Norwegian Men’s Rights Activist blogger Eivind Berge arrested for death threats against police [UPDATE 3]

Eivind Berge and police

Norwegian Men’s Rights Activist blogger Eivind Berge, known for his violent rhetoric and rape apologia, has been arrested for death threats against police.

Not too surprising, given that he once announced on his blog that “[k]illing at least one cop is on my bucket list.”

Here are some Google-translated details from a news account here:

The right-wing extremist and anti-feminist blogger Eivind Berge has been arrested for having encouraged and glorified the killing of policemen. The police have found both ammunition and textbooks in use of explosives at Berge.

The police regard the threats as an invitation to others to kill police officers, but also feared that he would commit the acts themselves shortly.

He was evidently arrested on Wednesday. According to this story — at least as far as I can tell from the obviously crude Google translation — he made a specific threat to kill a police officer this Saturday:

Berge also writes about how he was planning to attack a policeman with a knife on a Saturday evening:

“Then I used the trial to come forward as a good example for men, and I considered it to be worth 21 years in prison for premeditated murder.”

According to this account, Berge is being held for two weeks. He claims innocence.

Berge, as readers of this blog may well already know, is a fan of right-wing terrorist and mass murderer Anders Brevik. On his blog, he’s also argued (among other things) that “Rape is Equality.”

He’s glorified the murder of police on his blog numerous times.

Some examples, taken from the second news account:

“… attack on the police is something 100% in harmony with everything I stand for.”

“I maintain that police murder is both ethically and tactically correct.”

Some other examples, direct from his blog (each paragraph is from a separate post; click on the quote for the source):

I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list.

If ever a victim of psychiatry, here is what I would do. I would first attempt to kill the cops or whoever tried to apprehend me. Failing that, I would feign docility in order to get out as soon as possible and then kill a representative of the industry as revenge. … killing cops is also very much a men’s issue. Every pig killed is also a blow against feminism, so men should be doubly elated whenever an officer goes down in the line of encroaching on our cognitive liberty.

[I]f you are a victim of psychiatry, it is probably in your best interest (as well as a publicly beneficial act of activism) to kill a guard or cop in order to get a fair public trial and possibly escape treatment before it ruins your health completely.

Rather than cowering in fear of the police, I assumed a warrior mentality and started hating law enforcement. I really, really wanted to hurt those responsible for enacting and enforcing feminist sex law.

This was his reaction to a news story about a police officer being killed:

Good news for men is rare in this hateful feminist utopia that is Norway, but today is a joyous day! Today I feel schadenfreude in my heart along with all the hate that feminism and resultant mate deprivation have instilled in me. One blue thug less on the streets.

From another post on the same subject:

The swine Olav Kildal died while trying to enforce our lack of cognitive liberty. This was a defensive, much deserved killing that cheered me up.

Here he threatens a female prosecutor:

To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men’s Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate — that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists. …

2011 is the year Norwegian men as a group emerged out of the blogosphere and into the battlefield. This in turn has led to a breakthrough for MRAs such as my good self in the public discourse, probably for the simple reason that the powers that be now realize ignoring us has deadly consequences. Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn’t enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day.

Aside from the explicit threats of violence, the violent and threatening rhetoric here is not unlike much of the rhetoric we see regularly on A Voice for Men and other MRA sites. AVFM founder Paul Elam, for example, told one feminist that:

I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection. … We are coming for you.

The blogger Emma the Emo, Berge’s girlfriend, has posted comments here in the past defending him. The news account quotes someone identified as Nataliya Kochergova, described as his girlfriend; I assume this is “Emma,” because what she told the media is similar to what she posted here. She of course denies that he planned any real violence. According to the article, she said:

There are not really threats. He has never had plans to kill someone, he has said several times in his blog. When for example, he says that “the police killings are an effective way to prevent stupid laws,” it’s a factual description and not a threat. Even those who love the police agree with it.

