Monday, 14 January 2013

Marginalisation of the beta male more the cause of mass-murdering gunmen than lax firearm regulation?

Extracted from the psychologist Simon Sheppard's essay 
Heritage & Destiny January-February 2013

" ... 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."

"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 a few specialist sportsmen.  Notwithstanding, the point has been made that in practically every case, the weapons for use 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."

"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 steering-wheel lock as weapons.  Tvrdron 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 substandard 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 ...  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."

"Western societies have become highly feminised ... 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, he 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 easy 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 disinhibition serves to maintain males in a state of generalised neurosis and maximises female control.  The whole environment becomes arduous for males.

Humans are undeniably social animals, and arguably each race has a distinct collective unconscious.  Jung, who at least had the wisdom to dissociate 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 that strikes so deeply at this collective psyche to provoke an individual 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 could 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 serving 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 naive 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!"

" ... Putatively the defining characteristic of the serial killer is control, because ultimate control is power over the life of another person.  If he leaves some form of signature, 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.

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, feminised, 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 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 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.

Even moderate critics of the Establishment's suicidal immigration policies are marginalised and vehemently traduced as 'racists', 'xenophobes' and the like ....  Nationalists' concerns are ignored, or they are the theme of phony, stage-managed debate by a closed group of 'media darlings' who only repeat their stock agenda.   The spree killer arises out of repressed fury at the despoilation 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."

" ... evolutionary psychology provides us with a reliable guide, and the tribal scenario above is consistent with phylogenetic (ie 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 of 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."

Please "like"
It tries to make the point that if men say it is OK for their women to be SSMs then they might as well hand over their manhood to the most stupid, irresponsible and promiscuous of their women.

Was Adam Lanza a victim of bad mothering and no-fault divorce?


Anonymous said...

This is THE post I've been waiting for for years. And now I might as well post two more highly relevant links:

'Ideals of purity create misogyny', by Jane Clare Jones (who is a real Big Sister type to say the least):

'Feminism and defeated tribes', by Fjordman:


"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."

It's writing like this that makes Simon Sheppard truly one of a kind. No one can write like him - not Whiskey, not Arthur Kemp, not Mitchell Heisman, not John Derbyshire, not James von Brunn, not Lothrop Stoddard, not Anthony M. Ludovici, not Richard McCulloch, not Fjordman, not Jane Clare Jones, not Anders Behring Breivik, not Claire Khaw, and not myself.

What is truly remarkable is how much power women have in contemporary Western society, relative to men. If women are to have everything that men have in terms of economic and social power for the sake of the pursuit of equality, then all other things being equal, the sexual power that women have - that is the choice to make sexual and reproductive decisions - makes today's women the more powerful sex overall.

That is why when Breivik said that "The West has become a woman" (or something along those lines) he meant that the West has become feminine, penetrable, submissive, weak, and ultimately vulnerable to extinction. That's why Jane Clare Jones writes that Breivik's struggle is "ultimately against death".

The left are well aware that one thing the far-right hate is the idea of white women taking non-white men for partners. That's why the left can use this meme as a weapon to attack the far-right. From a white heterosexual male perspective, the far-right can be seen as representing pure egoism, and the far-left as pure altruism. That's why most women are not attracted to men who possess far-right views: it is a naked display of beta male need and vulnerability.

Another interesting phenomenon is that women tend to gravitate towards dominant men. Immigration can be used to penetrate and dominate a piece of geographical territory, but that's almost beside the point: most women are attracted to confident men, and are not attracted to men who are emotionally needy, lacking in confidence, or even just "too nice". It transpires that a not insignificant proportion of women actually enjoy being teased, insulted, and even physically fondled in public places by dominant men - alpha males, in other words. Since the female instinct is to raise the cost of sex, some women will vehemently deny that they enjoy this. Whatever the case, most women - even highly intelligent women - are just looking to be dominated. As noted earlier, many women in today's Western society enjoy a high social status. They may perceive ordinary white men as unable to provide that dominance, so in that case they just try to seek it elsewhere.

Cultural Marxism can change society, but it can't defeat the reality of Social Darwinism. The empowerment of women makes a race not strong, but strongly weak. This is merely a statement of fact, not a blanket condemnation of women - they are only following their instincts after all.

Claire Khaw said...

As Cato said, "If we make women our equals, they will soon become our superiors."

