Monday, July 25, 2011

Anders Breivik: Beta Male Rampage


Commenters on the Left are gleefully asserting that Norway Bomber/Shooter Anders Breivik, who claims to have acted alone, and plotted for nine years, is a "conservative" thinker given how he has cited writings by prominent anti-Jihad bloggers, such as Fjordman, Larry Auster, Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugged, Pamela Gellar, Bat Y'eor, and more. Commenters on the Right cannot understand him, either, as posted at Gates of Vienna:

This sadistic, barbaric attack must be one of the strangest terror attacks ever. One would never think, from the killer’s online comments, that he was a mass murderer in waiting.

The killer was right-wing and anti-jihad, yes, but he was not a neo-Nazi (he was pro-Israel) or a white supremacist (he opposed the BNP because they are racist). He was Christian, but not a fanatic (he was pro-gay).

In fact he was apparently like me — liberal right. He was anti-racist, pro-gay and pro-Israel. So how on earth did someone like that become a terrorist against the West?



The answer is that politics (either left, right, nationalist, multiculturalist, anti-Jihad, pro-Jihad) had nothing to do with it. It was another … BETA MALE RAMPAGE.

We've seen this before. Breivik planned to spend 1,800 pounds on a hooker before the killing. Yes, oddly reminiscent of the Jihadis, particularly the 9/11 attackers, but a big red flag as to the real motivation. The LA Times reports that Breivik copied and pasted ... the Unabomber's manifesto as his own.

Do men kill for ideology? Surely, some will. But most murders, and particularly most mass-murders sure to wind up with some nasty punishment in one way or another, come from the more common motives. Hate, revenge, sexual frustration, mental illness (Son of Sam, hearing a neighbor's dog "speak" and command to murder), jealousy, rage, and so forth. The ugly side of human nature having to do with primal urges, not which political philosophy one adheres to. What philosophy did the Columbine killers, cross-dressers, anti-racist, adhere to? What philosophy did giggling lunatic (literally) Gerald Lee Loughner, a Jew, and member of a prominent Democratic political family, follow? What philosophy did Cho Seung Hui, or George Sodini, follow? None save the Beta Male Rampage. [The picture at the top of the post is of Cho, Sodini, and Breivik from Top clockwise.]

We've seen this before, in China, as the report here, and also here show. Chinese men, not attached to any political philosophy, go off and kill kindergartners (other men's children). The men are typically loners, without any women in their lives, or any prospect at all in the sex-balance hell that is China (selective sex abortion means about 4 men for every woman in many areas among younger people). So, being beta males they plan their rampage carefully, and kill the winners in the reproduction lottery. That's not hard to understand now, is it? Ugly in the extreme, to be sure, but there it is.

In a similar manner, the ever-present Chinese bus bombings not done by Uighur separatists are lone male, beta male rampages as shown here.

China has occasionally witnessed bus explosions staged by disgruntled farmers or laid-off workers wanting to air grievances over poverty, demolitions or corruption.


Yes, the modern Western society produces a few real winners. Alpha Males (those with the ability to project breezy, unshaken dominance and sexy assurance) get most of the desirable women, leaving the beta males to slave away. A few go nuts, crazy, and unfortunately because the wealth transfer systems of modern Western oriented society (this includes China) dissolves nationalistic, unified bonds, the targets of these rogue males, beta males on a rampage, are not leaders, kings, generals, and the like.

The targets are uniformly, children, young people, and women. The very people most males are hard-wired to protect, but because of lack of any success/investment romantically-physically, and a profoundly atomizing society that acts like acid to dissolve social bonds between people (other than non-White race based organizations like LULAC or the NAACP) the groups who should be protected become targets of unimaginable brutality and cruelty.

We saw this with Sodini. We saw it with Cho. We saw it with the Chinese Kindergarten and bus attackers. We saw it with Breivik, too.

Those on the right are struggling to understand Breivik. Why he did what he did. The man was in favor of gay rights, and opposed fundamentalist Christianity for that reason (as did the Columbine Killers, who were also pro-gay rights). Breivik condemned both Nazism and Communism for violence and the amount of dead it produced, as well as pre-Enlightenment Christendom. Breivik was pro-Israel, and dismissed the British Nationalist Party as racists, the EDL as a bunch of goons, and Vlaams Belang as "pro-Nazi."

Breivik's Facebook page (Atlas Shrugged makes an observation about how it was altered AFTER the shooting) shows his interests to be Winston Churchill, Max Manus (a Norwegian Resistance Fighter) and Machiavelli. That's not important. What a man is will NEVER be revealed by his political philosophies. [Note, "Christian" and "Conservative" were added to Breivik's Facebook page after the shooting, in post after post he describes himself as no Christian, and proud of his pagan Viking heritage.]

What reveals a man's character is what entertainment he chooses. Breivik's favorite books were listed as Kafka's "the Trial" and Orwell's "1984." I doubt he ever read them. If he did, it would seem he's frustrated by what he sees as an overweening state, crushing the life out of his own individuality. In reality he suffered no real oppression, he was not beaten, electrocuted, limbs amputated, or otherwise brutalized the way many in the Third World are regularly. None of his family were murdered by police goons or militias. The reason these books were chosen, likely is that as a nameless cog unimportant to anyone (and significantly, any woman) Breivik identified with the protagonists.

But what stands out is his favorite TV shows. Gay/Female ghettos all, and quite disturbing. The Shield, Tru Blood, Dexter, Caprica, and Stargate Universe. Only a profoundly disturbed man would find these shows attractive, given that they all push a gay man's or woman's idea of an Alpha Male.


The Shield, features an amoral, corrupt bad guy (Michael Chicklis) as the leader of an anti-Gang unit. The character murders an honest cop to conceal his corruption, and frames a gang member. This is the hero. Tru Blood is a vampire/gay-civil-rights metaphor show, the titular "Tru Blood" allowing vampires to eat synthetic blood instead of killing humans. Every normal, White guy is presented as a mouth-breathing, sub-human bigot, with the Vampires being ultra sexy and of course, ultra violent. One scene has the lead vampire (played by Stephen Moyer) breaking the neck of a female vampire during a disturbingly violent and icky sex scene. Dexter of course features Michael C. Hall as the "good" serial killer, trained by his father to only kill … other serial killers. In a most sadistic manner. Meanwhile the character pretends to be a boring beta male in a forensics lab, and dutiful and boring husband/father. Caprica is the sequel to Battlestar Galactica (the revival by Ron Moore, not the original by the late Glen A. Larson) featuring icky sex and killer robots and massive corruption and no decent lead characters. Stargate Universe is the Battlestar Galactica revival version of Stargate, with icky sex, depressing and gritty themes, and no likable lead characters.

