended for you to conclude that he didn't mean it.
As the writer (of the webpage) went through parts of the manifesto, I found myself constantly at a loss. I didn't catch what were likely allusions that spoke to serious intent; they were just details that bore no meaning. Meanwhile, larger things that were obviously what he thought had bits sticking out that said, "You're a f--king idiot if you think this is serious, rope-a-dope." I can't read it; I lack the cultural background and ways to contextualize the document's content. I can't imagine sitting on a jury with that as evidence. It's like reading some arcane text--you need the parallel passage and textual commentary/critical apparatus to make your way through it, but then you're working off some expert testimony/interpretation and not the actual text. Haven't had something like that sprung on me since reading the Lay of Igor's Host in the original (?) Old Russian as a 3rd year student. (The opacity of which you'll see if you read a bit from an Internet translation. Good luck with the allusions. If it's a real tale, then the references were obvious and heads nodded at almost every word.)
That "OK" symbol, for instance, just wasn't a white-power symbol a few years ago. That's not disputable. The source of it as a white-power symbol has been clearly identified as a "first use" (and at that, as parody). After that, the extent to which somebody means in seriously and the extent to which they're taunting isn't always an empirically ascertainable question. Sometimes there's just no evidence. However, it also means that it's not a clear attribution for people who otherwise give no obvious evidence of overt neo-Nazi/white-power allegiance (except the ubiquitous "just look at the person, obviously they're a white supremacist" sort of non-evidence "evidence"
.
Here's a bit of the Lay, for your edification (not the first part, which isn't that opaque, but which is all of one sentence long.)
(II) It was never fitting, brothers, for us to begin the story
of Igor’s campaign, Igor Sviatoslavich,
Using the ardent words of vexing tales.
This song should begin in accordance with the events of our own time
and not as a fantasy of Boian.
(III) For Boian was a wizard; when he wished to create a song,
He would move in all directions through the tree as a squirrel--
as a grey wolf along the ground,
as a dusky eagle beneath the clouds.
He remembered, he said, the wars of the first times.
He would free ten falcons to attack a flock of swans;
The first swan seized sang the first song
to old Iaroslav, to brave Mstislav who slew Rededia
as Cherkess troops looked on, to fair Roman Sviatoslavich.
I notice they are not as quick to defend this hand sign
...he's clearly just playing basketball.
dripping fucking 
That way they couldn't throw their hand signals to their sick buddies.
