MRA Peter Nolan on Anders Breivik: “In different times … he would be called a hero.”
The work of a "hero?"
Some in the manosphere have been quick to label mass murderer Anders Breivik a “madman,” trying their best to pretend that his noxious misogynist ideology bears no resemblance to their own. Others, while endorsing at least some of his ideas, have distanced themselves from his actions.
As for MRA loose cannon Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), well, I’ll just let him explain himself. In a comment on The Spearhead, which naturally earned him multiple upvotes from the assembled mob, the man with the strangely punctuated name offered this take [LINK FIXED] on the killer:
Anders Breivik sees himself as a soldier who is fighting for a worthy cause. That cause being his country. Women and leftists then make him out to be “insane” and are looking for “who is to blame”. Well they might start looking in the mirror. The most pervasive element of western civilization today is its hatred of men and all things male. There is a particularly strong hatred of fathers and husbands. I know. I used to be a father and a husband. I have never experienced hatred in my life as vehement as by women in divorce.
And then the justifications began:
It is only natural and normal that some men decide to take matters into their own hands at all the hatred spewed at them and their marginalization. Men often see that some things are worth fighting for. Men often then take action to fight for what they believe in.
Anders Breivik is not crazy. He’s as rational as the next man. He sees that his country is being destroyed. He sees that the people responsible for that destruction are the left of politics. And he would be correct. He took action to stop what he believes is the destruction of his country.
Followed by a smug told-you-so:
I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children. Well? We just saw 76.
Of course, when Nolan refers to “telling women” that angry men will erupt in violence, what he means is “offering guys on The Spearhead specific tips on how exactly to kill innocent people.”
I’m not going to repost the vile suggestions he set forth in a now notorious Spearhead comment some months back, but I will note that they included handy tips on how to efficiently kill police officers, as well as specific advice on the best ways to take out large numbers of people in “malls … girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.” He ended the comment with a not-terribly-convincing attempt at plausible deniability:
Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things? I am not recommending them or even condining them. But if a man got into the frame of mind of Sodini and was actually SMART about it. There are PLENTY of ways he could attack women and manginas and their cop protectors with NO CHANCE AT ALL OF BEING CAUGHT as long as he kept his mouth shut.
Naturally, this comment got dozens of upvotes from the Spearhead regulars.
In a followup comment on The Spearhead last night, Nolan mocked another commenter for offering words of sympathy to the “innocent victims.” That last phrase seemed to send him into a fury:
Those who were killed were not “innocent victims” in the main. Anders Breivik is as sane as the next man. …
This was an act of war and he considers himself a soldier. In different times, as in WW II, he would be called a hero.
The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians. I would put forward the opinion that the political leaders are responsible for the war on men and the destruction of the families of men. What could be more “an eye for an eye” than to kill the children of those who were so willing to destroy mens families and destroy the homeland of men?
In killing children of those who are betraying men? He is sending a very clear message.
“You may think you are protected by your police and your security…..but we can find your children…and you can not protect them except by locking them into a secure area.”
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters; I won’t repeat it here.
Then back to the “innocent children” remark:
These “innocent victims” of whom you speak are the children of those who are criminals. And since Anders Breivik could not get to the REAL criminals he went after the children. Is that such a bad idea? Are they not legitimate targets if the primary targets can not be reached?
This also received multiple upvotes from The Spearhead crowd, and a much smaller number of downvotes. [UPDATE: The post has now started attracting downvotes, but the upvotes still outnumber them considerably.]
Yes, it is truly strange that anyone could possibly associate the MRM with violence in any way.
Posted on July 28, 2011, in gloating, manginas, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, terrorism, the spearhead, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 368 Comments.
I am pretty sure that even in WW2, killing defenseless children was considered criminal.
Well, you can’t have a war without war crimes.
The MRA responses to this mass murder have been so disgusting I stopped reading the threads about it here. Supporting murder of children? Not cool. Not cool if the children’s parents were criminals. Not cool if the children themselves were criminals. In fact, gunning down a crowd of unarmed civilians is never cool. Right wingers and their support of terrorism is repulsive. Also, those who committed targeted mass murder of their enemies’ children during WW2 weren’t heroes, they were Nazis.
MRAs, still a lot like KKK (with less orginization!)
MRAs, still a lot like KKK (with less orginization!)
No snappy uniforms either.
It was a joke, you morans! Can’t you see his…uh. Sarcasm? Irony? Something?
Yup, nothing to see here. No endorsement of violence, nope, not ever. *No true Scotsman goes here* etc.
