Mass Murderes and their political belifs

Nikolas Cruz - Republican (MAGA)
Anders Brievik - Neo Nazi
Timothy McVeigh - Belief in the US Constitution to keep and bear arms
CMR maniacs  (internet trolls) - both of them were obsessed with Nigel Farage & UKIP, and made lots of references against immigrants & the EU.

Pekka Eric Auvinen - Anarchist
Eric Harris - Anarchist
Matti Saari - Anarchist?
Charles Whitman - Democrat?
Sebastian Bosse - Anarchist

Omar Mateen - Democrat

Richard Durn - Greens/Socialist
Chris Dorner - Democrat

This really makes me wonder how we'd classify Adam Lanza's belief system. Anarcho-primitavist?

Ziamber II wrote:

Anders Brievik - Neo Nazi

He changed in prison. According to his own words in his manifesto:

Anders Breivik wrote:

Political view: Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal

Neah wrote:

Ziamber II wrote:

Anders Brievik - Neo Nazi

He changed in prison. According to his own words in his manifesto:

Anders Breivik wrote:

Political view: Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal

I find that hard to believe........

I think McVeigh's views were more than "belief in the US Constitution to keep and bear arms", he was allies with several Neo-Nazi and anti-government Militias, he also read White Supremacist literature like The Turner Diaries.

Tommy QTR wrote:

I think McVeigh's views were more than "belief in the US Constitution to keep and bear arms", he was allies with several Neo-Nazi and anti-government Militias, he also read White Supremacist literature like The Turner Diaries.

He also had a KKK card although he stopped being a member. I don't think he really was a neo-nazi (he liked the Turner Diaries but I do think he liked it because it was a successful fight against the government and not because it was a neo-nazi victory).

Here is extracts from Ted Kaczynski's letter about McVeigh:

Quote :

McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall his mentioning that prior to the Gulf War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the "enemies" he was supposed to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect their culture.

McVeigh told me of his idea (which I think may have significant merit) that certain rebellious elements on the American right and left respectively had more in common with one another than is commonly realized, and that the two groups ought to join forces. This led us to discuss, though only briefly, the question of what constitutes the "right." I pointed out that the word "right," in the political sense, was originally associated with authoritarianism, and I raised the question of why certain radically anti-authoritarian groups (such as the Montana Freemen) were lumped together with authoritarian factions as the "right." McVeigh explained that the American far right could be roughly divided into two branches, the fascist/racist branch, and the individualistic or freedom-loving branch which generally was not racist. He did not know why these two branches were lumped together as the "right," but he did suggest a criterion that could be used to distinguish left from right: the left (in America today) generally dislikes firearms, while the right tends to be attracted to firearms.

By this criterion McVeigh himself would have to be assigned to the right.
[…]
But McVeigh did not fit the stereotype of the extreme right-wingers. I've already indicated that he spoke of respect for other people's cultures, and in doing so he sounded like a liberal. He certainly was not a mean or hostile person, and I wasn't aware of any indication that he was super patriotic. I suspect that he is an adventurer by nature, and America since the closing of the frontier has had little room for adventurers.

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

I think McVeigh's views were more than "belief in the US Constitution to keep and bear arms", he was allies with several Neo-Nazi and anti-government Militias, he also read White Supremacist literature like The Turner Diaries.

He also had a KKK card although he stopped being a member. I don't think he really was a neo-nazi (he liked the Turner Diaries but I do think he liked it because it was a successful fight against the government and not because it was a neo-nazi victory).

Here is extracts from Ted Kaczynski's letter about McVeigh:

Quote :

McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall his mentioning that prior to the Gulf War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the "enemies" he was supposed to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect their culture.

McVeigh told me of his idea (which I think may have significant merit) that certain rebellious elements on the American right and left respectively had more in common with one another than is commonly realized, and that the two groups ought to join forces. This led us to discuss, though only briefly, the question of what constitutes the "right." I pointed out that the word "right," in the political sense, was originally associated with authoritarianism, and I raised the question of why certain radically anti-authoritarian groups (such as the Montana Freemen) were lumped together with authoritarian factions as the "right." McVeigh explained that the American far right could be roughly divided into two branches, the fascist/racist branch, and the individualistic or freedom-loving branch which generally was not racist. He did not know why these two branches were lumped together as the "right," but he did suggest a criterion that could be used to distinguish left from right: the left (in America today) generally dislikes firearms, while the right tends to be attracted to firearms.

