Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed more than 90 people in attacks on Friday, was motivated by a toxic mélange of far-right ideology largely revolving around his intense hatred of Islam. The 1500 page “manifesto” he posted to the internet – what appears to be a grab-bag of his own writing and material cut and pasted from assorted right-wing sites and even the Unabomber’s manifesto – crackles with denunciations of Muslims, “Marxists” and the assorted other bogeymen that haunt right-wing dreams.
And it’s also filled with denunciations of feminism that could easily have come from the posts and comments of Men’s Rights and misogynist “manosphere” blogs like The Spearhead, In Mala Fide, and, well, quite a few other sites I write about regularly on this blog. (Not to mention a few of this blog’s misogynist trolls.) In passage after passage, the ideology is the same, the language is the same, even the specific obsessions are the same – from no-fault divorce to the evils of “Sex and the City.” (Download the entire thing from the links here.)
I haven’t had time to go through the manifesto in great detail yet, but I wanted to share with you some selections from it that I think will strike most readers of this blog as strangely familiar.
The following selections, denouncing, among other things, the “’Sex and the City’ lifestyle,”appear to have been written by Breivik himself:
It’s the destructive and suicidal “Sex and the City” lifestyle (modern feminism, sexual revolution) which we are taught to revere as the truth. In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metro sexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticising soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess. The perfect matriarchy has now been fulfilled and complete equality has finally been achieved. The fact that mankind will seize to exist within three generations with this type of regime is irrelevant. Long live cultural Marxism! …
Isolated, “sex and the city lifestyle” is relatively harmless, but if you glorify it and ram it down the throat of mainstream society like we see today it becomes a lethal and destructive societal force as we are witnessing which eventually leads to a complete breakdown of moral/ethics, the nuclear family model and a sustainable fertility rate which again is leading us to the extinction of Europeans.
Breivik goes on to rant about STDs and no-fault divorce, before moving on to another favorite obsession of manosphere misogynists, the supposed sexual “capital” of manipulative women:
Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. …
He also blames women for the spread of what he considers evil “cultural Marxism” and multiculturalism:
Fact: 60-70% of all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists are women. This partly explains why the gradual feminist revolution is directly linked to the implementation of multiculturalist doctrines. These feminist cultural Marxists do not only want more benefits and rights for themselves. They want it all, and have more or less been awarded with everything they could ever dream of achieving. They now have complete matriarchal supremacy domestically and exercise substantial influence in politics. …
Obsessed with the purported danger that Islam will outbreed the West, Breivik offers an assortment of creepy solutions to increase the fertility of Western whites. (It’s not altogether clear to me if these are all his own views, but they certainly are consistent with what he says elsewhere in the manifesto.) After suggesting limiting contraception and banning abortion, Breivik offers this “solution”:
Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.
Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor’s degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education – bachelor, master and PhD. …
And then he’s back on his “Sex and the City” hobbyhorse:
Discourage women in general to strive for “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles. The mass media are currently actively glorifying/encouraging “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles which involves the glorification of casual sex, multiple sex partners and generally an extremely liberal individualistic lifestyle hostile to the traditional nuclear family values. As such, the non-restrictions of the mass media is the main cause for our unsustainable fertility rate of 1,5.
The indirect media/government glorification campaigns through individual artists, various series, movies and media coverage in general should reflect this new shift (no more glorification of “sex and the city lifestyles” or equivalent portrayals. No longer should women be pressured to have equal success regarding their career as males.
Womens “new role” should be actively illustrated and glorified through series, movies and commercials. This will involve significant restrictions in media freedoms and rights. These restrictions and reforms will result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,2-0,3 points.
The end result for implementing the above reforms would be an increase in the fertility rate up from 1,5 to approximately 2,1-2,4 which would be sustainable.
However, this will also involve significant restrictions in women’s rights and media rights.
And, like many in the manosphere, he also holds out hope for “artificial wombs,” which would of course reduce the inconvenience of relying on women to cooperate with his plans.
Large chunks of the manifesto consist of cut-and-pasted blog posts from an anonymous far-right Norwegian blogger known as Fjordman, whose now defunct blog can be found here. (According to Andrew Brown in the Guardian article linked to above, Breivik and Fjordman are not the same person.)
Here are some selections from the Fjordman posts that Breivik includes in his manifesto. Again, much of this will seem very familiar to many of you, I am sure.
For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years. ….
The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilisation as whole. …
Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow? …
Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.
If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell. ….
Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. ….
it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. … At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon? …..
The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands. ….
Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what’s more, it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of globalisation is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries. …
radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilisation, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims. …
Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by… Islam. And feminists still aren’t satisfied. ….
Feminists claim that women have been victims of men, that men have oppressed women for centuries and that the sexes are equal. Denying this will result in the smears “misogynist” and “male chauvinist pig”. But equalising the sexes has led to a crippling feminisation of Western society … portraying women as oppressed victims and the equals of males is one example of how the pursuit of equality is being used to destroy our society and undermine – and therefore be in conflict with – Mother nature. ….
I’ll continue going through the manifesto to see what else I can find. If any of you decide to do the same thing, and find other selections in it that you find telling, please post them in the comments below.
I would also like to find specific writings on manosphere blogs – posts or comments – that directly parallel these selections from Breivik’s manifesto. If any of you are willing to help, again, please post your findings in the comments below, along with URLs to the sources of the manosphere quotes.
Ideas have consequences. Vile, hateful ideas have vile, hateful consequences.
For more on Breivik’s misogyny, see this post on Red Light Politics.
PZ Myers has more on Breivik’s noxious ideology, including his hatred of atheists, here.
Not since the Fall, anyway.
Nobinayamu,
“means the same thing as “men and women are exactly the same.”
Yet people get all derailed when one start pointing at the (sometimes obvious) differences between them.
“What has your search for “truth” uncovered?”
Man that would take forever to develop. Trying to blurp short lines:
almost everything out there are intentional lies
you dont know who you are until you have destroyed and reinvented who you are. x10
ego is poison
we are animals. instincts rule
knowledge is power (the reason we are being misinformed)
every door leads to a hundred new doors
love is health
etc.
Ami,
“I AM THE HERALD OF YOHAMI! xD”
More like a fairy
Ami is vile…
Cats are cute..
Johnny may or may not be human
Kirby is the sexist man alive
Magpie is awesome
Nobby is the second sexist man alive
Yet people get all derailed when one start pointing at the (sometimes obvious) differences between them.
What are some of the differences? :]
Johnny Pez,
“Hmmm. This guy reminds me an awful lot of Emcee. He lasted, what, a week? I’m going to go with under. Another five days and yohAMI bails.”
Nah. I wouldnt last five days in this climate.
Actually I was done after my first intervention a couple of days ago.
I can be both xD
:3 I flutter and float and surf on my awesome pink-chrome board xD
Also YOHAMI – I think you’re overstating your importance. This is the interwebs. We’re having a discussion/argument. You can’t harm anyone, at least not physically. And I’m not hurling mines, I’m arguing with you. And, guess what! Words mean things – and you did use test that way, whether or not you meant it. Was I supposed to know by osmosis that you didn’t?
I’m not trying to figure out if you’re the villain/snake or whatever, I’m trying to figure out your point so I can argue with/against it. I thought that was the point of arguments?
I’m going w/ the over xD He’s been here 3 days telling us how sick we’re making him… he’s gonna be like NWO… 10 days from now he’ll still be going on… xD
“Nobby is the second sexiest man alive”
I’ll take it :-p
Not quite like NWO – at least he’ll use different words for each post.
Yohami, did you say that english was your second language? Or am I thinking of someone else here?
@Magpie – I spat soft drink on my book laughing at the ‘not since the fall’ line. Gold.
So, we have a bet. What are the stakes?
So, is Zombie the sexiest man not alive?
YOHAMI: 1: No one has said MRA related thoughts were his only drive.
2: . However if this was a MRA crime he would have killed WOMEN ONLY or something like that.
No. A lot of MRAs dream for some form of, “The day of the rope” (to borrow a “white power” trope”) when they kill all the feminists and the men/politicians who enabled them. Which is why he attacked that summer camp. It was for politically involved teens who belonged to the party he blamed for all the ills of the world.
It really helps if you look at the broader context. I realise it takes away from the time you spend blogging about game, but it makes it a lot easier to understand how things work.
Well we need more ppl to bet the over or under first :3
Thankyou Ami, and thankyou Lyn. I am now doing a version of the loserloserloser dance (but sort of the opposite, if you know what i mean)
@Magpie yus! :3
…. Does anybody else get the feeling that we’ve got a beautiful rose here that, when you go to smell it, bites your nose off and releases a torrent of angry wasps?
@YOHAMI:
“almost everything out there are intentional lies”
Well, you’ve set off on the right foot I guess, no need to ask what other people think if most of them are lying to you. I guess the ones that aren’t lying are the ones that agree with you, eh?