The portrait here is of a straight guy desperately wanting to fit in with the conception of an Alpha Male, and failing. The shows all are quite female-skewing, and the fantasy (violent men who kill but are "controlled" by the hotness of a woman like Tru Blood's Anna Paquin) is pretty explicit (and disturbing). The fantasy is not Cary Grant or George Clooney (beta males, get rich, famous, work out and dress suavely!) No it is one of ultra-violence and domination, pure and simple.

Breivik was a sick, disturbed man. But his motivation was primarily sexual, and primal, not political. Unlike say, Volkert van der Graaf, the assassin of Pim Fortuyn, who van der Graaf murdered because of Fortuyn's opposition to Muslim integration and conservatism. [Fortuyn of course was famously openly gay and conservative.] No, Breivik is just another Beta Male Rampage.

Every society will have sick, deranged individuals. A society sufficiently large will have people mentally ill. The question is, how does a society deal with these people, and what constraints society-wide operate to at least limit the damage a mentally ill person can accomplish?

The answer in the West (this includes btw Coastal China) is … not much exists to limit or channel the damage into minimal violence. Most beta male losers channel their frustration into things like World of Warcraft, slacker entertainment, or the like. Amusing themselves to death, as they opt out of the race they cannot win. A small minority end up doing some very nasty violence, in a run-amok rampage. Often very carefully planned and concealed, in Breivik's case for years, supposedly. Due to the sick, winner/loser nature of the society, mentally ill beta males like Breivik don't feel any connection to kids or women. They are "other people's kids" they seek to kill, like the Chinese kindergartner attackers.

The reason is not political. It is one of the losers having their revenge on the winners. Breivik reportedly bombed the Labor Party building, and then went on an attack on Labor Party kids at the Youth camp. Important questions remain: how did the bomber make a successful fertilizer bomb, given the difficulties most terrorists have found in making them go off (the Times Square bomber Faisal Shazad for example). McVeigh practiced in the Arizona desert outside Kingman with the Fortiers, to perfect a detonation system that would work (and not blow him up, he had no intention of dying) far away from Oklahoma. Indeed it was not until the FBI traced McVeigh's movements that the feds discovered this training/practice, despite neighbors at the time complaining to police. McVeigh famously also had the help of Terry Nichols. A massive fertilizer bomb requires muscle to mix the fertilizer and diesel fuel, drums to store the mixture in, and considerable muscle to move them into a big van. It does not seem to be a one-man task.

There is the question of how, after the vehicle with the bomb blew up, (there may have been more than one, according to latest reporting) Breivik made his way to the Island Youth Camp, more than 20 miles from Downtown Oslo. With, I might add, a bag filled with guns and ammo, heavy and bulky, and with a police uniform. This suggests at a minimum another car, stashed somewhere, and quite likely a driver.

Then there are the gun restrictions in Norway, which are quite restrictive and must be approved by the Government. "Machine pistols" which are military weapons, are not available to civilians. Reportedly, Breivik used a "machine pistol" in the shootings. Gun licenses are expensive, to acquire and maintain, as is ammunition, which is also quite restricted.

There is no reporting, as of yet, how Breivik got onto the Island. He certainly did not swim with that load of guns and ammo. Meaning quite likely a private boat not a ferry (the arriving SWAT team found no boats available, and dithered as the shots rang out on the island only 1,000 yards away).

I myself suspect a helper of some sort. Perhaps a weaker personality dominated by Breivik, as in the John Mohammed/Lee Boyd Malvo Beltway Sniper mass murders, or Columbine.

But ultimately, making sense of this massacre will only happen when people face the truth. The reason, the real reason all those people died, was another Beta Male rampage. These will continue to happen, until loser-dom for Beta Males is ameliorated, or crazy people are locked up quickly (easy bet, Breivik was notably mentally ill to those who saw him in person, and nothing was done), or perhaps both. Crazy people do crazy things, and naturally our society that doles out rights and is reluctant to lock up the crazy will pay a severe price. But even so, crazy people follow only the path of winner and loserdom. It is human nature for the loser beta males afflicted with deep mental illness to want to punish those (kids, women) they feel are the "belongings" of the Alpha Male winners.

Outside of the families and friends of the slain, of course, no one really cares in Norway or elsewhere about the dead. That's the ugly but effective reality. And now that he's killed about 100 people or so, assuming Breivik is not knifed in prison, he'll have beautiful women throwing themselves at him in conjugal visits. The depressing reality -- when Joran Van Der Sloot was arrested for the murder of the Peruvian Girl, women all around the globe sent him marriage proposals. He had previously cut a wide swath among women in SouthEast Asia, on the notoriety of being the prime suspect for the murder of Natalee Holloway. Accused wife-killer Drew Peterson had hot coeds throwing themselves at him, at age 55, left and right. Scott Peterson arrived in prison to find marriage proposals from beautiful women. And Scott Peterson not only married an attractive woman, but had an attractive mistress (Amber Frye). Newly accused Dodger Stadium thug, Marvin Norwood, one of two men accused of beating Giants Fan Brian Stow, has according to his cousin who called in to KFI AM 640 Los Angeles "the John and Ken Show" a number of illegitimate kids by a number of women, all of whom he beat on a regular basis.

Violence does not (sadly) repel women, it rather attracts them, and often the most attractive rather than the least attractive. Tru Blood is not a story about a man who is devoted to his wife, changes diapers, and does the dishes. That behavior is what a "Kitchen Bitch" does, a beta male with no attraction to any woman. Rather it is about a hot chick waitressing at a diner who snags the ultra Alpha male, a dominant and violent vampire. Just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer was about a hot chick who first bangs a violent, sadistic vampire who kills her mentor's girlfriend (and tortures him), and then her violent, sadistic, murderous rapist (vampires Angel and Spike, respectively).

