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.
Nobby,
“So, YOHAMI, you come in here saying that we misunderstand the MRM, and that we’re blinded to the bias in feminism by being a part of it, and though you think the MRM is messed up it has valid arguments that are dismissed by feminists because they’re men… but you also don’t know very much, and you want our opinion. Is that right?”
Dude, all I initially did was to point that Holly was using the murders to back her own agenda, stuff she was accusing NWO to do. From there own, its all about responding to attacks and finding ways to communicate. Thats it. Its pretty intensive learning as well.
*from there on
Ami,
“@Nobby also he knows more than Kirby about the valid arguments of the MRM ”
See, I DIDNT. I didnt qualify what Kirby knows about the MRM either. This is just another free stuff coming out of nowhere. Keep repeating it and it becomes vox populi, but it didnt happen.
Yohami: I showed you some of your stupid shit. You defended it.
I am pretty sure Ozymandias didn’t say all soldier are rapists. Even if someone in her comments did that doesn’t make it a tenet of feminism.
Hell, your entire point at the start of this thread was that the anti-feminist rants of Brievik didn’t make him a representative of MRAs, but you previously thought the rantings of a single feminist was worth writing about as the idea of all feminsts; and making it a big point as to what was wrong with feminism today.
There’s a word for that… it’s an an old word.. a Greek word… a type of dishonesty… hypocrisy.
Ami,
“YOHAMI, are you me? :D”
I dont know. Are you me?
@YOHAMI:
“And to my previous point. When I say “women more emotional” I dont mean it as a prejudice. Its the result of my experience and all the data I´ve been able to consume so far and it matches my reality.”
That is exactly the definition of prejudice. Of course a theory generated from data fits the data. It must, or you wouldn’t hold it. The question is does it fit other data? If you lived in an Islamic country, you would swear up and down that women were naturally docile, like to hide away from the world under a burqua, and are poorly adapted to driving. Can you really not see how bad your bias is?
“And please, how is this misogynistic?
“Guys: if the girl is trying to walk over you, just put her in her place in whatever fashion you feel like, and with the same intelligence you need when dealing with a child.
Its not about pleasing her and passing a test and getting a cookie. Its about having steel, clear, bold, non-crossable boundaries and standing for them no matter what the situation is. And being cool and assertive about it.
Thats what makes you the man.””
No, no you can’t.
YOHAMI: “feminism IS creating new stereotypes and, specifically, judging men and applying molds to men that not all men share. This is, for me, where feminism breaks. Its not playing fair.”
I think some feminists do this – I also think that the media takes things and runs with them, takes them out of context etc. The idea that men are more dangerous than women, for example, plays into patriarchal understandings of men and women – women being helpless and men being much stronger and more powerful is not something feminists came up with – and I think this is the root of a lot of harmful anti-male practices. I mean, representing male-male and female-male rape as hilarious – see prison jokes and the wheel of time series – that’s fucked up.
Feminists did, in the 70s and 80s and more rarely now, espouse the idea that there was some natural essence to women, that if women ran the world it would be better – and I disagree with them. People are people – the world would be better if both men and women, POC and others ran the world cos then we’d have diverse input and perhaps better cater to everyone’s needs.
“And to my previous point. When I say “women more emotional” I dont mean it as a prejudice. Its the result of my experience and all the data I´ve been able to consume so far and it matches my reality. When I see men and women interacting, men tend to center on the text and women on the subtext. Or a men more focused on the words and women more focused on the “meaning”, or, men focusing on what the words mean and women focusing on how the words feel.”
The thing is, even if you say you don’t mean it as a prejudice – this is still a prejudicial stereotype about women that has been circulating for, like, ever! And just because you have observed this it does not mean that it is legitimate for you to treat women like they are emotional beings rather than logical ones. Treating men like they are automatons isn’t actually very nice at all. Both sexes are capable of both emotion and logic – sometimes at the same time! – depending on the circumstance.
I also though they might be guess posters on his blog, but it’s still far from neutral…
(no, I am not ‘twisty’, I am a new poster here 🙂
@jill
I thought so, I was just clarifying….