I really hope the police are keeping track of that Nolan guy, since he’s acting like a terrorist ringleader, laying out tips and plans for mass murder. They should be keeping tabs on him and whoever is reading his horrible advice.
darksidecat:
One small, but I think important point I think you missed in your statement: “Also, those who committed targeted mass murder of their enemies’ children during WW2 weren’t heroes, they were Nazis.”
The Nazis weren’t the only ones who murdered children during WWII, war and the lawlessness that *always* follows wars give bad people the space to do bad things.
And Peter wonders why his wife divorced him and keeps him away from his children. That is what is so awful about the mra, they have to know that there are men in the world that abuse their wives and/or children.
Wouldn’t a guy like Peter who obviously is a delusional narcissistic at best be someone who they might think “hmm could be two sides to this story…” but no, instead they offer sympathy.
Revolting is way too kind a word for his brand of garbage.
Somebody get a screencap of it fast.
I want to point to this every time an MRA gets butthurt about being lumped in with Christian terrorists.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Heroshima… Sadly our hands aren’t clean either. The Allies didn’t specifically target them like Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) is recommending, but war crimes were involved on both sides. War is a very, very bad thing and we should make every effort to avoid it.
This is where their ideas of blood-libel stretches to all the people they don’t like. They can’t separate out idea from identity.
Yeah, seriously, screencap. Somebody will come along soon to try and scrub the web of it. I want it preserved.
Kave: There are only two sides to the story if the first side is one he doesn’t support, and the second is one he can twist to fit his own ideology.
David, the first two links go to the same post.
Killing children is a horrible, cowardly thing to do and the MRAs who try to defend the shooter are no better than he is. I’ve officially lost what little sympathy I had for the MRA.
I want it preserved.
Hopefully, like a bug. Killed, then pinned and sealed under glass.
The first link is just taking me to his old comment about how to kill loads of people…if someone has the link for the 1st breivik comment I’ll cap it.
Thanks so much, Laura. Preshadit. :)
If Wacky Pete actually thinks the First Daughters don’t have Secret Service following them around 24/7, he’s even more out to lunch than I previously thought.
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters.
it wasn’t that veiled.
Because the rational response to your paranoid grievances is to go out and shoot a bunch of people who have no connection whatsoever to you.
This leapt out at me:
“The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians.”
The people he killed WERE his fellow Norwegians, Nolan, you utter waste of skin! And so are their parents!
Interesting. I was just reading on reddit that the MRAs are up in a tizzy because they think we’re “co-opting” the Norway Massacre “for feminism,” and that of course, the fact that *just a few* MRAs have written in support of him shouldn’t be used against the “movement” at all.
The MRAs have been calling for violence for some time. It just goes to show what an abhorrent, failed “movement” would identify with someone who terrorizes their families (Ball) or murders children (Breivik).
They feel “emasculated” by a state that no longer puts men’s rights first, by divorce and custody cases where you can’t always predict a winner, and by a culture that is becoming more and more progressive with time. And with progressive thought comes the advancement of human rights and discussions of privilege. How else do you react to rational thinking that goes against your privilege? With irrationality, of course.
It ain’t just the threat to privilege that pisses these guys off. I really believe it’s the concept of human rights itself.
There’s a yearning for a time when the only real law was manly force – as if that were pure and good.
There is a reason I included the word “targeted”…
Raoul- It doesn’t have to be “pure and good” if white men are the only ones counted as people. If everyone but them is second-class-status, by default, everything they do is A-OK
Wow. These posts usually leave me either enraged or bemused, but this is so far off the deep end, I am almost numb.
After reading this, and other apologists for the Norwegian terrorist, I now feel no desire to engage, mock, or educate these guys, I just want to stay far far away.
At some point you have to wonder if law enforcement is or should be monitoring these sites. Lord knows, any chat rooms discussing the heroics of the 9/11 hijackers would attract FBI attention.
Ironic thing is, in a world of “manly force,” most of these keyboard jockeys would be toast.
I don’t know what shocks me more, how awful his posts are or the fact that none of the other Spearhead guys called him out on them. I realize the Spearhead commenters are zealous, but don’t even they have a point when they decide one of their fellow MRA’s is getting too extreme? Is it possible for Nolan to offend them?
How could anyone feel sympathy for Anders Breivik either? It breaks my heart that a madman could destroy so many innocent lives. I saw a massacre two months ago, but at least then it was the result of nature and not the result of a terrorist. A tragedy seems worse to me when a person causes it, because it is all the more senseless. I hope the survivors get counseling for the survivor’s guilt and post traumatic stress disorder that are likely to strike them after the shock wears off. After the news crews leave the scene of the disaster, the rest of the world forgets but the victims live with that pain forever.
