Manosphere blogs: Hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas!
Earlier today I wrote about some Men’s Rights Redditors who endorsed the views of Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik – without knowing that the views they were endorsing were his. But others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik’s manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.
On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik’s “lucidity,” and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal society:
[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers. …
He’s not being sarcastic here. He continues:
That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren’t going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they’re all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …
Here’s an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.
(Bolded text in original.) That final reference to “ethnic self-hatred” seems to be Bardamu’s euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.
Then he adds this repulsive final thought on Breivik’s victims:
[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.
Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik’s manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.
Chuck complains that Hugo Schwyzer and I are “try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs” in our recent posts showing the similarities between Breivik’s ideas and those of many MRAs. Never mind that neither Hugo nor I referred to Breivik as an MRA. I described him as an antifeminist, which is an undeniable fact, whose views are “strikingly similar to many MRAs.” (Emphasis added.) Hugo stated explicitly that he didn’t blame the MRM directly for Breivik’s actions, noting that “[m]ost MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic.”
Evidently Chuck feels that to even mention the MRM in conjunction with Breivik is some sort of egregious smear, especially since the shooter spent “only” 23 pages of his manifesto writing explicitly about feminism.
Weirdly, after trying to draw a sharp line between Breivik and the MRM, Chuck goes on to apparently endorse Breivik’s (and Fjordman’s) notions about the ways in which feminism “greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.” The rest of Chuck’s post elaborates on, and seems to fully endorse, Breivik’s/Fjordman’s argument that feminism’s “emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society” and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders.
I’ve asked Chuck to clarify if this is indeed what he means to convey in his post. If so, I can only say: If you’re trying to draw a distinction between your ideas and the ideas of a murderous terrorist, you don’t really advance your case by agreeing with the central thrust of these ideas pretty much wholeheartedly.