I would say, "If men say it is OK for their women to be Slut Single Mums then they are handing their manhood to the worst of their women."

Feminism normalised the working mother, which in turn normalised the divorced mother, which in turn normalised the never married mother.

Feminism also says it is OK for women to be as promiscuous as men.

Ultimately, feminism exacerbates the worst vices of men and women.

Anonymous said...

That's it - one thing leads to another, social standards change over time. Progressivism, revolution, transmogrification. A person may one day have an epiphany and decide that something's not right about today's society and its left-wing values, as I did in my early twenties, or they may continue reading The Guardian for the rest of their lives, perhaps in fanatical pursuit of an egalitarianism that does not exist and cannot exist, or taking pleasure in tearing down symbols of 'authoritarianism' like an overgrown teenager. Leftism, as I see it, is a pathetic juvenile pathology that when manifest in adult men especially, seems to be almost a means of escapism; a denial of the basis of reality altogether. One trait commonly observed in leftists is arrogance - a sense of intellectual superiority over perceived 'bigots'. Whilst leftism was originally conceived as a means for the workers to have greater power relative to the bourgeoisie who controlled the means of production, ironically it is today's middle class leftists who for the most part sneer at the white working classes. That's because the focus of leftism has shifted away from the empowerment of workers, towards the empowerment of women, LGBT, and most importantly of all, non-white people. Some leftists will often talk of how non-white people are being institutionally oppressed by the white establishment, even today, when the level of generosity that the establishment of Western countries has shown to non-white newcomers and outsiders in recent decades is historically unprecedented in its scale.

Despite all I've said, there are women out there who are in favour of social conservatism and traditionalism. They realise that the postmodern norm of women having career aspirations yet also being encouraged to delay marriage whilst having short-term relationships is ultimately unfulfilling and will make them miserable and lonely.

I do very little discussion of politics with people that I know in real life. I think these kind of discussions would be beyond many people that I know. Politics has become the same everywhere in the West. The politically correct standard dominates; it is the 'groupthink equilibrium' that makes certain ideas laughable by means of social consensus. That's why metapolitics is much more interesting than politics itself.

But yeah, it's true - there are a lot more single people out there than there used to be, back in traditional times. There are also a lot of single mothers out there - that is also true.

Is race mixing 'Marxist'? It's possible to conceive it as such - the white men are the bourgeoisie, the black or ethnic men are the workers, and the white women are the means of production. One glaringly obvious criticism of this view is that it is misogynist to view women as mere means of production, breeding machines for the triumph of the coloured races over the white race, but it's also important to remember that in the hierarchy of political correctness, 'anti-racism' trumps feminism every time. That's why not offending the feelings of immigrants is often more important than reporting rapes and suchlike.

Claire Khaw said... should be of interest to those who wonder about the causes of the decline and fall of civilisations.

Anonymous said...

Your article, which I have read before, makes the claim that "these days most Britons are illegitimate and singly-parented". Certainly some are, but most? I personally was raised in a household with both my parents who were married. Then again, my family was more middle class. It's primarily the lower, less educated social classes that have the worst parenting standards, and the worst standards in just about everything overall.

Far-right movements, especially in the UK but probably elsewhere as well, seem to have those of lower social class over-represented in their ranks. It's important to remember Claire, that despite your stereotyping ("indigenous illegitimate"), not all white people have low social standards. Social class has a lot to do with it. Those white people who do have decent social standards tend to be more middle class - and by extension, more politically left-leaning - and therefore, a lot less likely to be represented in far-right movements who care about white racial purity.

So white people are declining in quality due to low social standards of the lower classes, and declining in number due to the suicidally altruistic leftist ideologies espoused by the middle classes, who nonetheless otherwise manage to do a decent job of bringing up their children generally speaking.

Claire Khaw said...

This sort of filth is spreading to the East as well. No race is immune from this form of degeneracy.

Anonymous said...

Can you show me examples of how the degeneracy is spreading to... well, Asia? (That pretty much encompasses most of what would be called 'the East', doesn't it?)

I'm writing a lot here and not getting that much feedback from you; I'd appreciate it if you could respond in detail to everything I've said, or at least as much of it as you can.

Claire Khaw said...

My parents tell me that there are now more SSMs than there ever were before and the government bribes them by promising them money.

The working mother is now also the norm where I come from.

There are lots of single mothers now in Singapore, for example.

If I don't respond, then it means I agree with you!