Anders Breivik sees himself as a soldier who is fighting for a worthy cause. That cause being his country.
Ugh. This one just got to me. Real soldiers take orders from their country. Real soldiers follow orders they don’t always want to. Real soldiers don’t get to run off on their own and do what they think is right.
…Oh, and real soldiers sure as fuck don’t massacre civilians from their own goddamn country!
I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children.
Nice passive voice, bro. Real smooth.
“Nice gender you got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it.”
“…Shame if anything were to happen to it.”
What is that supposed to imply? Maybe Ms. Kieu Becker? Looks like violence is celebrated on both sides…depending on the perpetrator and victim.
Keep working it Perv.
Magz (live from NYC)
Magz – No matter how badly you want it to happen, feminists are not championing Ms. Kieu Becker and never did.
Oh wait, I think you just misunderstood me.
The “Shame if anything were to happen to it” was a sardonic rephrasing of P-A:N’s sentiments toward women. It was not my sentiments toward men.
Did I just witness an utter failure of comprehension? Magdelyn, you.. you do realize that the quotes mean someone else’s voice, and therefore snark.. right? Right?
Ah, I see you’ve got this one, Holly.
Carry on then. *blobs away*
I am totally baffled that this Nolan guy is legally barred from contact with his ex-wife and children. Man, those courts are unfair, aren’t they?
Breivik’s father on his son’s heroic actions (via Wikipedia):
After the attack, Jens Breivik is quoted as saying, “I don’t feel like his father,” and, “How could he just stand there and kill so many innocent people and just seem to think that what he did was OK? He should have taken his own life, too. That’s what he should have done,” adding, “I will have to live with this shame for the rest of my life.”
Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things?
I’ve never considered a massive act of terrorism, but I’m gonna guess it’s not that easy, and takes a lot of planning if you want to end up with more than burn marks on your underpants.
adding, “I will have to live with this shame for the rest of my life.”
There you feminists go again with your shaming language.
It’s getting kind of annoying that the Kieu Becker’s heinous crime and Sharon Osborn’s even more disgusting response to it is being trotted out as the “See! You feminists are violent too!” When a) That was not my reaction i was just as disgusted about that as any mra quit putting words in my mouth god dammit and b) No one I know with a heart and half a brain was anything but horrified. Including NSWATM and including all of the feminist places I frequent. Furthermore, any feminist article or post that I read that come within a whisper of sounding a little like victim blaming I verbally and publicly smacked down.
FEMINISTS DON’T THINK CUTTING DICKS OFF IS FUNNY SO CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON NOW KTHX
Also, can someone explain the deal with the (c) after his name. Does he actually think he copyrighted his name?
After the attack, Jens Breivik is quoted as saying, “I don’t feel like his father,” and, “How could he just stand there and kill so many innocent people and just seem to think that what he did was OK? He should have taken his own life, too. That’s what he should have done,” adding, “I will have to live with this shame for the rest of my life.”
That poor, poor man. As a parent, he probably feels responsibility for what happened. I can’t even imagine how he is dealing with this.
OT:
“I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children. Well? We just saw 76.”
P-A:N must have missed this… This latest disaster saw the death of a lot of men and boys.. I mean, I know he thinks they must be manginas, otherwise why would they be killed? But still…
I guess I shouldn’t be trying to grasp the logic behind a guy who thinks gunning down people is the way to get over a persecution complex…
Shaenon – As a Child Of Divorce, I wonder if these guys get that it’s actually not normal to be barred from all contact with your wife and children?
I mean, I’m not saying it’s right every time it happens (hard to say that about any legal decision), but the main reason that happens is serious ongoing abuse. It’s not a matter of “oh, you know, typical no-fault divorce, split the community property, lots of arguing over stupid little stuff, totally barred from contact with rest of family.”
My parents amicably agreed to continue sharing responsibility for their kids and there was no family-court haggling at all, much less telling my father he couldn’t see me!
Admittedly their case might have been unusually drama-free, but it’s really not normal (and not totally unsuspicious) for a father to be denied all contact for no reason.
…The more I think about it, the more I realize that not even getting supervised visitation is pretty damn hard to do.
That’s past “got screwed in the divorce” and “okay, it’s fairly certain he put someone in the hospital.”
