Spree Killers:

The Forefront of Knowledge

Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer

Published in Heritage and Destiny, issue 52, January-February 2013

Note: A few weeks after publication this was shown to a Yorkshire librarian and subsequently two library staff made complaints to the police. This resulted in the author spending 5½ weeks in jail for this article, before being hurriedly released.

Kultur-Terror by Norwegian Harald Damsleth. He produced propaganda posters during WWII.

On 22 July 2011 Anders Breivik embarked on a carefully planned murderous rampage which ended the lives of 77 and injured 242 others. This much is common knowledge, but he is only a recent example of a long line of spree killers. It can confidently be predicted that there will be more.

The origins, motivations and psychology of the spree killer are little understood. Certainly this is the case in the mainstream but, not for the first time, nationalists have a huge advantage. Not only are we freed from the bounds of political correctness but we are closer to understanding the motivations of the spree killer, even while we don’t condone his actions. No doubt agents of the State will be keenly watching, and scrutinising every word of this. Let them read and learn!

Of course when someone like Breivik goes on a killing frenzy the Establishment fires up its engines of righteous indignation. And what mighty engines they are! The ground shakes, the air pulsates and the walls tremble, so powerful are they. Hour upon hour of condemnatory commentary fills the airwaves; the hand-wringing and angst of the commentators is almost palpable: Why? Why? Why? One might even suspect feigned innocence.

Eventually though we become inured to the awesome clamour of the Establishment’s machines of mass influence, and we venture nearer to the source of the constant noise. Our exploration takes us closer and then beyond. Behind the great clanking monolith, located discreetly some distance away and hidden from view, we come upon the machine’s exhaust. There we are almost overcome by the great noxious clouds of hypocrisy belching forth. Amid these dense clouds of cant we glimpse some of the 3.5 million German homes destroyed and over 6,000 medieval houses razed in a “terror-bombing” campaign so formidable that whole species of birds and insects were wiped out. The images shift and fade, hard to identify, because they are but ghosts of the Prussian royal palaces, Hanseatic cities, the birthplaces of Bach, Dürer and Goethe and thousands of other unique historic and cultural sites deliberately targeted with phosphorous and incendiary bombs. Most are familiar with the events at Dresden, but that city was merely the zenith of an evil campaign of civilian bombing in an unnecessary war which was certainly not started nor fought for British interests.

Yes, it is wicked to slaughter innocent people; but the present regime, and its bedfellow the media, or rather the tail which wags the dog, is in no position to lecture on this score. All the victims of spree killers added together number less than the innocents who died horrifically in a few seconds of an Allied-created firestorm. The current regime draws its line directly from that wartime one, which the recent action against Iraq confirms.

Matters of life and death

Here, in treating the subject of spree killers, we are operating at the forefront of knowledge, an environment which is natural territory for the scientist but not perhaps for readers of this magazine. But we have already been there, with the introduction of neurotic transfer (Issue 50), so perhaps it is not so unfamiliar. Plus the subject is of such importance, literally involving life and death, that the topic must be explored.

We start with a summary of incontrovertibles – facts which are known – not about Breivik particularly but about spree killers generally. That is, we seek to establish a stereotype. It should be noted though that the spree killer is not a uniquely Western phenomenon, although incidences in Western societies have accelerated since the earliest event I could discover, that of Howard Unruh in 1949. The word amok derives from Malaysia, where there (and reportedly several other countries) a man can suddenly flip and run wild with a machete or other weapon, killing and maiming at random. The cry of amuq is issued as a warning, allowing people to find refuge and for the men to arm themselves and overcome him. In fact the record before Breivik was held by South Korean policeman Woo Bum-kon who, drunk after an argument with his girlfriend, killed 57 plus himself in 1982.

The facts then are as follows: the Western spree killer is usually a white or Jewish male. He seeks to inflict maximum damage by killing or maiming as many as possible, and he usually finally kills himself or arranges his own demise (e.g. ‘suicide by cop’). The killer executes his scheme with a cool rationality such that he is able to kill any bystander, child and even his own family members dispassionately.

It is clear that two categories exist: those who plan their spree and those who do not. In the latter case, the spree is triggered by some event. When the action is planned in advance the impetus to spree kill is evidently nurtured and with premeditation the attack can be executed to more devastating effect.

Racial aspects

Finally, it is clear that a significant proportion of spree killers possess some conscious racial awareness, as demonstrated by their known history, their comments at the time or their choice of targets. Tellingly, the victims of the few black spree killers to date have been overwhelmingly white.

Typical of this aspect was law student Benjamin Smith in 1999. He had been a member of the World Church of the Creator the year before. Probably as part of his preparation he wrote to its leader Matt Hale in an attempt to insulate that organisation from his subsequent actions, and it may have been the denial of a law licence to Hale which triggered his spree. Smith wounded six Orthodox Jews, killed a black, a Korean and then himself.