On one sick level, Breivik merely became the fantasy that women adored. The violent, dominant, killer Alpha.

This is why things like Tru Blood are important. They didn't cause the guy to go out and kill people, but as a signal of what female audiences want, it is a huge red warning flag. Because women tend in the end to get exactly the kind of men they desire.

Breivik was a time bomb waiting to go off. Mentally ill, no doubt, no women in his life at all, save his mother, and with nothing to live for save a fantasy of violence, he was going to do damage. There was no question about it, unless he had been committed early. [That he had a hand gun and hunting license is appalling -- the man was obviously mentally ill and no one examining him spotted it.] BUT … a society more healthy and robust, would have channeled that explosion of mentally ill violence towards less damaging targets: a political leader, a celebrity, or the like. Horrible and tragic, but far less damaging than that of 100 people more or less lying dead, many of them children.

Those on the anti-Jihad side are filled with despair, feeling (accurately) that this will be used to smear all anti-Jihad, anti-Islamists. They should not despair, for there was no way Europe would ever resist Jihad and islamization in the first place. If Breivik had never been born, it would not have mattered a jot. Any more than the murder of Pim Fortuyn by van der Graaf made any impression at all on the pro-Islamicization, pro-Multiculturalist, pro-Diversity forces.

Women in the West, raised to equality or even a bit more, than their male peers, naturally find them … repulsive. Beta males. Lacking the sexy! They want … well they want Vampire Bill. Or Vampire Angel. Or Vampire Spike. Or Dexter. Or Vic Mackey (the Shield). Violent, dominant, murdering men who kill with impunity, and whom they hope to control. That's the fantasy. It certainly is not … changing diapers and doing dishes. That's what a Kitchen Bitch (derisive name for a supportive beta male coined by Sandra Tsing Loh and echoed by feminist bloggers) would do. And no one wants a Kitchen Bitch.

Western men have turned into Kitchen Bitches, by and large. Being supportive, being equal, being totally lacking in violent, sexy, domination. Is it any wonder that Western women, en-masse, have rejected Western men and their civilization? In favor of non-White men who will … dominate them? Roderick Shonte Dantzler, who killed his ex-wife, his daughter, her parents, his ex-girlfriend, his ex-girlfriend's sister, his ex-girlfriend's sister's daughter, and tried to kill another ex-girlfriend, was a Black ex-con who got his ex-wife pregnant when she was 16 and he was 22. No statutory rape charges were filed. All his exes were White. No questions there, Dontzler was far preferable, to a Kitchen Bitch, because he was violent and dominant. That he was often in prison, on anti-psychotic medications, and threatened to burn his own mother's house down made no difference. Women in the West are DESPERATE for sexy dominance. So they will put up with anything.

OneSTDV notes again, the stupid White men commercials, with the hot-sexy wife who actually makes money by being a hot-shot businesswoman, continues the theme of White guys are stupid. Larry Auster had noted that DHS had produced a video with "suspicious" White guys reported by patriotic Black/Hispanic/Muslim people. This is no mystery. White guys are mostly, beta males, equal and therefore as sexually desirable as a bowl of cold oatmeal to women. Who in turn support, widely, islamization (at least they'll get domination), mass immigration, and multiculturalism (hatred of White/European culture).

No argument, facts, stats, or anything would sway White women. They want their sexy men! Women will defend a violent, dominant, Alpha male to the end, almost. Meanwhile women despise beta males who they view as weak, untrustworthy, and icky (devoid of sex appeal). As long as women in the West found most of their White male counterparts their equal or slightly inferior, they'd support all of the anti-Western agenda: mass immigration, Islamicization, diversity, PC, Multiculturalism. So they can get sexy, back.

This means the West is doomed. So there is no point in doing anything about it, or even caring much, other than sentiment and nostalgia. White women have decisively rejected White men, hence the appalling low birthrate (they don't find men sexy enough to have kids by). White women are prey to appalling fantasies about violent domination (watch night-time TV). White women find White men unsexy Kitchen Bitches, and will vote en-masse, en-bloc, for their immediate replacement by dominant non-White men. Cherie Blair famously endorsed the Burqua and fought for it, in the UK. Her sister converted to Islam. Why? Because Islam provides domination, something most women want desperately.

That women will find the real-life "Handmaid's Tale" (Margaret Atwood's book created horror among women, because the men were not sexy enough, not the domination) quite unpleasant is of course ironic. But that is human existence.

Human society nearly always flounders on sex. It is explosive, and a limited resource that cannot be spread out much. Repressing Alpha Male, and female sexuality, to a limited set of choices, as traditional Western society did, allowing women the maximum amount of freedom before hypergamy runs wild, with ugly domination fantasies, meant building a high-trust, nuclear family society that could weather lots of shocks and competition and chaos. And still come out with more wealth than ever before. The harem-building model of Mormons before repudiation of polygamy (they were poor and beset with violence and mistrust when polygamous, middle class and prosperous now), and Muslims since the religion's founding, means violence and poverty. Though women are generally happy in it, finding men dominant and violent to their liking.

In short, Breivik is a symptom of underlying causes, rather than the cause itself. The West was doomed the moment it raised up women to full equality, female sexuality being what it is, Western women found Western men unsexy, and therefore deserving of annihilation and Western society deserving of replacement. They've set about it quite well. Had Breivik never existed, the killings never happened, nothing would have changed. Western women would have led the effort to replace the White population (which they damn for producing "Kitchen Bitches") with one non-White and at least possessing sexy, dominant men. That poverty and violence will result is no matter. Western Women are not stupid, they know what they will get. But sexy is worth it, for most of them. And therefore they will get it.

One final note, it is amazing the passivity among the youth on the island. Apparently they only tried to get away, there was no attempt by the young men to overwhelm the shooter and well, kill him. The feminized, passive orientation of young men is striking, and found at Columbine, at Virginia Tech, and many other places (Montreal). Napoleon's genius was to make the average peasant a small landh0lder, with a chance at his own family and wife. His men fought like lions as a result, even after the carnage of the Revolutionary wars. Napoleon far overperformed, with this simple insight. Men and boys will fight like lions for "theirs," had they a claim on their girlfriends likely to be their wives, the young men at Virginia Tech or Montreal or the Youth Camp Island, would have suffered horrific casualties but killed the shooter. Men fight like this in the Marines, even today, doing things of amazing bravery under fire, and they are ordinary men, not Spec Ops warriors, or super-human genetically engineered fighters. The Army, Navy, and Air Force has produced men of similar bravery, decorated for heroic combat actions.