Sharculese, the reason PAN spells his name with such unusual punctuation is because he is part of the sovereign citizen movement. It’s a very strange extremist movement where the members believe they are sovereigns and not bound by the laws of the countries in which they reside. They spell their names oddly to show they have reclaimed their true identities, and are not expected to pay mortgages, taxes, child support, or anything else they don’t like. In the US, “sovereign citizens” have frequent run ins with the law over these issues. PAN himself fantasizes that someday he and a group of like minded men will form common law courts where he can get revenge against all of his personal enemies. The Anti Defamation League has a good article on the sovereign citizen movement.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=sov
Holly; Adding my two cents as another child of divorce.
My mother had legal grounds to bar my father from seeing me on account of his not paying child support. It’s not like my mother took him to court and made it so his payments skyrocketed through the roof. In fact, she only pushed for the legal minimum of what he was expected to pay, and he still didn’t. And it’s not like my mother had a whole lot of money and was just trying to drain him out of greed; we were really poor growing up and there were a lot of things we had to do without, and my mother was stressed beyond belief and worked herself sick to make ends meet and to make sure i was getting a good education. Ends didn’t always meet and some patches were a lot rougher then others, but she got us through with (it seems to me) sheer will and strength of character.
All through this she never used me as a bargaining chip to get the money that she not only was entitled to but needed. She said that I needed my father and she always did her best to make sure I could see him on a regular basis.
Like holly, this is probably not a usual case but…. this whole “women are goldigging child-stealing bitches” talk gets little more than eyerolls from me.
Sovreign Citizen Movement!? WTF?
I’m above the law…. because I say so!!!
Shora – It could be that and not abuse, true.
I guess I always think of nonpayment as a guy choosing not to see his kids, because he could always decide to make the payments.
But if you’re the sort of person who thinks spelling your name funny means you don’t have to pay taxes, I can see why you might not make the mental connection between “support kids” and “see kids.”
…Or he put someone in the hospital.
Now I feel rather unsafe.
Okay, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised a dude like that turns out to be a sovereign citizen. lol.
Thanks.
@Holly- Judging from the fact that he doesn’t seem to connect the intense anger his wife felt towards him during the divorce with anything he did, I’m gonna bet there was some massive dysfunction within the relationship.
You don’t have to pay taxes? I want to be a sovereign citizen too! From now on I expect everyone to refer to me as Sn-ow: y(c). Thank you.
Can we move on from the Sharon Osborne comments? Ha! Never, they’re still using “Valorie Solanas was representative of all feminists.”
“Admittedly their case might have been unusually drama-free, but it’s really not normal (and not totally unsuspicious) for a father to be denied all contact for no reason.”
True dat. Adecdata only, but I’ve known guy who’ve abused their former spouses, are drug addicts, never paid child support, routinely canceled their visitation dates after making the mother drive to a different state to drop the kid off, dragged their feet and lied to the court in order to delay the divorce as long as they could, SAID they didn’t care if they saw the kid again, and more — and in none of those cases did it result in a family court judge or the mother herself restricting or prohibiting access to the child.
I’m still willing, actually, to listen to fathers’ rights advocates talk about how the laws could be changed to help fathers access to their children and help children get the best outcome possible in a divorce, but withholding children from their fathers is definitely not normal.
Sn-ow: y (c)–Yes, your majesty, or do you prefer your highness? If I add even more punctuation to my name, do I become the empress of the universe? I am not satisfied with being an ordinary sovereign. I dub myself Ke$n#d+r=a (c) (R).
Can we move on from the Sharon Osborne comments?
considering her husband tried to kill her once, and bites the heads off small animals, why is it surprising she might make a bad joke about someone cutting a dick off?
Wasn’t a good joke, or tasteful, or even funny. But not particularly surprising.
Oh dearie me, this is fuckin’ hilarious:
It’s his thirteen-page “legal” document basically ordering the police not to arrest him for anything. Because yeah, you can do that.
Coupla highlights:
A Policy Enforcement Officer who attempts to detain any man who has made it clear that he isnot subject to the legislation of THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is committing the crime of kidnapping and if wearing a weapon aggravated kidnapping.
This is the “the floor is lava!” of legal evasion–an attempt to violate reality by, you know, saying so and expecting everyone to play along.
Also, if he’s not a citizen doesn’t he need a visa? Seems like if nothing else he ought to be eligible for deportation to… I don’t know, international waters or something.
All arrests of men under “Domestic Violence” accusations are UNLAWFUL without a supporting Affidavit signed under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability. It is the crime of kidnapping and false imprisonment. ALL PEACE OFFICERS will be held accountable for committing any such crime from the date of APRIL 1 2011.