By this criterion McVeigh himself would have to be assigned to the right.
[…]
But McVeigh did not fit the stereotype of the extreme right-wingers. I've already indicated that he spoke of respect for other people's cultures, and in doing so he sounded like a liberal. He certainly was not a mean or hostile person, and I wasn't aware of any indication that he was super patriotic. I suspect that he is an adventurer by nature, and America since the closing of the frontier has had little room for adventurers.

What Kaczsynski wrote certainly sounds accurate, since I read the reason McVeigh left the KKK was because it wasn't focused on anti-government, but rather racial activities. Honestly, he never struck me as someone who believed in the policies of the NSDAP, as he was a strong believer in the constitution and personal liberty, which would directly oppose him to National Socialism. If anything, McVeigh was a militant believer of classical liberalism, like most militia members appear to be.

Ziamber II wrote:

Neah wrote:

Ziamber II wrote:

Anders Brievik - Neo Nazi

He changed in prison. According to his own words in his manifesto:

Anders Breivik wrote:

Political view: Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal

I find that hard to believe........

Breivik was a Freemason, a group of people whom the National Socialists purged where they could and viewed as a subversive element in their host societies. Furthermore, Breivik openly claimed that he supported both Jews and Israel, and believed they were a group which would be persecuted in a more racially diverse Norway. From these two facts alone, we can derive the fact that Anders Breivik wasn't a National Socialist, but rather a militant nationalist.

AlteRoad wrote:

Ziamber II wrote:

Neah wrote:

Ziamber II wrote:

Anders Brievik - Neo Nazi

He changed in prison. According to his own words in his manifesto:

Anders Breivik wrote:

Political view: Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal

I find that hard to believe........

Breivik was a Freemason, a group of people whom the National Socialists purged where they could and viewed as a subversive element in their host societies. Furthermore, Breivik openly claimed that he supported both Jews and Israel, and believed they were a group which would be persecuted in a more racially diverse Norway. From these two facts alone, we can derive the fact that Anders Breivik wasn't a National Socialist, but rather a militant nationalist.

I agree, and in his manifesto IIRC he criticized several times the National-Socialist movement.

Quote :

Marxist and multiculturalist character-assassins will claim that Saga is an evil, national-socialist monsterband from hell, due to her success. However, this characteristic couldn’t be anywhere further from the truth. Although the environment surrounding Saga, the former NSF – National Sosialistisk Forening (a former Swedish Indigenous Rights Movement demonised as “evil Nazi monsters”), used to be self-proclaimed national socialists; it has become evident that most of them now has embraced a more national conservative ideological denomination of conservatism, very similar to that of Knights Templar Europe.

And here is an interesting part of his manifesto. It is an interview he made with another "Knight Templar". Although it is not Breivik's opinions, I think he probably agreed:

Quote :

Q: Considering the fact that you may be willing to fight alongside so called neoNazis against cultural Marxists under extreme circumstances, doesn’t that make you a neo-Nazi or a neo-Nazi sympathiser?
A: First of all, I don’t consider 70-80% of so called neo-Nazis to be actual Nazis, but rather misguided individuals. I believe many of these youngsters have made an unfortunate mistake by being drawn to the Nazi symbols due to lack of alternatives and because it is the strongest and most well known anti-Marxist banner. But I don’t believe the majority of so called neo-Nazis really support the slaughtering and genocide of all Jews, a one party state and an imperialistic policy of conquest. I believe they are just bewildered nationalists in search for uniting factors. In their frustration they have chosen the most despicable banner available as a way of saying a big “fuck you” to the current establishment. But I am well aware that 20-30% of them really hates Jews and support most aspects of national-socialism. This shouldn’t be tolerated and we shouldn’t sympathise with them whatsoever. Driven by their Jew hate, these Nazis are willing to take side with Muslims in order to accomplish their goals. They are absolutely blinded by this hate.  
As for your question;
During WW2, the allied powers (Western Europe and the US) fought together with the Soviets to defeat Nazi Germany. Did that make the allied powers communists or communist sympathisers? And during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Americans cooperated with Muslim fundamentalists. Did that make the Americans Jihadists or Jihadi sympathisers? The Chinese nationalists and communists cooperated against the Japanese occupational power during WW2. Did that make the nationalists – communist sympathizers?
In war, you will see many alliances between ideologically opposing factions. You will rarely win a war without seeking a broad alliance. When your peoples are facing cultural and demographical genocide you are prepared to stretch far in order to prevent this from happening. This is the fundamental logic of war.
Also, we haven’t forgotten what the Nazis did to the non-NS conservatives in the “Conservative Revolutionary Movement”[1]. They executed many of them. We will not make that mistake again. This is one other reason why non-NS conservatives will never trust National Socialists. We know that they will try to wipe us out as soon as the cultural Marxists, the suicidal humanists and the capitalist globalists have been defeated and after the Muslims have been deported from Europe.
Let it be perfectly clear. The PCCTS, Knights Templar oppose National Socialism and we do not seek cooperation with them. We see National Socialism as a hate-ideology as it is genocidal and imperialistic in nature. However, we don’t have many potential allies. As rational creatures we will go to great lengths to prevent our own demise and secure our success.  
1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[... (in another question)]