Berge, for his part, has stated publicly that if he had not met Emma, he probably would have killed by now:

At the time I wrote my last blog post, I believed I would probably become Norway’s first modern violent activist in peacetime. Celibacy enforced by a feminist regime had driven me to the point where I saw no other option. I would target the pigs who enforce feminist law, knowing I could realistically at least kill one of them before I would be captured or killed myself. Thus revenge would be assured and if I lived, my reputation as a violent criminal would make me attractive to some women. But then in the nick of time this blog attracted a lovely girl commenting as “Emma.”

This is why I take violent rhetoric from MRAs very seriously.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, MRAs glorify MRA “martyr” Thomas Ball, who killed himself on the steps of a New Hampshire courthouse last year in hopes that his death would inspire MRAs to literally burn down courthouses and police stations.

Ball’s manifesto is still up on A Voice for Men in its “activism” section, including these passages:

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. … This is too important to be using that touchy- feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers

AVFM tastefully omitted Ball’s specific instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails, but left this in:

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

For many more examples of violent threatening rhetoric from MRAs, I urge you to go through some of my posts here and  here.

 

About these ads

Posted on July 7, 2012, in a voice for men, antifeminism, misogyny, MRA, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, terrorism, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 1,599 Comments.

  1. I think you may have confused my observation that “economic perpetrator” Nazis like Schacht never paid for their crimes with support for Nazis.

  2. Alternatively, you object to my feeling that the perpetrators in Germany and Finland should have been punished more because you feel that would harm some innocents. I assume you do not support the perpetrators.

  3. Cloudiah,

    What you don’t appear to realize, is that behind the scenes, the “sex slavery” or “trafficking” story-using authorities, governments and NGOs have changed the definition of “trafficking”. It used to mean sex-slavery, but as there is no force, they changed the definition to mean any prostitute who travels to another country to work.

    In Sweden, because they couldn’t find any trafficked (against their will) prostitutes, they changed the definition to include “trafficked-like” whatever that means.

    It’s all a big joke – which you don’t appear to be in on.

    The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.

    The Times is very keen to perpetuate this “child exploitation” narrative – it’s usually Pakistani men who are the pimps and punters (Jons) of these sometimes under-age white girls – and this gives the far right wing EDL the chance to jump on the bandwagon and stir up similar stories about brown men praying on white girls (when it’s more often the other way round, the whores).

    Also, here’s a speech from the far right Nick Griffin of the British National Party, where he taps into similar bullshit stories about women being trafficked to promote HIS race-segregating agenda:

  4. Tom, you are filth.

  5. Tom, the only joke here is you.

  6. Bruno isn’t anything, sexually, apparently, but Incel.

    I’m not sure if it’s my place to be saying this, but… not entirely.
    ;)

  7. Tom Martham, you are truly one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. No offense.

    Work involved: 2 minutes of Googling and reference checking…

    “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs”

    Source.

    Note this, you ignorant twit, men & boys are trafficked too.

  8. I think you may have confused my observation that “economic perpetrator” Nazis like Schacht never paid for their crimes with support for Nazis.

    No, I’m referring to the part where you are a fascist.

  9. The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.

    The Times is very keen to perpetuate this “child exploitation” narrative – it’s usually Pakistani men who are the pimps and punters (Jons) of these sometimes under-age white girls – and this gives the far right wing EDL the chance to jump on the bandwagon and stir up similar stories about brown men praying on white girls (when it’s more often the other way round, the whores).

    WTF WTF WTF!! I hope to God you go out and espouse this shit offline. You fucking deserve the reaction you’ll get. Jesus fuck, this is the most disgusting thing I’ve read on this site and I’ve been lurking almost as long as Owly’s been posting

  10. Shadow, here: http://www.ustream.tv/sevenkittens

    They’re being super-cute tonight.

  11. themisanthropicmuse

    “The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it. ”

    You seem to totally miss the whole CHILD part. Oh wait, I forgot, you are just a troll that is here to stir shit. Please continue with your rampant denial of there being sexually exploited children that are manipulated or forced into prostitution to appease your little trolling boner. That doesn’t make you a horrible person, at all.

  12. @hellkell

    Bless you, that stream is the point of origin for all the world’s awesome.

    Also @Tom

    You can keep your fucking advocacy to yourself, we’ll manage just fine without you. We’re perfectly capable of fighting against fucktards like the BNP without excusing the filth in our communities.