Why then the passivity? Because Kitchen Bitches don't die for an Alpha's harem. A man might die for his "brother" (created by training and combat). But he won't die for the Alpha's squeeze.




69 comments:

DR said...

A lot of good and thought-provoking points. But I think you might be off the mark about white women being attracted to non-white men. Statistical evidence indicates that Western white women have an overwhelming preference for white men over non-white men.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/racialpreferences.pdf

Western women are certainly more supportive of multi-culturalism for gender specific reasons. However the hypothesis that they do because the want more "sexy" minorities is directly contrary to their revealed preference.

Liberal educated women may say that they find minorities attractive and exciting, but they actively discriminate against them when it comes to dating.

Anonymous said...

I think it's women who need to change. We all can't live on the edge just to entertain "women" and there sexual BS. More confirmation women are outdated not us. We have to remain in the stone age as Alpha males to survive. Women need to turn off the TV and grow up.

james said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
james said...

John Podhoretz criticized John Derbyshire's comments about the Virginia Tech massacre.

but 5 years earlier a mentally ill Chinese guy was subdued by some old style Aussies.

So these nutters can be overpowered, with some bravery and determination when the time is right(with a bit of luck).

Anonymous said...

I'm from Finland, but I assume gun restrictions are more or less on same level in Norway.

You cannot get the guns by just walking in to the shop like in USA. But if you have time, patience and don't look like a lunatic, you can in practice get anything legally. Glocks, semiautomatic rifles etc. Only full-automatic guns are extremely difficult to get.

Also buying ammunition at least here in Finland is not restricted any way when you have a gun license.

Commander Shepard said...

"Statistical evidence indicates that Western white women have an overwhelming preference for white men over non-white men." - DR

This is likely due to women being much more class and status conscious about their lovers than men. Women who date inter-racially are looked down upon by their peer group. That is unless the guy in question has equal or higher social standing than them. Even in mostly white high schools and college campuses white girls will hook up with black athletes over white betas because of their high social standing within the school system. They overwelmingly reject white beta males for non-white alphas despite their preference for white alphas. They'll often "settle" for white betas when marriage comes but don't think they aren't seething with contempt.

Anonymous said...

dead wrong, this guy is alpha

Anonymous said...

you all should read this guy's stuff

http://eudeclarationofindependence.blogspot.com/

imo rather than distancing ourselves, we should claim him. the left is going to smear all right wingers with him anyway, so why not? he's good looking, very smart, courageous and very committed. what more do you want? right now, the general belief among white people is shifting rapidly, words like racist/extremist are losing their sting. we can see this guy was not a deranged psycho, he was a very ariculate guy making a valid point in a way that perhaps he shouldn't have.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that he DID kill due to his political beliefs, which were much more deeply held than other killers that you use an examples. Guys going on rampages due to their beta status definitely happens, but I don't think it is in this case.

Anonymous said...

That's too long for me to read, but a couple of points.

"Beta males" are normal males. These rampage killers are omega -- women regard them as creeps, and they're not getting any.

Breivik had lived most of his adult life with his mother, and apparently has never had a girlfriend (he might get one now...).

C said...

Anonymous at 7:19 AM. Stop trolling and go fuck yourself. That degenerate 32-year-old virgin represents nobody.

OhioStater said...

It's official: Anders is a beta.

Why?

The New York Times said so!

How?

Anders was forgettable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/europe/25breivik.html

Columnist said...

Beslan, abortion.

modernguy said...

Beta or Omega, the difference is only in degree. Betas at least have the illusory hope of making an investment in society, omegas don't even have that. In either case the situation is one of enforced "fun" and 'experimentation' (if you can hack it in the SMP) until the women are too old to play that game any more.

The most important feature in this guy's profile is his hollow existence. It's his lack of investment in the world and of any prospects to that end (family, wife, children) that drove him to political obsessions, not the other way around. And Whiskey is right, the telltale fact is right there: he killed other people's kids.

Great post Whiskey.ce is only in degree. Betas at least have the illusory hope of making an investment in society, omegas don't even have that. In either case the situation is one of enforced "fun" and 'experimentation' (if you can hack it in the SMP) until the women are too old to play that game any more.

The most important feature in this guy's profile is his hollow existence. It's his lack of investment in the world and of any prospects to that end (family, wife, children) that drove him to political obsessions, not the other way around. And Whiskey is right, the telltale fact is right there: he killed other people's kids.

Great post Whiskey.

Rum said...

What Whiskey said.
I would add, though, that a smart guy like Anders probably would have not so much trouble making a petro/fertilixer device that worked as he had the empty parts of Norway to test his designs.
Secondly, guns and ammo are easier to hide and smuggle than are illegal drugs. Also a lot cheaper. Going the legal route may have been the path of least resistance but the other route was always there.
He clearly pre-positioned his entire arsenal on the island. He described it in his manifesto.
But all the evidence of high level, rational, problem solving ability co-existing in the same brain that can aim at somebodys kid and pull the trigger ... that is the question.
Very competent and aware yet primally angry is the answer.
How does a man get there?
Whiskey nailed it, imho.

Peter A said...

Good post. The guy is a Michel Houellebecq protagonist come to life. My only cavil is that this guy was "Omega". I am tired of seeing Beta male be used for the losers in the sexual market place. Betas generally do just OK, Betas are the average guys who have girlfriends in college, get married, have kids and have sex maybe once or twice a month with their spouse in their 30s and 40s plus the occasional hand job when they complain and maybe a BJ on their birthday. Betas are people who have probably slept with 10-15 women in their lives. This describes me and most men I know, and I am certainly no Alpha. Most white males fall into this category. If you are not having sex with a woman on at least a semi-regular basis you are certainly no beta.

bitter clinger said...

Great post Whiskey.

While the rest of the right/conservative blogs are like rabbits in the headlights you've called this pathetic fag(no offence to homos) out for what he is.