We are not National Socialists, in fact, we oppose National Socialists.

[...]

Q: Are you a holocaust denier?
A: Assuming of course that you are referring to the Jewish holocaust under Nazi Germany; no, I have reviewed the evidence, both the evidence presented by the Allied powers and the anti-holocaust evidence presented by the Axis Powers and neo-Nazi movements. I don’t find the anti-holocaust evidence credible so I don’t see a reason why anyone should deny the Jewish holocaust. As far as I have understood; Nazi Germany didn’t originally want to annihilate the Jews. They were considering deportation but they didn’t really have any location to deport them to, and they weren’t offered any location by the allied forces. They didn’t start massacring the Jews until after they realised that they were losing the war and the window of opportunity was closing fast (after the failed Russian invasion in1941). I guess, they used the following logic; they felt they had to cut out what they viewed as a cancer before they lost the war somewhat like many Serbs did during the Balkan war. They wanted to deport but as their adversaries made that impossible they chose the only solution (according to their logic). No one should try to justify genocide, it is a bad thing that cannot or should not be excused. There are always other options.

[...]

Q: Why do you consider National Socialism to be a “dead” ideology?
A: First of all, the reason I’ve made extensive research around the following fields is because I think it’s time that all Western European NS’s realises the harm they are causing in regards to right wing consolidation. National Socialism was designed for Germany after WW1 and it addressed the concerns and needs of the time (according to them). The ideology was defeated in WW2 but many right wing individuals still refuse to let it go. By doing so they are effectively undermining CURRENT concerns and needs of our time. There are currently so many defensive mechanisms in place in Western European societies against National Socialism that any attempt to resurrect the ideology will be counter-productive.
The relatively new Anti-Eurabian, Christian cultural conservative stance however is an ideology specifically designed to resist these defensive mechanisms or “baits” if you will. The goal of my argumentation is to contribute to remove the last doubts with the remaining NS’s. Everyone who wants to contribute to save Europe from cultural genocide should reject National Socialism and instead chose the Anti-Eurabian, Christian cultural conservative stance. It is a hybrid of various right wing concepts which has the potential to gain the support of aprox 35% of Europeans.
At the end of the day the goal is all that matters. If you are unable to conform and adapt to current and modern concepts which has the potential to bring us to power you will only undermine your own efforts.
It should be noted though that the majority of the individuals who are labelled as NS today by the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist establishment are not at all NS and very often opposed to any NS policies. There are, however, NS out there, some are ideologically confident senior members and many young and “confused” so called neoNazi’s who mimic the older generation NS. This is a huge challenge that must be addressed.

I don't see why Breivik would self-censor himself given that he knew he would be seen as a monster after the attack anyway. If he wanted to de-demonize his movement he would never have killed 70 teenagers.

Although the word "nazi" is now used in a bad way, "real" national-socialism cannot exist without racism. And I am not sure Breivik is racist. He probably has preconceived ideas but I think generally his opinions deal with culture and not race or biology. We already discussed a little about this in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dylann Roof - calls himself a "white nationalist"

Seifeddine Rezgui Yacoubi, Arid Uka, Omar Mateen, PRETTY MUCH ALL ISLAMIST MASS MURDERERS = Salafist

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Seifeddine Rezgui Yacoubi, Arid Uka, Omar Mateen, PRETTY MUCH ALL ISLAMIST MASS MURDERERS = Salafist

Technically Omar Mateen and other ISIS inspired terrorists would believe in Wahhabism which is similar to Salafism but is a lot more extreme.

Brenton Tarrant - Neo-Nazism, Fascism, Islamophobia, White Supremacy, White Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism

Barend H. Strydom was a white supremacist.

He fittingly used a Vektor Z88 handgun.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Brenton Tarrant - Neo-Nazism, Fascism, Islamophobia, White Supremacy, White Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism

I would at least add "eco-fascism" since it is how he describes himself.

I agree with fascism, islamophobia and white/ethno-nationalism. For neo-nazism I realized I am not sure about its true meaning: Nazis wanted to spread their territory beyond their borders. But Tarrant, at least according to what he wrote, was ok with letting non-white people live in their country. He thought each "race" had to live in its own country. So is it in contradiction with neo-nazism? It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to launch a debate.

Same with white nationalism and white supremacy. I thought that white nationalism technically made white supremacy impossible since, with no contacts between the two communities power of one over the other is impossible. Or maybe white supremacy is only thinking that whites are superior to others? I wish I had a clear definition of all these terms.

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Brenton Tarrant - Neo-Nazism, Fascism, Islamophobia, White Supremacy, White Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism

I would at least add "eco-fascism" since it is how he describes himself.

I agree with fascism, islamophobia and white/ethno-nationalism. For neo-nazism I realized I am not sure about its true meaning: Nazis wanted to spread their territory beyond their borders. But Tarrant, at least according to what he wrote, was ok with letting non-white people live in their country. He thought each "race" had to live in its own country. So is it in contradiction with neo-nazism? It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to launch a debate.

Same with white nationalism and white supremacy. I thought that white nationalism technically made white supremacy impossible since, with no contacts between the two communities power of one over the other is impossible. Or maybe white supremacy is only thinking that whites are superior to others? I wish I had a clear definition of all these terms.

While it's true that the original Nazis wanted to spread their territory (I believe it was called Lebensraum), Neo-Nazis (i.e. Nazis after WW2) are actually against war because it "serves the interest of the Jews" and only believe in enforcing Hitler's domestic polices.

When it comes with White Supremacy, it depends on the context, the most commonly used context is that it is only the believe that White people are superior to others; I believe Tarrant's attack applies to this context as he thought he was superior to the people he was killing.

-

Baruch Goldstein -  Religious Zionism, Islamophobia, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Communism, Religious Conservatism, Ultranationalism

John T. Earnest - Neo-Nazism, Anti-Semitism, Christian Fundamentalism, White Nationalism, Anti-Communism, White Supremacy, Ethno-Nationalism

Brian Clyde - Neo-Nazism, Anti-Communism

Connor Betts: Socialist, anti-fascist, maybe even Communist.

Patrick Crusius: White Nationalism, anti-immigrant.

Guilherme Taucci would post an image of the circle-A, a well-known symbol of anarchy, on his Facebook account on February 17, a month before the shooting. However, a constant on his profile was his support for the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, so his political beliefs are inconclusive.

TheOne99 wrote:

Pekka Eric Auvinen - Anarchist
Eric Harris - Anarchist
Matti Saari - Anarchist?
Charles Whitman - Democrat?
Sebastian Bosse - Anarchist

Pekka wasn't an anarchist. On his Suomi24 page, a list of things he opposed included anarchism. Instead, Pekka proposed an aristocratic system, an administration ''led by expertise and highly skilled people'' to govern a politically conscious society. It's a system mentioned in ''The Republic'' by Plato, which Auvinen mentioned among his books in YouTube.

Jeff Weise - self described National Socialist

Nazis/Racists/White Supremacists/Bigots:
Anders Breivik - 77 dead, 319 wounded (2011)
Wade Michael Page - 7 dead, 3 wounded (2012)
Jake England and Alvin Watts - 3 dead, 2 wounded (2012)
Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. - 3 dead (2014)
Elliot Rodger - 6 dead, 14 wounded (2014)
Larry Steven McQuilliams - Nobody killed or injured (2014)
Vita Zaverukha - 2 dead, 3 wounded (2015)
Dylann Roof - 9 dead, 1 wounded (2015)
Chris Harper-Mercer - 9 dead, 8 wounded (2015)
John Russell Houser - 2 dead, 9 wounded (2015)
Sabino Moriello - 25 wounded (2016)
Ali David Sonboly - 9 dead, 36 wounded (2016)
Scott Michael Greene - 2 dead (2016)
Allen Scarsella - 5 wounded (2016)
Anthony Sawina - 2 wounded (2016)
Alexandre Bissonnette - 6 dead, 19 wounded (2017)
Anton Konev - 3 dead (2017)
Adam Purinton - 1 dead, 2 wounded (2017)
William Atchison - 2 dead (2017)
Luca Traini - 6 wounded (2018)
Robert Bowers - 11 dead, 6 wounded (2018)
Scott Beierle - 2 dead, 5 wounded (2018)
Gregory Bush - 2 dead (2018)
Nikolas Cruz - 17 dead, 17 wounded (2018)
Brenton Tarrant - 51 dead, 49 wounded (2019)
Bryan Isaack Clyde - 1 wounded (2019)
Philip Manshaus - 1 dead, 1 wounded (2019)
John Earnest - 1 dead, 3 wounded (2019)
Patrick Crusius - 22 dead, 24 wounded (2019)
Stephan Balliet - 2 dead, 2 wounded (2019)
Claude Sinké - 2 wounded (2019)
Tobias Rathjen - 10 dead, 5 wounded (2020)

As for some possible candidates that I'm not too sure about.

>Robert Lewis Dear Jr. - 3 dead, 9 wounded
>Jerad and Amanda Miller - 3 dead
>Justin Bourque - 3 dead, 2 wounded
>Eric Frein - 1 dead, 1 wounded
>Paul Anthony Ciancia - 1 dead, 6 wounded
>Dennis Ronald Marx - 1 wounded
>Brian Lyn Smith, Terry Smith, Derrick Smith, Kyle David Joekel, Teneicha Bright, Chanel Skains and Britney Keith - 2 dead, 2 wounded
>Jared Loughner - 6 dead, 14 wounded

The Goyases school shooter supported National Socialism and spoke about its benefits on humanity via Skype with the codename ''Adolf''.

Nicholas Giampa shared neo-Nazi views and expressed his attachment to the Atomwaffen Division and James Mason's "Siege".

Devon Erickson was a liberal and Obama supporter. I believe Alec McKinney was too, but I'm not certain.

Hayden Jagst was active on right-wind oriented subreddits and compained about "shitty leftist propaganda" but listened to communist / anarchist metal. His anthem playlist included the Italian National Fascist Party, while half of the videos were versions of the USSR anthem / Internationale.
I'm somewhat reminded of Karl Pierson and Pekka Eric Auvinen's diverse political influences.

Артём Ануфриев (Artyom Anoufriev) had an interest in national socialism but this was attributed less to hating any specific groups and more to hating people in general.

I found some information about views Wayne Lo appeared to have had from Murderpedia and a separate article,though i don’t know for sure if this truly represents his beliefs.
“Many said he espoused racial hatred against blacks, Jews, homosexuals and interracial couples. One student said Lo listened to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh every day on the radio.”
“Mr. Lary said Mr. Lo once wrote a class paper arguing that people with AIDS should be banished to Utah. Others said he was known to hate Jews, blacks and homosexuals, and to have contended that the Holocaust never happened.”
Sources: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nathan Allen - White Nationalist/Supremacist

Timothy McVeigh - Was a registered Republican

lognifiiskurk wrote:

Timothy McVeigh - Was a registered Republican

That’s cool I didn’t know that.Do you know if he voted in any presidential elections?

Artem Tagirov (2018 Sterlitamak school attack): Nazi
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Chris Krumm (2012 Casper College attack) condemned American democracy and repeatedly praised the People's Republic of China in his manifesto. He also called communism a "poor ideology" and preferred it's current communitarian state. Brenton Tarrant also said the country that most enbodies his ideals is China.

Bryer Schmegelsky - Held Nazi beliefs
Igor Suprunyuk and Viktor Sayenko (Dnepropetrovsk maniacs) - Both held Nazi beliefs though it is unknown if Viktor only believed in it because Igor did

At various points in the past in his manifesto Brenton Tarrant claimed to ideologically identified as a communist/Libertarian/Anarchist

lognifiiskurk wrote:

Timothy McVeigh - Was a registered Republican

He also voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate,Harry Browne, in 1996 from prison according to the book I recently read.

Jake Davison - Conservative, supported Trump

Richard Poplawksi - Neo Nazi

Michael Stone - Ulster Loylist (UDA)

Burn wrote:

Guilherme Taucci would post an image of the circle-A, a well-known symbol of anarchy, on his Facebook account on February 17, a month before the shooting. However, a constant on his profile was his support for the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, so his political beliefs are inconclusive.

The circle-A is probably him just being edgy.I doubt he was ideologically an anarchist.

David Copeland,the 1999 London Nail Bomber,was a white supremacist,neo-nazi,and homophobe who was a member of the British National Socialist Movement and the British National Party during the late 1990’s.He targeted blacks,Bengalis,and gay people during his attacks.