  13. Shadow, you’re welcome. I had to look at that for a while after reading Tom’s latest bilge.

    Tom, I’m sure the UK has consent laws similar to the US, in that children CAN’T consent to prostitution. But you’re a slimy piece of shit who denies this.

    You know what? You and Eurosabra should go off and find your own little corner of the internet to foul up and leave this one alone.

  14. Tom & Eurosabra deserve each other. The rest of us deserve KITTIES!

  15. Shadow, Hellkell, Cloudiah, Bostonian – here’s the evidence, about the “trafficking” scare stories in Sweden and how fems cooked the books due to no victims, by creating a new “trafficking-like” category. Watch it from 13:30 on:

    And here is the whole official definition of trafficking, which appears to include paying someone to be a prostitute abroad:

    (a) ‘Trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment,
    transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of
    persons, by means of the threat or use of force or
    other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of
    deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of
    vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of
    payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
    person having control over another person, for the
    purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include,
    at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of
    others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced
    labour or services, slavery or practices similar to
    slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
    (b) The consent of the victim of trafficking in persons to
    the intended exploitation set forth in the
    subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant
    where any of the means set forth in subparagraph
    (a) have been used;
    (c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer,
    harboring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of
    exploitation shall be considered ‘trafficking in
    persons’ even if this does not involve any of the
    means set forth; and 2
    (d) Child means any person under the age of 18.

    “Yeah, she offered me a job as a prostitute abroad, which would involve me receiving lots of money for taking cock, so I accepted, became a prostitute, and therefor, according to the official fem definition, this makes me a sex slave”.

    Grow up!

    Even a 10 year old knows, if someone is paying you for sex, that makes you a whore.

    – and you people are calling ME vile etc? Whores are never going to give up the game with a chorus of sanctimonious twerps like you placating them.

  16. Yes, Tom, you’re vile. A completely vile wanker with no soul.

  17. themisanthropicmuse

    @hellkell:

    “Tom, I’m sure the UK has consent laws similar to the US, in that children CAN’T consent to prostitution. But you’re a slimy piece of shit who denies this.”

    Considering the trolling arsehat wrote this (Saw it before on FSTDT):

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/09/tom-martin-on-whoriarchy/#comment-9896

    “The closest anyone here has got to winning the argument, is by pointing to underage females in arranged marriages – passing it off as forced rape.

    Well those under-age girls still understand the meaning of consent (unless of course they’re marxist victim-feminists) and they definitely understand the value of marriage gifts – as do the mother whores who arrange these skanky little contracts.”

    I don’t blame you for not expecting such a class act to show any understanding about kids & consent at all anytime soon. Pro-pedophilia trolling is apparently something he’s really into, almost as much as the word WHORE (but not quite).

  18. Still stupid, I see. Really, really thick. But I bet you can convince the 10 year olds!

  19. Just when I think he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel…

    Gonna go look at kittens, BRB.

  20. Anyone who writes off sexually exploited children as “whores” has no fucking place calling anyone sanctimonious, you self-righteous festering shitstain.

  21. The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.

    The Times is very keen to perpetuate this “child exploitation” narrative – it’s usually Pakistani men who are the pimps and punters (Jons) of these sometimes under-age white girls – and this gives the far right wing EDL the chance to jump on the bandwagon and stir up similar stories about brown men praying on white girls (when it’s more often the other way round, the whores).

    Martin, you are a vile sack of shit.

  22. Well, I am shocked that Tom Martin is a rape advocate! (not really)

  23. captainbathrobe

    But do the 10 year-olds make men sit on hard chairs? Because that would be infinitely worse.

  24. Like Berge, Tom Martin is no MRA. His views are his own, and not mainstream MRM.

  25. captainbathrobe

    The more facts presented the more militant the dogma becomes.

    NWO, how would you even know? When have you presented a single, verifiable fact? I mean, except about Super Dogs, which are totally real.

  26. Eurosabra: It made someone uncooooomfortable. They were wrong, full stop, end of.

    They were wrong about being uncomforatble?