“we are animals. instincts rule”
Yes we are animals. Yes we have instincts. No they don’t rule. That’s why we don’t have wild sex orgies in public, and why we can live in a society we build up, not one dominated by who can kill everyone else. And why we (most of us anyway) can hold rational conversations with each other.
The rest? Some cutesy deepities (look it up, Daniel Dennett is awesome). For someone who’s so intent on finding truth, you seem very keen to avoid actually showing why something is true…
@Ami:
What is this over/under thing?
“loserloserloser dance”
Is this on the memes list yet?
loserloserloser dance + smurfs = excellence.
Johnny Pez, what were basenjis bred for originally? Are they hunters, or herders, or watchdogs or what? Cause your dog looks so intelligent!
Kirby,
Seriously man, what?
“You already have made it clear that you don’t care what we think”
I also said I give my views, I get yours, we both gain, etc. Man, this strawman/hominem of yours. What The Fuck? are you able to have a talk with a person who thinks different, or even antagonically (but I dont think we are antagonic? just dissonant) without projecting all the crap that you are continually doing?
That I dont care about what you think? WHAT THE FUCK DUDE
What would I be doing here? how is that you continually keep stuff and change it so it sounds like a piece of shit and then accuse (me, in this case, but I guess this is how you handle things) of saying them, etc?
Are you a lawyer for chance? what the fuck?
Seriously.
What the fuck. Just in this last post of yours. Let me ennumerate all the nonsense crap you are projecting. Am I supposed to PROVE I did not say that, or elaborate further on what Im saying? the more I talk, the more you keep at this shit.
“So what is the difference between you and NWO, who regularly trolls these forums with “information”
Nice, associate me with NWO! well done.
“Are you really going down the anti-science route? ”
Yeah, because “I hate science”, right?
“Studies, experiments, those are all worthless,”
Now what, am I the anti studies and experiments person? way to frame the opponent view in meaningless ways.
“But experience! Ah yes, experience is never ever misinterpreted, or subject to confirmation bias!”
So I tell you that people would be looking to develop their own non brainwashed views, and you turn that into “experience is never misinterpreted” yeah dude! you are almost there.
“Good lord…”
Excellent conclusion. I would be baffled too. Only if I ever had that point of view!
——————————
“So what is left? What can you do except reason by experience? Well, gather a large group together, all with different experiences, and find some commonalities. Poll a large number of people over different backgrounds and traits, and see what common threads show up. Studies and experiments, the Scientific Method, peer review, these are all designed to cut through personal bias and prejudice to arrive at a conclusion that the experimenter might not like, but anyone who reasonably processes the data will come to.”
Beautiful stated. This is the most sense you have made so far. And I agree.
“A single individual reporting on his/her personal experience as justification for a viewpoint… It is (ultimately) absolutely useless.”
And this is stupid. If personal report is useless, when why do we have opinions? why check blogs? why talk to your friends? why consume poetry, literature? why mix yourself with different people who can alter your views on the world?
When you look at what molded your views and your persona, the important stuff… was it the “data” and scientific method? or was it the people? do you know people whose you can talk who really give you something and views that you never had before? you know, like human contact?
How about art? how about expression?
Ah, but thats useless? useless for?
“Well, we find your findings wrong, and can provide evidence as to why.”
Dude, the funny thing, and it was funny a couple of days ago, is that everyone here is ready to jump to kill, but no one is really “disagreeing” with anything. Is more of a role play.
If you find my findings wrong, which ones? what of what Im saying do you say Im wrong about? please point at them specifically – without twisting my words -, and tell me where Im wrong, and what do YOU think about it.
I do consider other people´s views and conclusions and process invaluables. Even yours.
Nobby,
“Then why did you start out by going after Holly and claiming that what David was doing, drawing parallels between what MRAs actually say and what Breivik actually wrote, is akin to what NWO is doing, which is making up accusations of what social pressures drove Breivik to this action? Because it seems like you could find out about our views without starting out with that.”
If I see someone beating someone else chances are Im going to intervene. I was just reading the comments before talking to Holly.
@ Magpie
Hunting dogs. And yes, they are very intelligent. Intelligent, independent-minded, and sneaky. It’s a formidable combination.
They are also adorable.
YOHAMI – Well, for one, I think you are wrong about women being irrational and men rational, and that this should be the basis for treating them differently in confrontations. Is that a proper way to disagree? Or am I twisting your words?