You're right, the tv shows give him away. No conservative would watch such effeminate, pointless drivel.

You're also right about the futility of resistance, the time for violence came and went decades ago. Nothing left to do now but watch this pointless society burn.

Anonymous said...

Im sure norway killer was a frustrated over educated beta male!Larry Auster never gets what Whiskey does...the glorification of sexy men leads to acts of beta desperation and in their eyes retribution. This act is social more than a politcal one

Thank you Whiskey!

Anonymous said...

Agreed. Whiskey seems to see things as either dudes who pull women all the time and guys who never do. Ignoring the middle part. His "beta" is really "omega.

Anonymous said...

Be wary of the pussy Über Alles trap or assuming this is only a rampage killing. Its deeper than that.

Just because the shooter didn't have a girlfriend or much of a family, says little about him really. We don't even know if he wanted one or felt thwarted by his lack of access. Maybe, as he was raised by a single mom, or maybe not. We do not know.

We know he was decently well off, decent looking and had ample testosterone levels although roids may have impaired his sex drive. Maybe.

It may be his belief system and his Knights Templar romanticism (note that the Templars were a celibate order) were more important the sex and this may be inimical to civilization as we know it now, its long been a valid choice for a man to make.

Now killing the kids and the bombing were a whole nother murderous kettle o fish but choosing celibacy and values over being tied down by "Beta" responsibility is a valid choice.

Anonymous said...

So long, Western civilization.

It was a helluva successful run.

Soon it will be just a fading memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYEQP4-4ON8

"Every species can smell its own extinction. The last ones left won't have a pretty time of it. In ten years, maybe less, the human race will just be a bedtime story for their children. A myth, nothing more."

josh said...

Vdare says he may be comparable to the Goldstein guy who murdered all those Pallys.(Funny how a jew psycho murdering a bunch of Pallys doesnt in the least discourage people from supporting Izrael,but this wacko is supposed to cause anti=immigartioners to balk? WTF? ) Anyway this idiot was pro-Israel. Apparently the young people were demanding a state for the Pallys. So this guy is another pro-joo,pro-Izrael killer.

Anonymous said...

"In reality he suffered no real oppression" Really? Watching your nation, culture, and people being demonized and ultimately exterminated isn't oppression?

Here is a better piece on this incident:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/07/25/knights-templar-honesty-and-hypocrisy/

Anonymous said...

(Cliff Arroyo)

I think the beta rampage is absolutely part of it. Killing other people's kids (depriving his enemies of what he thinks they've deprived him of) and the expensive escort are tip offs. Still, I don't think that's all of it.

And the alpha, beta, omega division is too simplistic.

I'd say he was a potential beta, the kind of guy that could have been a non-violent family guy 30 (or even 20) years ago making some kind of contribution to society. But he was definitely not cut out for the sexual market he found himself in.

The other part was a search for meaning and value, which is just as important (or more so) for most men who aren't horndog nihilists. The modern world basically had nothing for him, no real prospects for a fulfilling relationship, no meaningful work so he went looking and found something. Other guys in his position are liable to find even more extreme ways to give their existence meaning.

Anonymous said...

To what Anon Cliff Aroyo said , I kind of agree that this guy might have been a worker bee in a better society however

Killing the enemies kids while cold blooded is a standard political ploy used historically by almost everyone.

Thats why for example the Czars never tried to get back in power, as Stalin is said to have said about other foes "no People no Problem"

The Bible is also filled with Jehovah telling the Israelites to take the comely ones for themselves and kill the rest.Same basic idea

The reason we eschew doing this in the West is part scruples, part war fatigue , a bunch of capitalism (can't sell to the dead and can't breed fast enough to conquer) and a good chunk of post nuclear self preservation. No one wants to risk WW3 , not really.

Someone said...

Whiskey: have you read Breivik's diary? I'm not sure the frustrated beta male theory holds up. He seems to have done pretty well with women.

He mentions two one-night stands on his 1-week trip to Prague to buy weapons. He also mentions lots of attention from women due to his serious physical training prior to the attack. He could be fooling himself, but he could also be right. Obviously, having a girlfriend would be difficult for him if he wanted to go through with his plan.

He describes the one-night-stands in Prague as a sort of semi-justified lapse of his principles: He could have died, so he figured fuck it. In other words, assuming his diary is trustworthy, it seems he's regularly turning down sex in order to complete his mission. Since alphaness is defined by female desire, not lay count, this suggests that he's relatively alpha.

Anonymous said...

Someone,

He probably became more successful with women as he became darker and worked out more. I don't get the impression that he was a sexless gamma, he probably got laid a decent amount in his life.

I think the greater question is purpose. A family can provide purpose, but one night stands can't. Prole women are pretty slutty for masculine prole men, but how many of them would make good wives and mothers for the long haul? What quality wife could a man like him get that would actually stick around and not divorce him? My guess is his prospects for mating were average but family were low. Once you've banged enough sluts it doesn't have the same appeal, it's not even worth the effort.

Someone said...

Anonymous 4:33 PM:

Breivik refers to his desire to start a family as if it was something he could realistically do, if not for his mission. According to his diary, his friends were all settling down into pre-family situations (with the exception of his one super alpha friend), and a bit surprised that he wasn't. They would tell him that he needed a girlfriend. He would reply that he was going to start dating again once he finished his book. He just doesn't sound like a man who couldn't have a family if he wanted to me.

jhbowden said...

If we read through Breivik's manifesto, the guy doesn't seem frustrated, or irrational, or spiteful. He seems too rational, hyper-organized with excessive routine, cold and numb, semi-autistic, like someone with Asperger's syndrome.

In his planning, he even details the pros and cons of protein bars. Seriously.

Pete said...

I think it was more political than sexual. Hard to say with total assurance of course, but Sodini for example spelled out his sexual frustration very clearly and this guy didn't.

I think the world is seeing what muslims do, and copying it. Muslims walk into a venue full of the enemy and open fire, or set off a bomb. And what do western governments do about it? Give muslims more money and privileges, restrict the speech of their own people who might complain about muslim violence, and apologize for existing.

Other radicals besides muslims are watching and learning. They are seeing how effective the violence is, and they want to get in on that action. They are seeing that horrific personal violence is a good way to get your point across, and to get western governments (and western white people) to do what you want them to do.