Achieving greater success (if it may be called that) was Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish immigrant to Israel from Brooklyn. In 1994 Goldstein burst into a mosque in Palestine to gun down the gathered worshippers, killing 29 before having a fire extinguisher smashed on his head. Goldstein is now revered and his grave is treated as a shrine by ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers. Similarly, chants in support for Breivik were made by Russian nationalists at recent ‘National Unity Day’ demonstrations there.

With varying racial aspect we have Michael Ryan in Hungerford, Berkshire who in 1987 initially targeted Asians at a service station, Martin Bryant in Tasmania in 1996 whose first targets were Malays and made comments about WASPs, Larry Ashbrook at Fort Worth in 1999 who had previously flirted with racialist groups, and Buford Furrow who in 1999 attacked a Jewish community centre. The latest (at the time of writing) is Wade Page, referred to as “a racist skinhead,” who in August 2012 opened fire at a Sikh temple, killing 6 and wounding 3, also killing a police officer.

Psychology and motivation

Having laid down some of the basic elements we now enter into the less tangible area of psychology and motivation. During his trial Breivik was declared sane. What this means is that there was an absence of psychosis; technically, psychosis involves detachment from reality. So Breivik’s actions were not just carefully and rationally planned: his scheme followed a logical, grim progression.

Britain has no equivalent of America’s NRA, and what advocates of gun freedom there are consist of farmers and a few specialist sportsmen. Notwithstanding, the point has been made that in practically every case, the weapons used by spree killers have been licensed or otherwise legally in the possession of their owners. They were not criminals; in a large number of cases they were normal, law-abiding citizens, perhaps even less criminal than average. Despite this, two notable spree-killing incidents in Britain have each led to increased stringency concerning gun ownership: the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 following Hungerford in August 1987, and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 following Dunblane in March 1996.

It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times. Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure. Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available. It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled. Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.

Restricting gun ownership is no solution, because a means to kill will always be found by the determined. Emphasising this, in October 2012 Matthew Tvrdon went on a hit-and-run spree in Cardiff using his vehicle and a steering-wheel lock as weapons. Tvrdon deliberately aimed his van at pedestrians, sometimes even reversing back over the mostly women and children he had mown down. If we are to have any hope of preventing such killing sprees in the future, it is necessary first of all to understand the phenomenon.

The first question we need to ask is, how closely does Breivik fit the mould of the ‘perfect’ spree killer? The answer to this is – pretty closely. Breivik’s only major deviation from the standard pattern was to live to tell the tale, and in that at least he has done the world a service. I have no doubt that he is aware of this aspect and that it was intentional. Allowing his motivations to be examined subsequently was almost certainly his preferred outcome.

A distinguishable subset of spree killers includes psychotics and social outcasts, a group that probably contains one of the few female spree killers to date, Brenda Spencer, whose 1979 eruption using schoolchildren for target practice inspired the lyric “I don’t like Mondays.” (In fact the only two she killed were men.) Plus Tristan van der Vlis, who killed six and shot himself near Amsterdam in 2011. However even these cases may not be completely divorced from the general trend: psychosis is a disorder of the mind, or higher brain, while the instincts (motivations) which impel the spree killer, I would contend, derive from a lower level.

Neurosis and tipping points

My definition of neurosis follows directly from Pavlov: neurotic stress ensues when one stimulus evokes two or more responses. (Pavlov’s definition is rather more involved, but amounts to the same thing.) The ultimate psychiatric reference, the Diagnostical Statistical Manual, states that “in neurosis, reality is grossly intact.” This then is an immediate pointer to the state of mind of the spree killer, the “hyper-rationality” which enables him to murder and maim with calmness, disassociation and ruthless aplomb.

Western societies have become highly feminized, and I can quote some observations from Holland (my prototype Super Feminine State) which are pertinent. Due to female influence, all forms of violence were strongly discouraged and thus were generally inhibited by males. Sometimes however sudden eruptions of disproportionate violence would occur, triggered by some relatively trivial incident. These seemed completely unpredictable; there was no forewarning that a ‘tipping point’ had been reached.

In such an intensely female-friendly environment, a number of factors operate. First, males see females unreservedly following their instincts and not unnaturally want to do the same. Needless to say, they cannot. Second, expression of those female instincts was usually to males’ detriment: he could be, and was, manipulated, toyed-with and teased practically without limit. Third, he could not avoid being influenced by that atmosphere of disinhibition, and the burden of restraining his own violent and other socially undesirable instincts increased.

The confused and neurotic male is easier to manipulate. In that super-feminine environment, and increasingly elsewhere, even innocuous male instincts (such as to place indiscriminate markers, just being friendly or passing the time of day) are repressed. This is because such inhibition serves to maintain males in a state of generalised neurosis and maximizes female control. The whole environment becomes arduous for males.

Humans originally members of a tribe

Humans are undeniably social animals, and arguably each race has a distinct collective unconscious. Jung, who at least had the wisdom to disassociate himself from Freud, spoke of the “race memory” – or, to quote Heisenberg, “Every race has its soul and every soul its race.” The next question we need to pose is, what is it that strikes so deeply at this collective psyche to provoke individuals in a society to such casual atrocity? Clearly something along these lines is taking place: spree killings are no longer isolated incidents but have become a social phenomenon by their repetition. At least 75 spree killings have taken place since 1949.

