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.
Kirby – you ninja’d me again!
Yohami said:
If the response to him was a tad flippant at times, that’s partly because we’ve heard the same random off-topic stuff from NWO dozens (hundreds, probably) of times before and know that it is pointless to discuss anything of substance with him.
Grandiloquent reply to charge of dishonesty: It was not a fib! merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative!
@Lyn:
Bwa ha ha ha haa! All part of my master plan! >:D It’s probably because you are way too emotional, so it took much longer to formulate your opinion. Yup. Must have been.
@YOHAMI:
“I get I make myself into an easy target.”
Alright, I’m gonna have to ask you to elaborate here. What exactly makes you an easy target? Dollars to donuts you think it is something other than what it actually is.
“Do people here realize the mechanics are unusable to talk stuff properly when there are dissonant views?”
I find, generally, that representing what you think honestly and explicitly, making it clear that you are listening to the other person (and vice verse), backing up your claims, and generally expecting honesty from the other side makes for a very good conversation, especially when there are dissonant views. When you do otherwise… Well.. You get a big thread about how one person isn’t being honest in a debate. Fun, isn’t it?
You don’t have to seduce us into listening to you. Just talk with us. You’ll find much more success in that department.
Lyn, don’t listen to your lino – it’s flat out lying
kirby,
Finally you make some sense. Thanks.
The only disagreement I have is with your solution. “So dont bother about it”. Well, I do.
“You’ve come to a conclusion with only your experience to justify. Again, confirmation bias. Why not assume people have equal abilities, and take each person on merit rather than using their sex as a factor?”
Assuming people have equal abilities leads to another confirmation bias. Anything that “assumes” leads to confirmation bias. The fix, for me, is to not to grasp those assumptions too firmly, and to engage, once and again, into experience, and let the experience modify whatever your assumptions were.
In other words assuming everyone has the same or that everyone is different, makes no really a difference if that constitutes how you think things ARE and get fixed to it.
I´d rather part on each interaction from the point of “I think, but I really dont know” and accepting what comes, and / or parting from an assumption but not forcing the result to whats expected, nor forcing the experience so it fits the mold where you think things should fit… in other words, no bias but expectations / knowledge ready to be changed, destroyed, extended, etc. That works for me.
I think.. let me check.. yes, I’m reasonably certain Magpie wins for today. Here is your medal made of chocolate, as is tradition.
Chocolate! drool…
This stuff makes for a good flame wars but its useless for real debate
Actually, if you read some of the threads w/o the trolls there’s a ton of good debate xD (or if you read the forums, incl me! Check out the age of consent thread after NWO left xD And I was on the unpopular side of that one too xD But yeah I know, the way I talk, all fairy and stuff xD )..
the thing is ppl here want to debate you except you keep saying you’re not a “voicer” and you don’t want to provide proof, you make general statements, then you back off and make vague statements (for example backing off to: I would argue that women generally present a higher / more extensive palette of emotional intelligence, and that men generally present a deeper, more focused mechanical intelligence, and that both have their cons and pros and that generally the approaches differ, and that this is general enough so one can, generally, predict what these approaches would be. which is pretty vague, what does “generally” mean? xD how big is generally, how big is the variation inside that “general”, etc xD )
I think ppl are wondering what your point is here, and what “debate” you wanted to have xD Esp since when ppl ask, you back off, or accuse Kirby of various things he didn’t do xD Or say you’re not a “voicer” after claiming stuff like you know more about what the MRM wants than Kirby, but conveniently, you wun say cuz you’re not a “voicer”… xD etc etc
this is why ppl think you’re a troll, if you want advice and to learn :3
I agree, Kirby! *sends Magpie internet popcorn*
Popcorn! My other favourite food!
@YOHAMI:
You’ve misunderstood me completely. By saying “so don’t bother,” I mean don’t bother trying to apply gender stereotypes. Take each person on hir merit. I don’t know why you’d want to do otherwise.
Perhaps this was bad wording, but “equal abilities” is not “everyone is equally logical, emotional, etc.” Rather, sex does not play a role in expanding, limiting, or otherwise determining abilities. This is what is meant by equal: not that everyone is the same, but that race, sex, skin color, gender, and so on are not part of what makes a human logical or emotional or anything else. Don’t hire women because women are artistic, hire a woman because she is artistic. Don’t hire a man because he’s good at math, hire him because he is good at math.
Not once through all this do you ever have to make the assumption that being a man means you are inherently more logical.
Note to self: bring in towels from washing line BEFORE stripping for bath.
Assuming that people are different or rather, that certain attributes are inherent to them, is not morally or ethically the equivalent of assuming that people are diverse and trying to take each one as they come. I don’t assume everyone is the same, as me or anyone else – I assume they are different and try to take cues from their behaviour about how they would like to be treated/how to treat them from things they say etc.
*send Magpie cats bearing various flavours of popcorn* :3
Not really weather for a nudie run.
And my favourite animal as well! Is this the hivemind at work?
And it puts the chooks off laying
Bacon popcorn?!?
Assuming that people are different or rather, that certain attributes are inherent to them, is not morally or ethically the equivalent of assuming that people are diverse and trying to take each one as they come. I don’t assume everyone is the same, as me or anyone else – I assume they are different and try to take cues from their behaviour about how they would like to be treated/how to treat them from things they say etc.
Exactly.. :] I want ppl to judge me based on things I do and say, not as an Asian woman, assuming things, or reading into what I say based on stereotypes -_- Like you said about assuming I don’t speak English (I get that sometimes -_- I got it trying to cross into the US, also being accused of being an illegal immigrant XD) or doing the “where are you from?” “no where are you REALLY from?” thing >_< Or assuming I must be good at math… or I'm docile, or submissive, or etc xD
That’s going overboard isn’t it? Or did the basenjis suggest it?
@Kirbywarp yeah : It’s like how in the NFL, esp in the past (but even now that attitude is occasionally expressed..) the truism was that black ppl were great athletes but could not be QBs b/c they weren’t thought to be generally as smart as white players -_- (which actually led to an influx of great black QBs in the CFL :3 )
You mean that everybody should be judged as an individual, regardless of stereotypes or anecdotal exp or etc… not that you think we should have a QB that can’t throw and still insist he’s as equal as one that can throw. xD
Those are some really sensitive chooks!
Popped bacon! 😀
@Ami and Lyn:
And this… This is pretty much the ultimate goal of all forms of civil rights (besides equality under the law and so forth). This is why Feminism differs from the MRM. MRAs want to put people into categories for the purposes of assigning attributes to them, wants women to act like women should (like house-wives, like servants, like followers), and men to act like men should (king of the house, owners and protectors, etc).
MRAs want to uphold stereotyping and stereotypes. Feminists and other civil rights activists want to abolish them.