Leftists have used violence and threats of violence to get what they want for a long time. Weather Underground bombings, Union thugs showing up at CEOs' homes, the New Black Panthers waiting outside voting centers with clubs. Throwing pies in the faces of any Republican who tries to speak in public (this sends a message to shut your fucking mouth or next time it could be a brick or a bullet. The pie is doubly clever because anyone who complains about it can be mocked - "why are you overreacting, you little crybaby it's just a pie...").


Maybe some folks have decided that talking to Leftists is pointless, because Leftists will always shout you down, or listen to you talk with a condescending sneer and then go do what they were going to do anyway. Maybe some folks have decided it's time to use the Left's playbook against them, mixed with muslim tactics of ultra-violence. And maybe I just don't care, because I've seen Leftists, and Leftist governments, use violence and threats to get power my whole life and the chickens might just be starting to come home to roost.

Anonymous said...

Even if this guy Breivik *was* a beta (or even an omega), he's about to be getting all the hot pussy he wants for the rest of his life.

As Whiskey might say...attractive chicks today just love love love ruthless, unrepentant killers.

Anonymous said...

He uses smileys in his document, feels the need to justify his behavior, loves world of Warcraft, chocolate, lists his fucking cologne, I can go on. Beta with a need to proof his toughness in a severely feminized society, jealous at Muslim youth thug popularity with white girls ( note his references to "Muslim whores" including some pathetic incident in which a white girl caused him to get into a fight with Muslims); all in all this is feminized white euro metrosexual rebellion. "Knight justiciary"; what a fag.

Shawn said...

But he was well-off, he could have lived a life with hookers if he just wanted to get laid...

B said...

Whiskey: have you read Breivik's diary? I'm not sure the frustrated beta male theory holds up. He seems to have done pretty well with women.

You're pretty gullible. His diary is about as plausible as Whiskey's Scots-Irish heritage.

But he was well-off, he could have lived a life with hookers if he just wanted to get laid...

He wasn't well-off. He had maxed out multiple credit cards.

Professor Hale said...

Add to your list MAJ Hassan, the Ft Hood Shooter.

Homophobic Horse said...

"He describes the one-night-stands in Prague as a sort of semi-justified lapse of his principles: He could have died, so he figured fuck it. In other words, assuming his diary is trustworthy, it seems he's regularly turning down sex in order to complete his mission. Since alphaness is defined by female desire, not lay count, this suggests that he's relatively alpha."

Maybe in reality the "Alpha/Beta" concept is pseudo intellectual bullshit on a par with freudianism. No, I'm serious, can you--really--quantify this shit on a scientific basis? Or is it just jive talk babble?

Here's a video of Jewish uber-nerd with crap dress sense and a weedy voice called Ross Jeffries. He turns nerds with crap dress sense, weedy voices, and skinny bodies, into lesbian converters.

This pseudo-scientific taxonomy you use is evil poisonous garbage that just builds up walls between you and your fellow man. It destroys empathy.

Now I know I'm not going to change your mind with just one post, sadly. But if this doesn't change your mind.. I'll just have to try harder.

Homophobic Horse said...

P.s. Ross Jeffries worked for me. I got a Swedish girl called Ella, whom I met on World of Warcraft, to meet me in London on her "holiday" (which she "planned" just for me). Does that buck the trend? I think it does.

Anonymous said...

"For every complex question, there is a simple answer-- and it's wrong." -- H.L. Mencken

Trying to make every man who kills people into "frustrated beta male" is a just-so story on the level of pseudoscience.

The truth is western society is a sick society, a mark of civilization is how you treat little people. If you demonize them as subhuman animals is it any wonder the right gets no respect at all?

The truth is the internet is full of pseudo-intellectuals who although educated are just as insane and ill as those they paint as losers.

After all what kind of loser writes a blog about losers? Winners don't have time for blogs. So you get bottom feeding trolls of the internet writing and commenting on blogs.

The internet allows too much uncritical pseudo-intellectualism pass as reality when the truth is the vast majority of people are as uneducated and illiterate as the people they look down upon.

Anonymous said...

"The truth is western society is a sick society, a mark of civilization is how you treat little people. If you demonize them as subhuman animals is it any wonder the right gets no respect at all?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these frustrated, insane "losers" grew up and went on their respective killing sprees in nations and cultures suffused to the nth degree with leftism. These "little peeople" really got a whole heaping of kind treatment, didn't they?

Whiskey said...

Winners might not have time for blogs, but the essentially unarmed nature of modern society makes any guy like a Loughner or Sodini or Cho or Breivik into a danger, unless "avalanche fences" as the Swiss construct channel the destructiveness in other areas.

What struck me is that almost all his time and effort went into ... killing kids. That is instructive. He wanted to kill kids. That's what he did. The politics were just an excuse as they were for Loughner, Cho, the rest (like the Columbine kids).

You can't stop crazy people from killing, no society has enough police. But you can divert the carnage towards more "expendible" targets like celebrities, politicians. Being essentially disarmed and very passive, which makes for good wealth creation but little resilience to attack, it is IMHO essential to analyze "what went wrong" to prevent a further outbreak.

Particularly since these guys copycat.

Anonymous said...

Remember there was a BIG bomb directed at adults as well.

Whiskey, killing kids like that however brutal is logical. Kill the parents and the kids replace them. Kill the kids and the parents find it much harder to keep control.

Imagine if you were in a genocidal war with some hated group, I dunno lets be PC and call them Martians , unless you can slaughter enough of them to kill them all off they'll breed more. Now imagine you had a sterilization gas, not unlike the stuff we use on roaches and ants . Use that and each loss becomes greater as its harder to replace.

As heinous as it is to apply this kind of logic to people, it works.

It doesn't have to be psycho-sexual at all.

Anonymous said...

(Cliff Arroyo)

"almost all his time and effort went into ... killing kids. That is instructive. He wanted to kill kids"

Yeah. The more I think about it the more I think that was his primary aim. The bomb downtown was just a distraction, necessary to divert people's attention (and rescue resources) and plausible cover for an armed policemen to show up at a kids gathering... for security, doncha know.

The "killing kids makes political sense" faction is forgetting that only makes sense if you have a dynasty (which he didn't) and do a really thorough job of and this wasn't that.