A nationalist perspective would be that three obvious new features of Western societies are mass immigration, the promotion of miscegenation and miscegenation itself. As always, we put our observations of behaviour in its evolutionary context. What evolutionary scenario can be envisaged in which a male would see members of other races moving freely about, promoted to positions of authority over him, and occupying other prestigious roles? Or when might he see his women parading through thoroughfares with a male of another race, transporting children sired by him, and obviously servicing his domestic and personal needs, while his own remain untended?

It is that the tribe has been defeated and cast into servitude. In this case, throughout history, the indigenous males would have been rapidly dispatched (put to the sword, or machete, or whatever) or quickly transported away to be sold as slaves. In any event the vanquished males would be hastily got out of the way, for obvious reasons. Their reaction at seeing their women expropriated, their families destroyed and their settlement exploited makes them dangerous to keep around. With nothing left to lose a humiliated male would, given any opportunity at all, strike back with maximum force. This would be without regard for his own future, for the simple reason that he has none.

In leading these social changes the media are probably the main offenders, so we would be naïve to expect them to point the finger at themselves. Not only do they encourage and mendaciously portray as normal the mass immigration and miscegenation which strikes deeply at the core of the male psyche, but non-whites are elevated to the positions of newsreaders and presenters. This can only be a deliberate, finely calculated insult. It is surely stretching credulity to believe otherwise – think of the millions of native British men who would eagerly take such a well-paid and prestigious job!

Digressing for a moment to the serial killer, he is better understood. A huge volume of literature exists so that at least a primitive comprehension of him exists. Putatively the defining characteristic of the serial killer is control, because the ultimate control is power over the life of another person. If he leaves some form of signature (because of course we cannot rely on fictional renditions of such crimes), this is an expression of his ego. The male desires control; this is how his ego is expressed. If powerful he issues orders and affects destinies. A craving for control seems to be the essential characteristic of the serial killer.

Essence of the spree killer

In contrast, the essence of the spree killer is rebellion against his devaluation. His protest at his derogation is expressed by the number of victims; his tally is a demonstration of his worth. In most cases the spree killer has already decided to end his life, either because of events immediately beforehand or as part of a long-standing plan. Circumstances have ceased to make his life worthwhile, and he raises the cost of his demise with a final statement of his value.

We can now consider his choice of targets in light of this, particularly his emergence in modern, feminized, Western societies. In the male-female ‘game of opposites’ I have referred to before, males value the old while females value the young. Thus in the feminine mindset, children are valued more than men. This has become especially manifest since the State has supplanted the husband as the female’s protector and ultimate provider.

Female largesse extends to the many groups with which she feels affinity or sympathy. Yet practically everything that has ever been discovered or invented has arisen from white male ingenuity. Although virtually all our modern amenities derive from the efforts of exceptional males, our society could not function without ordinary men performing mundane jobs. Nevertheless in contemporary society he is constantly devalued and insulted; his concerns are routinely dismissed. What more profound insult can be delivered to a man than for a woman to advertise that she prefers a male of an alien race, even one who a century or so ago was called a savage, to seed future generations of her line? These are the provocations which can transform a normal, law-abiding and otherwise unexceptional man into a kind of Vulcan murder-machine.

Thus in raising the cost of his demise, the spree killer can target the young, raising the cost according to the values of his opponent. Breivik’s choice of target was coldly logical – since the State, as in this country, has defined “the invaders” as a protected group, any action against them will only increase their guardianship and exacerbate the situation he is rebelling against. Plus of course, information about where the blame really belongs is hard to come by. Pointing the finger can land you a jail sentence.

Intolerance of criticism

Even moderate critics of the Establishment’s suicidal immigration policies are marginalised and vehemently traduced as “racists,” “xenophobes” and the like. The fate of Matt Hale is a case in point. Nationalists’ concerns are ignored, or they are the theme of phony, stage-managed debates by a closed group of ‘media darlings’ who only repeat their stock agenda. The spree killer arises out of repressed fury at the despoliation of everything he is, has or holds dear; indeed spree killing might be regarded as the ultimate displacement activity.

Under this analysis it becomes apparent that fathers who destroy their children and then themselves, usually after the mother has spurned the marriage, are another form of spree killing. Including these personal tragedies adds significantly to the total number of spree killings already recorded.

This is only a provisional analysis of the spree killer phenomenon – H&D is an invaluable forum for intelligent nationalist thought but it is not an academic journal – and there may be some loose ends. At the forefront it is easy to lose your way. However evolutionary psychology provides us with a reliable guide, and the tribal scenario above is consistent with phylogenetic (i.e. natural) principles and the gut instinct of many individual males. It has always been, and will ever be, the male who fights to preserve the integrity of the tribe.

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary in the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.

Main Directory

Banner with link back to the main directory