    But I thought nothing you did ever made anyone notice, or care?

    In that You Were Wrong.

    But wait, before it was that you had a friend whose behavior tainted you with one person, who went out of her way (wasting university resources) to have a minder put on you. Now it’s that you were “unnatractive and extroverted” and that upset the powers that be.

    We can read you know. It’s all written down, in your own words.

    Well, whatever I can do to make you feel better.

    Join a religious order which insists on abstinence. Adhere to its tenets.

  27. captainbathrobe

    This mainstream MRM of which you speak, Steele, where would I find it?

  28. Steele, maybe you should think long and hard about why guys like this have become the public face of your movement, instead trying to handwave them away.

  29. captainbathrobe

    @Pecunium

    Join a religious order which insists on abstinence. Adhere to its tenets.

    I’m thinking we should throw in a vow of silence for good measure.

  30. Tom Martin is in no way the face of the MRM. He has made a name for himself, but it is for himself. He is no more MRA than Barack Hussein Obama is.

  31. Like Berge, Tom Martin is no MRA. His views are his own, and not mainstream MRM.

    insisting things are whatever you arbitrarily declare them to be isnt going to work any better in this thread than the last one, duder.

    maybe you should work harder on not being incompetent?

  32. Who is the face then, Steele? Show us.

  33. Again- It’s not arbitrary. Tom Martin’s views are fundamentally against the fundamental principles of the MRM. It’s no more arbitrary than a feminist declaring a pro-life individual cannot be feminist.

  34. hear that, dracula. steele told you ‘nuh-uh.’ how can you possibly come back from from an argument that devastating.

  35. I’m seeing a lot of positive write-ups of Mr Martin being posted here, Steele. Any pieces condemning him you’d like to share?

  36. Tom Martin’s views are fundamentally against the fundamental principles of the MRM.

    and you wonder why people encouraged you not to become a writer…

    It’s no more arbitrary than a feminist declaring a pro-life individual cannot be feminist.

    yeeeaah, i had to think long and hard about the question of whether someone could be pro-life and feminist and i still dont think i have a perfect answer. it is in no way the same as you absolving yourself of association with anyone you find inconvenient because you happen to be a lazy thinker who managed to associate himself with a coterie of violent, angry assholes.

  37. Ah, Steele is the kind of person who likes to include that Hussein in Barack Obama’s name. Why? Did you think we might think you meant another Barack Obama? Do you say Rand Howard Paul? Rush Hudson Limbaugh III? Richard John Santorum?

  38. it is in no way the same as you absolving yourself of association with anyone you find inconvenient

    Not true, there are individuals I dislike who I would consider MRAs because they do not violate the fundamental principles of the Movement. Ferdinand Bardamu immediately springs to mind.

    But Tom Martin, Berge, and the like- are at odds with the deepness of what the MRM is.

  39. Ick. Can’t we all go back to the “place names with the word ‘man’ in them” thread?

  40. Tom: The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.

    I see… but you agreed to pay for an education where the library had hard chairs. You thought this a grave injustice, even though you knew about the chairs in advance.

    But kids being fucked for money, that’s not a problem because they agreed to it.

    You pathetic worm. You miserable cur. You sad sack of watery shit. You ignoble waste of carbon.

    I can’t really think of a sufficiently clear phrase to express my sadness that a person like you managed to come to be. I’m even harder pressed to say how much is pleases me that your greatest achievement in life is probably going to be that you were ordered to pay £37,000.

  41. i say willard ‘mittens’ romney. does that count?

  42. Steele: Like Berge, Tom Martin is no MRA.

    Oh yes he is. He says he is, and that’s all it takes. More to the point other MRAs have lauded his (failed) attempt to “take it to the (wo)man”.

    You get to keep him.

    BTW, what about Vietnam, and the videos you promised us.

  43. Ah, Steele is the kind of person who likes to include that Hussein in Barack Obama’s name. Why? Did you think we might think you meant another Barack Obama? Do you say Rand Howard Paul? Rush Hudson Limbaugh III? Richard John Santorum?

    This is (wait for it!) projection and paranoia.