This kind of child killing is actually an attack on their parents. There was no special targeting of children of particular politicians as far as can be told, just random opportunistic killing to hurt the parents (whoever they may be) as much as possible.

I have no intention of reading his manifesto but from reports I suspect it's a lot of pre-rationalization and/or window dressing.

Finally, i'm surprised at how little comment there is on his dress up and play (mason, different kinds of pseudo-military uniforms) and musical identities (hip hop youth, obsessive video gamer, culture warrior) I'm not entirely sure what that means but I'm sure it's also significant.

Anonymous said...

Van der Graaf killed Pim Fortuyn because of his support for dutch farmers. Van der Graaf was a militant vegan.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

"dead wrong, this guy is alpha"

you're right but unfortunately you can't be. the "alpha" of the bloggers must never be in any actual trouble. he must only project a "badboy" image. ya know, spitting, swearing, faux-hawk wearing, etc. whenever someone does anything actually bad, they recoil in pussified horror. they are pseudo-rebels who could never be bad. so what do they do? they call everything "beta." since they don't do this and, importantly, don't want such frowned-upon action associated with them (so they won't risk anything, baaaad boyz that they are) they must do all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove that it is soooooooo "beta." if it is "beta" then these alpha (metrosexual consumers in actuality) better watch out that they don't come after them. if they do they will take all the women that these "alpha" (claim not to) worship and they won't do anything about it (baaaaad boyz that they are).


A-Z

Anonymous said...

(cliff arroyo's gay son)

I think this deserves further probing. Apargus lives in Norway, and he may shed some light on the situation there vis a vis MRA's and feminism:

http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2011/07/anders-breivik-paleoconservative.html


Dad, what time is supper?

Anonymous said...

Lawrence Auster summarily dismisses your "beta male rage" theory explaining spree killings.

Your thoughts?

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020039.html

Anonymous said...

you know what his "thought" will be. beta, beta, beta, beta, beta, beta, etc. everything that happens has to do with game theories.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey is way ahead of everyone else on this...its just so very hard to admit deep analytic truth.Beta vs Alpha is just too real and painful for most guys to accept.

They just can't fathom that this is the way humans behave socially in this liberal pc world.

As Whiskey talks about:he killed a bunch of kids because he wanted to. All the political "Theater" if you will was just to rationalize the killing acts to himself. Brillent observation!

The painful truth is that the US society is comprised of really 1-2% true alpha, 2-8% lesser alpha, and the rest might as well be "And the rest" here on Gilligans island."

Anonymous said...

So around ninety percent of the U.S. population could drop dead tomorrow, and no one would care?

Whiskey said...

I think many of Auster's commenters and Auster himself are close to what I am arguing. The Thinking Housewife notes the bad relationships with his mother, his absent father, total lack of anyone in his life, the dress-up (good call Cliff Arroyo) and such. Very much like Cho, like Sodini.

Breivik's mother was a total invalid, she remarried at age 48 to a guy patronizing Thai prostitutes who gave her a rare case of Herpes that caused meningitis, required a brain shunt, and left her a mental ten year old if that. His father just totally abandoned him.

He was killing other people's kids. He had no coherent philosophy, as noted above, just window dressing to do what he wanted -- kill.

Whiskey said...

Breivik could never, ever, EVER be a conservative. To be a conservative is to love one's country, its tradition, people, values, history, culture, cuisine, accents, landscapes, weather, and all of that. That particularly includes its people. No conservative, ever, would countenance killing the people let alone kids of the people of their own historic nation. That's like being a member of the Sierra Club and wanting to bulldoze the Sierras.

The guy is a loner/loser (Beta Male probably not the best terminology but its in use so I went with it) with no human connections. Had the guy had regular women in his life, some sort of social connections (he reportedly had none), he would have still been as deranged and twisted. And likely would never have acted upon it.

Bottom line, guys with no investment in society nearly always (99.9999999%) of the time merely drop out. A very tiny-teeny percentage, 0.00000001%, go nuts, and an even smaller percentage being nuts, with no remaining barrier, come down like an avalanche. Modern society is totally disarmed and passive. That has many advantages. But ... if disaster like Cho, Sodini, Loughner, and Breivik is to be averted, some sort of social connection to all these types must be created, or the consequences are severe. You see that in China all the time, with the guys killing Kindergartners.

Anonymous said...

oh please. by all the markers of "alpha" that game-blog dorks consider "alpha" this guys is just that. "beta" is just a way to put distance between the game-blog dorks and ABB. ABB is actually a "bad" man whereas "alpha" are cute little "badboy" metro-sexuals. you know this whiskey. by your own nonsense and that of other game heroes this guy is "alpha." the people he took out were his perceived enemies, not some random spasm. the first funeral was already held for a victim, "Bano Rashid." is she one of "his own people."

looks like someone else is "beta."

Anonymous said...

ABB and other omega rampagers are using ramped up bad-boy game.

Most of the Chicks he killed were of the age to have already carouseled through the punk Skater kid, to the classic black leather jacket bad boy, to the wigger, to the drug dealing wigger, to the black drug dealer, and finally to the black gang-banger.

ABB had no bad-boy cred at 32, the 32 year old had to play exponentially bigger bad boy game to play catch up. It's not like a 32 year old man is going to start olying on a stakeboard or start selling weed.

Anonymous said...

People like James O'Keefe and ABB are the new devils to the antiwacist-feminist-leftist race.

Amanda Marcotte/ Pandagon have already blogged thousands of words over James O'Keefe, white niceguy everynerd, of how his mugshot will no longer let them sleep at night. When leftists see people like James O'Keefe they see the rapist, something they do not see in an misogynistic AIDS carrying Jamaican for example.

Shawn said...

Women say they want equality but are not attracted to equal men -- agreed. To get the attractive women a man should work towards achieving STATUS & DOMINANCE.

Anonymous said...

@Shawn

here's a better idea. fuck working towards status and blah, blah, blah, etc. work collectively to achieve a just society (not gender "equality" mind you) where the male of the species can just be allowed to be. it is cost effective and better than everybody fighting over the same dime so to speak. and it would be dominant.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey

Suggesting he wasn't Conservative because he killed the children of his enemies veers awful close to the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Conservatives do in fact kill just as Liberals do.