Obviously not. As you yourself pointed out, Ami could never be mistaken for a troll.
*snickers*
Johnny Pez. I disagree. amiRA (I know I’m screwing up the capitalisation)
So.. I’ma just leave these here then.
Intelligent, sneaky and adorable – that’s johnny pez
Pecunium,
“YOHAMI: Why did you promote that post to front page?”
Rivelino is sort of a celebrity on the game blogs. He got busted, he wanted to make a new post. He´s an old friend. I dont share his views. I´ve been telling him that the negative crap is wrong. But he´s his own persona. Did him a favor, a lot of people wanted to know about him, etc.
“Care to show me where a tenet of feminism is that all soldiers are rapists?”
Go check ozymandias blog.
“Also you say that were it not for men, and there masculine drives there would be no civilisation. That’s a pretty strong claim that women are less intelligent, organised and sociable than men.”
I get that whenever I pontify something about what is different in women, you or people here are goint to translate it to make it about women being less. Seems like any difference, here, means unfair disparity. I find that absurd, honestly.
If there were no women, men would probably just exterminate each other. And there wouldnt be a civilization either, since a lot of the protective / organizational instincts wouldnt be triggered.
Jeez Yohami, wake up to yourself!
..you don’t know much about animals or humans for that matter.
@YOHAMI:
“If there were no women, men would probably just exterminate each other. And there wouldnt be a civilization either, since a lot of the protective / organizational instincts wouldnt be triggered.”
See, this is where you get with gender essentialism. Misandry and Misogyny.
Pecunium,
“Hell, your entire point at the start of this thread was that the anti-feminist rants of Brievik didn’t make him a representative of MRAs, but you previously thought the rantings of a single feminist was worth writing about as the idea of all feminsts; and making it a big point as to what was wrong with feminism today.”
Brievik isnt, as far as I know, a defendant or a voice of the MRAs. But if he was talking in a forum and stating the shit he was stating, I would have had an argument with him.
If Im in a forum and I see feminist talking about how women and children are the victims and etc. and portraying “men” in a negative light, Im also going to have an argument with him / her.
Mind blowing, right?
Ninja’d again Kirby! *admits defeat and hands over her chocolate stash*
Shhhhh!
YOHAMI: “I get that whenever I pontify something about what is different in women, you or people here are goint to translate it to make it about women being less.”
Are you seriously telling me that irrational and rational are equally weighted?
@Lyn:
Don’t worry, I was ninja’d by Jumbofish and her adorable face-bunny. *hands over newly acquired chocolate stash*
@YOHAMI:
So, are you gonna admit that you actually did say that you knew more about the valid MRM talking points than me, thus quantifying my knowledge of them as well?
kirbywarp,
Reverse genders.
“Girls: if the guy is trying to walk over you, just put him in his place in whatever fashion you feel like, and with the same intelligence you need when dealing with a child.
Its not about pleasing him and passing a test and getting a cookie. Its about having steel, clear, bold, non-crossable boundaries and standing for them no matter what the situation is. And being cool and assertive about it.
Thats what makes you the woman.”
Maybe you still find it offensive. How about this:
“People: if someone is trying to walk over you, just put them in his place in whatever fashion you feel like, and with the same intelligence you need when dealing with a child.
Its not about pleasing other people and passing a test and getting a cookie. Its about having steel, clear, bold, non-crossable boundaries and standing for them no matter what the situation is. And being cool and assertive about it.
Thats what makes you a person.”
Less offensive?
If so, the range of offensiveness changes wether the words man, girl, guy, and how the roles are presented. So you are picking stuff that is offensive for your context. I get that. If I was just talking to “people” about “ways to deal with people” then you might get what Im saying without the offended part.
I think since Im putting genders there (and because Im talking about stuff that happens in gendered relationships) the whole issue is charged already. I dont think you find offensive what Im saying, but the frame in which Im saying it, and because of your own assumptions and projections. Or maybe Im wrong, and you still find it offensive if I make it about “people?”
This is important stuff for me, please address it
Mmmmm, cool and assertive. I like that in a man!