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.
jumbofish: Sometimes feeling silly is good.
1.)yes
2.)no
indeed <3.
Pecunium,
“What makes an adult who is testing your boundaries a child?”
It doesnt make him or her a child. The intelligence YOU possess to deal with children, though, is useful to deal with manipulative people. As in, dont get in their frame, keep your own authority, and dont let them get to you emotionally, because its something that will pass. Thick skin but not a resentful / negative mood, or the children will start reacting to it.
Maybe manipulative people operate by the same tricks that worked when they were children. I dont know. I know (first hand experience) that the the same social intelligence works when dealing with both.
See? its not about if the adult is a children. Its about how you handle the situation. I stated that in the post, but, of course, put women and children in the same line and thats triggers a shit rain here.
Whats funny? in some other circles, that dont have these kind of triggers, the message reaches.
I guess if I eventually want to make my stuff universal I should just talk about people and avoid the easy comparisons and labels.
YOHAMI, your arguments don’t exist in a vacuum. You didn’t come to your conclusions in a vacuum. When your conclusions align with sexist stereotypes, they are indeed suspect.
So… you admit to manipulating us.. to trying to test out boundaries… ergo we should treat you like a child Q.E.D.
Pecunium,
“Why did you allow that post, instead of another to be the guest post?”
Like I said, he´s an old friend and had his blog down at the moment. A lot of people wanted to get an update from him and thats what I got. Yeah, I posted a hatred and hurt post from a friend without editing the crap he said. One time deal.
“One time deal” I’m not really like that, honey. Promise it won’t happen again.
Yeah, right mate.
Pecunium,
“If you aren’t a feminist your opinion is irrelevant to the poll. You argue that feminists think being a soldier = rapist.”
I dont sustain that ALL feminists think ALL soldiers are rapists. But in that discussion, there were feminists saying stuff like “soldiers rape”, yes, in generic. Or stuff like “men rape” that I find offensive. And Hillary Clinton does have this charade that the real victims of war are women and children, etc.
So, no, I dont ARGUE that FEMINITS think that being a soldier means rapist. From what I have found, feminism isnt a monolith and there are many extremes colliding and antagonism.
Polling for soldiers = rape is going to get as many variants as slutwalks = useful. Some very supportive, some very antagonistic.
Talking about twisting word YOHAMI: “Im not trying to compliment women or men, Im trying to find whats the real deal.”
I know you aren’t trying to compliment anyone – but you insisted that irrational and rational are just different and implied that one of them is a negative attribution and one a positive just slipped your mind when you argued women were irrational and men were rational. They aren’t neutral, they are loaded – by society/everyone. You came up with the binary – you were the one who said that men react in x way and women react in y way because of z.
“But in that discussion, there were feminists saying stuff like “soldiers rape”, yes, in generic. Or stuff like “men rape” that I find offensive.” So, you’re saying you don’t like it when feminists generalise about men? Huh. Perhaps now you can understand why we don’t like it when you say all women are x.
Some men rape. Some women rape. Some soldiers rape. Some soldiers are encouraged to rape in order to commit a genocide/breed out the local population. All of these things are bad and hurt people.
kirbywarp,
Thanks for posting the full post.
Again, I see that you find the whole framing offensive. I see that you see that portraiting a woman in any negative light means misogyny. If Im wrong, please set me straight about it.
For the text not to be misogynistic I shouldnt be talking about how to deal with a WOMAN who misbehaves, but with a PERSON who does so.
Thing is Im talking to guys who have women issues. Not talking universal.
And there are women who are abusive, and guys who have problems with them. Addressing that population doesnt mean theres “hate towards women” at all.
But I get what you see. I think.
Lyn,
Right before addressing your disagreeing, I myself noted that “irrational vs rational” is a tinted phrase, that I didnt initiate (or, fuck, if I used both words, its not the same as the obvious insult “irrational” means) And I represented the same idea without using the already loaded jergon and presented them as intelligences.
I KNOW irrational vs rational is bullshit. Im not defending THAT nor the baggage they bring with them.
YOHAMI: This is what you said.
Stuff as simple as Feminism looking at third world poor countries and caring about “women and children”, what about men?
Or some figures saying that the real victims of war are “women and children”, what about men?
Or this “all soldiers are rapists”, really? so if some country messes with us and I go fight to defend your life, that makes me a rapist? fuck you?
If theres war with Canada and your boyfriends gets recruited (forced into the army against his will) but he does go to fight, is he a rapist now?
Whenever Feminism says stuff about men, just figure, for a moment, that they are talking about black people.
Not some feminists. “Feminism”
Not “some soldiers” All soldiers.
@YOHAMI:
“Again, I see that you find the whole framing offensive. I see that you see that portraiting a woman in any negative light means misogyny. If Im wrong, please set me straight about it.”
You are wrong. Very, very very wrong.
You are talking talking under the PUA framework, the one where guys have to trick or otherwise manipulate women for sex, the one that enforces nearly every gender stereotype in the book. For the text to not be misogynistic, you’d almost have to not talk about PUAs, or Alpha-Beta theory at all.
Your version of “women who are abusive” is women who shit-test their PUAs before relinquishing sex. Your terminology is abysmally misleading. I’m seeing what is there. The text is misogynistic.
Here’s the sucker punch.
I’m a soldier. Three feminists (who know that) have said they don’t think I’m a rapist.
So… you argue Feminism = all soldiers are rapists.
And you are, demonstrably, wrong.
Lyn,
“Huh. Perhaps now you can understand why we don’t like it when you say all women are x.”
Of course I get it.
Kirby,
“You are talking talking under the PUA framework, the one where guys have to trick or otherwise manipulate women for sex, the one that enforces nearly every gender stereotype in the book. For the text to not be misogynistic, you’d almost have to not talk about PUAs, or Alpha-Beta theory at all.”
If you read my stuff, you´ll find that Im totally against of the very concept of PUA.
Kirby: You are being a bit unfair to YOHAMI. He thinks that PUAs don’t understand game. Real Alphas just get sex because they are a seat on the alpha cock carousel. It’s fakers who bring beta game to bear who have to trick people.
So it’s just manipulation he uses.
Pecunium,
“So… you argue Feminism = all soldiers are rapists.”
I…. dont argue that.
I´ve spent most of this time defending that I didnt say or whatever. I guess you miss the part, again, where this was a response to ONE person. Well, so be it.
YOHAMI: I quoted you. You didn’t say, “one person” you said “Feminism”.
I can’t do anything more fair than read what you say, and observe what you do.
Yohami,
You are telling us you are a chameleon? You have different opinions based upon your audience?
On your blog you write for MRAs therefore you are more MRA positive there, but that is not your real opinion?
Here, when other MRA trolls were around, you were more pro MRA, now that they are gone you said you didn’t believe that at all, that you were testing us?
Then you say you need to be more gender neutral in the future to attract a bigger audience to your blog?
Are you in market research?
And the rest?
Pecunium
“I can’t do anything more fair than read what you say, and observe what you do.”
Thats a good note.
“Of course I get it.”
But still you do it, and defend your right to do it… because you can’t be bothered with being PC or getting involved in NAWALT arguments…
Riiight.