More importantly, just because someone shares your ethnic background or nationality does not mean they belong on the society you are trying to build.

If you are making a less democratic society getting rid of potential troublemakers is job one. In the case of nations that have had Right Wing Despotisms, it was shooting "Communists and Leftists" and in Left Wing Despotisms the opposite is true. The fact they were of the same ethnicity or national origin is irrelevant.

If i may borrow from a rap song "You ain't my set you ain't my friend" and this has always been political reality

I do have to agree that he had a lot of psychological baggage and many of the marks of a spree shooter but than so do many political radicals. Its an issue of outlet and opportunity.

Lastly, if you want to suggest that Conservative be only used for non violent political actions to preserve society, I am OK with that. More precision in how political terminology is used is always welcome

Anonymous said...

"Suggesting he wasn't Conservative because he killed the children of his enemies veers awful close to the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Conservatives do in fact kill just as Liberals do."

acknowledging that ruins the alpha-beta theory. that's what this is about, not the facts relating to the political crime.

Anonymous said...

The "no true scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.

Anonymous said...

Killer was neither Christian nor right-wing, but all psycho.

Nevertheless, the media will have us believe he was a sterling example of both.

Anonymous said...

The confusion because this guy isn't a nazi is uncalled for. If you look at the history of liberalism it's soaked in blood, from the French revolution to the anti-colonial wars. Similarly there was plenty of violence directed from conservatives towards liberals.

The reason liberals and moderate, liberally influenced, conservatives aren't violent today is because they dominate the political agenda. Thus they have no need for violence. If they should come to feel politically marginalised there is no reason why they shouldn't resort to violence again.

It's a completely meaningless meme that you have to be a nazi to carry out violence. Do people think there was no political violence before the 1930s?

Anonymous said...

OneSTDV notes again, the stupid White men commercials, with the hot-sexy wife who actually makes money by being a hot-shot businesswoman, continues the theme of White guys are stupid. Larry Auster had noted that DHS had produced a video with "suspicious" White guys reported by patriotic Black/Hispanic/Muslim people. This is no mystery. White guys are mostly, beta males, equal and therefore as sexually desirable as a bowl of cold oatmeal to women. Who in turn support, widely, islamization (at least they'll get domination), mass immigration, and multiculturalism (hatred of White/European culture).

No argument, facts, stats, or anything would sway White women. They want their sexy men! Women will defend a violent, dominant, Alpha male to the end, almost. Meanwhile women despise beta males who they view as weak, untrustworthy, and icky (devoid of sex appeal). As long as women in the West found most of their White male counterparts their equal or slightly inferior, they'd support all of the anti-Western agenda: mass immigration, Islamicization, diversity, PC, Multiculturalism. So they can get sexy, back.

This means the West is doomed. So there is no point in doing anything about it, or even caring much, other than sentiment and nostalgia. White women have decisively rejected White men, hence the appalling low birthrate (they don't find men sexy enough to have kids by). White women are prey to appalling fantasies about violent domination (watch night-time TV). White women find White men unsexy Kitchen Bitches, and will vote en-masse, en-bloc, for their immediate replacement by dominant non-White men. Cherie Blair famously endorsed the Burqua and fought for it, in the UK. Her sister converted to Islam. Why? Because Islam provides domination, something most women want desperately.


How true is this? I suppose it depends on where you live, and what you see going on around you. I am told by American and English sources that large numbers of white females are dating black and other non-white males, yet I don't see that as being particularly common where I live, although not non-existent either.

There are considerable numbers of far-left white males who support all of those anti-Western policies.

Anyway, I'd like to link you to something in light of that part of your post:

http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/bigsis.html

Anonymous said...

"White guys are mostly, beta males, equal and therefore as sexually desirable as a bowl of cold oatmeal to women."

I don't know where you live, but to say that most white males are 'sexually desirable as a bowl of cold oatmeal' (even in places where the population is 90-95% white, like where I live) is wrong. Believe me, I look at every woman pushing a baby in the street to check if it's a mixed race kid. Probably only 1 in 100 or so white females here has a mixed race kid. That does not indicate to me that 'white males are sexually desirable as a bowl of cold oatmeal'.

Anonymous said...

Regarding 'beta males', what constitutes a beta male? Physically and intellectually there is no way I am personally a beta male. Socially and economically I fit the profile perfectly. So in other words I have the potential not to be a beta male, but it isn't being used.

Social isolation and unemployment create 'beta males'. See this:

http://www.heretical.com/toa/toa-s14e.html

Anonymous said...

That is to say, if non-white males are so dominant and masculine, why do they lack so much masculinity? For example I was standing in a supermarket queue the other day and a black immigrant male was behind me.

He was something like a foot (12 inches) shorter than me, and probably much less strong.

And yet I am told by sites like this, and by all that porn on the internet, that black males are masculine and dominant and white males are weak and wimps.

It doesn't fit with reality.

browser said...

It should be noted that Breivik ignored and did not kill the youngest kids on the island as they, according to his defender, were too young to have been indoctrinated by the Labour Party. The defender also makes a point of saying it was not for moral reasons.

What that really means I don't know, but it sure puts a hole in the theory that he had a need to kill others kids. I think it sounds more like a point for the politically motivated theory.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, and most of the white guys at this site, are nerdy betas/omegas and project themselves onto white men as a whole, and gas up the image of nonwhite men. You shouldn't listen to the nonsense posted by the nerdy old men on HBD sites.

Anonymous said...

That's probably the strongest advantage of a society that ostracizes premarital sex. The Alpha males are forced to marry at a young age, leaving more opportunities for the Betas. When there just aren't any single Alphas in town, a woman doesn't have much choice but to turn to a Beta.

Correction said...

Obviously the words "Christian" and "Conservative" were not added to the page after the shooting, they were there all along. As any Facebook user should immediately notice, the first screenshot is taken without logging in. In Facebook there is essential information that is really public (open web) and "public" information that's only seen by other Facebook users.

The real mystery here is how it takes over 2 years for someone to call out this right-wing BS on sites like PamelaGeller and SolidPrinciples.

BTW thanks for the interesting blog Whiskey, the most addicting stuff I've read for some time. I'm gonna check out your current site next.