  44. Steele, can you point us to the web site that lists the fundamental principles of the MRM, and explain how those differ from the things that Tom Martin says? I mean, I am so glad we could find some common ground, but I am not sure our reasoning is at all similar.

  45. Steele, it’s a question. Did you think we might be confused about which Obama you meant? Why did you feel the need to include his middle name? [dog whistles]

  46. He says he is, and that’s all it takes.

    So, do you repudiate the feminists who have denied Sarah Palin the label? Do you consider Sarah Palin a feminist?

  47. Not true, there are individuals I dislike who I would consider MRAs because they do not violate the fundamental principles of the Movement.

    the fundamental principles that no other self-identified mra ever talks about. the ones you seem to have made the fuck up because its convenient to your argument? those principles?

  48. This is (wait for it!) projection and paranoia.

    oh cool. more trite excuses.

  49. But Tom Martin, Berge, and the like- are at odds with the deepness of what the MRM is.

    Ah, this is interesting. Can you define the “deepness” of the MRM, and explain why Bardamu is in coherence with it, but Martin and Berge are at odds with it?

  50. I could see your point about Sarah Palin if there were a lot of feminists out there singing her praises, but as it is I’m not seeing it, Steele.

  51. I call him Romney Mittens too! I hate him so much.

    So Steele, are there any MRAs denying Tom Martin, other than you?

  52. \Steele, can you point us to the web site that lists the fundamental principles of the MRM, and explain how those differ from the things that Tom Martin says?

    don’t be cruel, cloudiah. you know writing is hard for him.

  53. 1. The MRM is non-violent. Any violent rhetoric is not part of the Movement.

    2. The MRM repudiates abject moral repugnance. Martin’s views on child prostitution cross this line.

    3. The MRM is for equality between the sexes.

    4. The MRM believes in the fundamental value of human life.

  54. Steele: Tom Martin is in no way the face of the MRM. He has made a name for himself, but it is for himself. He is no more MRA than Barack Hussein Obama is.

    So, when they appointed you to a Bishoprick in the MRM, did they give you a nicely tooled crosier and an elaborate mitre?

    Because you’d need something like that to use the ol’ bell, book, and candle, to cast Tommy “Penguins are Whores” Martin out.

    As shown, he’s got lots of people who think he is an MRA. Before you can convince us, you need to convince them. Then they need to repudiate him.

    Good luck with that. I’ll bet you convince us of how costly Vietnam was, and how systemic “misandry” is before that happens.

  55. 1. The MRM is non-violent. Any violent rhetoric is not part of the Movement.

    2. The MRM repudiates abject moral repugnance. Martin’s views on child prostitution cross this line.

    3. The MRM is for equality between the sexes.

    4. The MRM believes in the fundamental value of human life.

    Okay, you’ve outlined your premise. Now show us a single shred of evidence that any of it’s true.

  56. 1. The MRM is non-violent. Any violent rhetoric is not part of the Movement.

    2. The MRM repudiates abject moral repugnance. Martin’s views on child prostitution cross this line.

    3. The MRM is for equality between the sexes.

    4. The MRM believes in the fundamental value of human life.

    you are literally the only mra who has ever said these things, so why do you think you can claim these are ‘fundamental principles.’ we’ve been over this dude: wanting things to be true and endlessly huffin’n’puffin’ about them does not make them true

  57. So the MRAs who publish and advocate Ball’s call for violent revolution are not MRAs?

    The MRAs who advocate for lowering the age of consent are not MRAs?

    The MRAs who advocate the repeal of the vote for women are not MRAs?

    The MRA’s who devalue the lives of women and girls on a regular basis are not MRAs?

  58. themisanthropicmuse

    @Steele:

    “1. The MRM is non-violent. Any violent rhetoric is not part of the Movement.

    2. The MRM repudiates abject moral repugnance. Martin’s views on child prostitution cross this line.

    3. The MRM is for equality between the sexes.

    4. The MRM believes in the fundamental value of human life.”

    I am quite curious to know where you learned these basic tenets as I honestly haven’t seen them floating around anywhere.

  59. @bostonian

    and they’re not scotsman, either!

