Advice to Future Spree Shooters


In the wake of the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida a couple of weeks ago, I must voice my disapproval, as any sane person would do. While I have had my issues with the collective actions of the gay community in the past (and those issues are largely identical to the ones that real life homosexual Jack Donovan posits), I certainly don’t condone the murder of any of them by spree shooters, let alone 50 of them.

More to the point, I also don’t condone the murder of innocent people just trying to enjoy a night out (and I also can’t fault the gays for going out for a “Cruise”, especially since I’ve gone out for many a trim hunt-the heterosexual equivalent of cruising-in my day). Especially since there are so many better places for spree shooters to go. If we must have a mass shooting incident arise every year or so, we might as well point them in the right direction. After all, the media tells us that these are the biggest source of firearm homicides, and now that the media are on the right side of history, they can’t possibly be wrong.

And so, for the aspiring shooters reading this website (and I imagine there’s more than a few!) who’ll probably look to commit a shooting within the next year or two, as the cycle tends to be, allow me to suggest a few places for you to commit your rampage.

As a general rule, these are places that might actually benefit society by being massacred. And so, here are a few suggestions with pros and cons for each choice stated:

1) The Sociology/Cultural Anthropology/Anything with “Studies” Department

I’ve said it before, and I will surely say it again in the future: the soft sciences (As they’re done today, at the very least) are responsible for an overwhelmingly large percentage of what we in the alt-right/manosphere/whatever complain about: From feminism to made-up sexual identities to critical theory to safe spaces, pretty much all of this nonsense comes from organized “give me stuff” studies departments at universities around the world. Indeed, this has largely been the case for the past century, and one might argue that a direct intellectual lineage can be drawn from the theories of the Frankfurt School (which coined the term “Critical theory”)  in the 1920s, all the way down to the shrieking Social Justice Warriors, embittered minorities, and white masochists of today. Or from Margaret Mead’s massively fraudulent work in Samoa to the utterly gormless and miserable interactions between men and women in 2016. Or from the massively fraudulent (surprise!) works of Alfred Kinsey and John Money to…well, you get the idea.

So, seeing as these people are responsible for a good chunk of what’s wrong with the world  today…would it be wrong to shoot a few of them? Personally, I’d prefer a limited spree shooting, sparing all the students and most of the teachers, and only shooting the professors that are simultaneously promoting this nonsense and being revoltingly hypocritical about it. No matter what variation you choose, this is an exceptional choice due to most “New Left” academics being not only soft and in poor physical condition, but literally being conditioned to abhor violence to the extent that they will not use it to defend themselves.

A bit of caution though: Do understand that if you are a white heterosexual male, you will go down in infamy and likely be used as the impetus for a gun control or surveillance bill. In contrast, if you’re a person of color, these people will defend you and whitewash your actions with their dying breaths. Your otherwise omni-present white privilege does not apply here.

2)  Either the Legislative or Judicial Branch

I was honestly debating to just pick the judicial branch (After all, they are probably the most powerful entity in the United States today), but since there’s only 9 of them, that would hamstring your efforts to break Mr. Mateen’s high score. Hence why I threw the legislature in as well.

While they’re both just two parts of the “Cathedral”, they are very prominent and powerful ones. And, seeing as I still have some affection for the United States against all reason, I do resent how any idea of checks and balances has been thrown out the window by a two groups of people that are in desperate need of term limits.

The cons, however are obvious: You would, to put it bluntly, have the wrath of god put upon you as you undoubtedly failed and were messily killed. Plus that’d be the nail in the coffin for any semblance of America as a free country. I’d skip this one.

3) The Southern Poverty Law Center

This more or less ties into the first one, for whatever academia theorizes, the SPLC puts into action. In addition to their philosophical malfeasance that comes from the same roots as #1, they’rejust plain hypocritical: A multi million dollar “non-profit” that has on numerous occasions lied about the topics it discusses, if any one organization can be said to represent modernity, this enormously wealthy organization spewing hate and lies under a thin veneer of love and tolerance is it.

Shooting up the SPLC might present a bit more of a challenge-seeing as this non-profit is, in fact, a for-profit, I would assume that its employees are a bit more proactive and “on the ball” then a university sociology department, and will put up more of a fight. On the plus side, since it is such a big organization you’ll go down in history, and if you’re a Person of Color, the people you shoot will excuse your crimes in a similar manner to the sociology department.



And those are my three suggestions for places a shooter could go instead of a mall, theater, or club full of innocents. Should you have any other suggestions, feel free to suggest them in the comments section. Let us repurpose this great tradition for a good cause!


  • You’re all wrong. Advocating lethal force against anyone who does not pose an immediate, clear and lethal threat is nothing more than advocating murder. Albeit, the institutions-of-lowered-thinking you mention are full of their own devils to be exorcised, but the ends do not justify the means.
    Best Advice for a mass, spree-shooter in ‘training’: Practice on yourself and repeat until you get it right.

    • This article was meant to be satirical, bud. I don’t seriously advocate murder.

  • Wait, did I read that right? Jack Donovan is gay?

    • Yeah. He doesn’t flaunt it like most gay people do nowadays, but he’s pretty open about being a homosexual. Also, I’m pretty sure I mentioned it in the Way of Men book review.

      He actually wrote an entire book on why he doesn’t like the label “gay”, why he personally rejects the (to put it bluntly) faggotry of gay culture, and why homosexual men should embrace masculinity and be men first and homos second.

      I haven’t actually read it, but it seems interesting-not interesting enough to buy something titled “Androphilia”, mind you…

  • Bob Wallace

    Honestly, if you’re going to be a mass shooter please kill the guilty, not the innocent! I’ve been thinking about that since 9/11 when they missed Congress.