Okay, yeah, he put someone in the hospital.
All women who are over the age of 18 and who are mentally competent and who do not have a Bonded Affidavit of being Chattel Property to a man signed and duly notarized are to be treated as equal before the law.
Oh dear God. P-A:N(c)Land has slavery. Slavery of women. Because he is so pro-freedom.
I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by Peace Officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is ONE TROY OUNCE of 99.99%PURE GOLD PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in anyway detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and FIVE HUNDRED TROY OUNCES of 99.99% PURE GOLD PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported,incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarised consent.
Yeah, well, I claim a fee of… ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS… if you step on the floor, because the floor is lava!
You know, I really hope NWO doesn’t find out about this Sovereign Citizen movement… It seems like it would be right up his ally.
My parents are divorced. My father is an abusive alcholic crackhead. If anything, we would have been far better off seeing him less. However, my mother did not bar him from seeing us, despite the fact that he did not pay support regularly (he worked under the table and one time bought a new truck the same month my mother called her parents and begged for money to pay the light bill). The only restriction she placed was that my little sister (who is seven years younger than me, so she was about three-ish when they seperated) had to have either me or my older sister to look after her. Granted, this rule was also imposed before they seperated, because my father should not be trusted to be left alone with a hamster, let alone a small child. He still got my brother drunk at 13, convinced my older sister to drop out of high school (she was on the honor roll), and took my little sister without permission, got high, and she walked to a strangers house to get a ride home (this was recent, she was fourteen, and some strange man drove her home), and he steals from my older sister and verbally abuses my younger siblings. Every time he goes to jail, I am glad that he is being kept away from them, and away from his girlfriend (he beat this one too, but not as bad as the last one who ended up with several missing teeth and broken ribs before a neighbor rescued her). Some people shouldn’t be near children, and sometimes it is in the best interest of the children to not see them. If I ever have kids, you can be damned certain that I will not let that man near them. I certainly understand why parents fight to keep their children from abusive parents and relatives (this applies to parents of all genders, I have also seen men fight to protect their kids from abusive mothers).
A man who shoots 70 kids should never, ever have been allowed custody or supervision of a child. That should go without saying. If one is arguing for rights of fathers, the argument should be about men who are not violent abusers, rather than people who are a danger to society. Though, to be honest, the only two men I have personally seen denied visitation by a court were a convicted child molestor and a young man with schizophrenia who was discriminated against based on his mental illness and won full custody on appeal (the latter is really an excellent father and he put a lot of time into parenting classes to be the best parent possible to his son, his ex-girlfriend was abusive to both him and the kid, and would have never won initially if not for the judge seeing “schizophrenia” and ignoring the very real and very heavy evidence in the case against her, child services even testified on his behalf against her, that should have been an open-shut case if not for the ablism).
I don’t know what shocks me more, how awful his posts are or the fact that none of the other Spearhead guys called him out on them. I realize the Spearhead commenters are zealous, but don’t even they have a point when they decide one of their fellow MRA’s is getting too extreme? Is it possible for Nolan to offend them?
These guys are fascinated by guns and hang out with right-wing militia groups (like Tim McVeigh did), so the death of all these children will not shock them. Furthermore they act like a cult and they don’t disagree with each others.
That “sovereign citizen” document ends with a demand that everyone involved in his divorce and his prosecution for domestic violence be tried in “The People’s Court of Australia,” which is an institution he just made up and which consists entirely of himself.
He’d be adorable if he were, you know, ten years old.
Wait, his entire argument is that Australia isn’t a real country because it registers bonds with the SEC? So basically any country that issues debt can’t be a country?
When I was twelve, my friends and I made a country like Nolan’s in my basement. We partitioned off the different areas with duct tape. We didn’t have slavery, though. Suffrage is universal in Shaenonland.
To be honest, though, at twelve we were a little old to be doing that. We were slacking off on our Odyssey of the Mind project.
Wikipedia. The free legal system anyone (except women and liberals) can edit.
There was a guy in the last county I lived in who filed a bunch of Sovereign Citizen docs with the recorder’s office. I lost several hours on that job each time a search brought up one of his documents. It was like a tiny peek into a different universe.
By outlaw it is meant that they are not protected by any system of law and therefore mustprotect themselves.
did he just say that anybody that doesn’t subscribe to his backyard Legal System had better put up their dukes?
Also, it claims to invalidate all other systems of law. Well, THAT’S convenient.
according to the marked up transcript of his divorce proceedings that he links to, he’s also an admiralty court theorist.
Sounds like he needs to put in an offer for Sealand.