  60. I mean, there’s plenty of proof on this very blog that not one item on your list is a factual statement. Ball’s in your court, Steele.

  61. 1. The MRM is non-violent. Any violent rhetoric is not part of the Movement

    And yet Ferdinand “Spanking/Abuse is A-OK” Bardamu is an MRA. (I can’t remember the title of that post, does anyone remember?)

    2. The MRM repudiates abject moral repugnance. Martin’s views on child prostitution cross this line.

    And yet every major MRM website allows men to lament the misandry of age of consent

    3. The MRM is for equality between the sexes.

    Yet most MRAs believe that the sexes are inherently unequal in talents, skills, logic etc

  62. First, can you show us where the MRM has signed onto these values?

    1. The MRM is non-violent. Any violent rhetoric is not part of the Movement.

    So, what are your feelings about the “deepness” of Paul Elam and the AVfM crew?

    2. The MRM repudiates abject moral repugnance. Martin’s views on child prostitution cross this line.

    Please define “abject moral repugnance.” How exactly do Martin’s views cross that line?

    3. The MRM is for equality between the sexes.

    I would love to hear you define what that means.

    4. The MRM believes in the fundamental value of human life.

    And that too.
    Really, your entire list raises more questions than it answers…

  63. Ninjad by, like, everyone. It takes me so long to do the blockquotes.

  64. Steele: Not true, there are individuals I dislike who I would consider MRAs because they do not violate the fundamental principles of the Movement. Ferdinand Bardamu immediately springs to mind.

    Where are these principles? Is there a sacred oath one swears before signing them? What are the protocols for censuring minor breaches of them?

    So, do you repudiate the feminists who have denied Sarah Palin the label? Do you consider Sarah Palin a feminist?

    Repudiate? No. Dispute? Depends. If they can show a good reason for saying they don’t think she’s a feminist, no.

    If they say she had to be called a “non-feminist” because she embarrasses them, I’ll say they are full of it.

    Because feminism (like the MRM) doesn’t have a membership committee. It sucks for you that Tom “hard chairs are misandry” Martin makes you look bad. But that’s not my problem. It not my problem that Eivind Berge makes you look bad. Nor that Sodini and Brievik and Lépine make you look bad.

    They make you look bad because they (and Tom Ball and Peter Nolan© the dude who made the anti-sarkeesian game and all the rest of the violent dickwads) are fellow travellers who flocked to your banner because it’s their cause too.

    You aren’t the Pope of the MRM, you want them cast out, you need to get the Movement to anathemise them. Not Paul Elam’s slavering winks and nods, but real repudiation.

    Good luck with that.

  65. And I am just making a point, where others have made the specific critiques.

    I see why his teacher tried to steer him away from writing.

  66. You know, I never understood those guys who called women as a class whores.
    I just don’t get it.

    If a guy is in a committed relationship, and religious, I could see how he might not like promiscuity on a social level. Sorta. It doesn’t affect him tho.

    Then there is the average guy. He benefits from female promiscuity. Compared to earlier times, the bar is set so much lower for sex, so I can’t see this guy complaining about it. There is no way in which this guy loses.

    So, it comes down to the guy who isn’t getting any. He’s mad that other people are having sex, and not him. He shakes his fist in rage.

  67. Join a religious order which insists on abstinence. Adhere to its tenets.

    I’m thinking we should throw in a vow of silence for good measure.

    Also isolation. He needs to go live in a cave or hut somewhere away from everywhere, never speak again, and abstain from intercourse of any kind, ever. Also, no internet connection.

    It would be a Good Work, and might make up for the horrible, festering stench he’s been exuding since I first heard about him.

    Disgusting. In two paragraphs, Martin went from “kinda silly weirdo complaining about hard chairs and penguin whores” to “needs to be quarantined and never come into contact with any living thing ever again.”

    I resent that he consumes oxygen that could support something more worthy of it than he is. Like tarantula wasps.

  68. themisanthropicmuse

    I understand why Steele would vehemently be opposed to accepting someone like Tom is apart of the same movement as him. I feel opposed to accepting that I’m the same species as that cretin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,298 other followers

%d bloggers like this: