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.
Yeah, all these things are totes correlated. Yep.
This guy is awful, and his beliefs are vile. I’m so sad for his victims. Terrorism- domestic or otherwise- is a terrible, scary thing, and a thing all too many groups see as the answer.
Holly,
“Someone who, like, cares about the whole murder thing, and doesn’t just see this as a great opportunity to spit out talking points at fucking random?”
Strange thing to say when this blog post is taking the great opportunity to spit out talking points about how bad the MRA is / how much this guy is like an MRA member / somehow transfer the horrors and demency of these murders to the MRA.
Still I think NWOslave is off here. But more likely, the whole blog post is off. This could be framed as “christian goes against muslims” or whatever, since this guy was just crazy.
@Holly Pervocracy
I’m a fantastic human, how about you? Hows the hate movement going?
Hey, answer me these simple question.
How could a company become a multi-million dollar company by selling shirts with slogans like, “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” if society didn’t demand the hatred of boys/men?
How could a mutitude of various charity organisation that helped only girls/women while deliberately excluding boys/men exist if society didn’t demand the hatred of boys/men?
How could countless State agencies exist the cater only to girls/women while deiberately excluding boys/men even when women are already overrepresented in medical care, education, job placement, welfare, teachers, ect. if society didn’t demand the hatred of boys/men?
How could Businesses be forced into quotas where the men need not apply if society didn’t demand the hatred of boys/men?
Ya wanna know where that hatred comes from? Look in the mirror, feminist.
@NWO:
How could a company make millions of dollars by selling a shirt that reads “I can run faster horny than you can scared,” if society doesn’t have an ingrained hatred of girls/women?
How could a gaming group get away with banning women “so that women don’t get offended” if society didn’t have an ingrained hatred of girl/woman gamers?
NWO, if a society existed where men were constantly being marginalized/opressed, would you encourage male-only programs to counteract that opression? If so, congrats, you may as well become a feminist. If not… I guess you like being a slave.
@NWO:
Oh yeah, almost forgot.
THIS GUY KILLED OVER 90 PEOPLE AND YOU TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RANT AT HOW MEN ARE SO OPPRESSED BY WOMEN! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?
*ahem* Right. On with the show then.
NWO, those are fucking random questions.
They’ve got shit-all to do with shit except the general fact that women exist.
“Ack, I actually want accoutability. I must be a troll.”
You want accountability…for the mass-murderer’s mum. And feminism for allowing his mum to have custody of him. Not accountability for the mass-murderer for his actions. You have a messed up understanding of accountability, ‘snowflake’.
Iris (I hope that’s an ok way to shorten it?) I think the problem is that advocating for what amounts to torture for people who see reality differently to you (and it’s impossible to ascertain what reality is objectively) is problematic and lends itself to abuse. I know you weren’t advocating a revolution in which evil feminists take over the world and tie people up and force medication on them…but it’s still not a great idea.
Also Yohan – the manifesto demonstrates that it’s not just about Christians against Muslims – and I think that David is pointing out a gap in some of the coverage of this guy’s reasoning (all I’ve heard on the news, and admittedly I don’t watch much) is the race/religion based analysis. I think it’s worth pointing out that he is misogynist in a way that is familiar to us too. It goes somewhere to demonstrate how toxic this logic is.
Making it about child-custody disputes is, however, troll logic.
kirbywarp,
This guy killed 90 people, and this blog post is to rant about how bad the MRA is. Even when the guy wasnt one.
YOHAMI – This blog post is to point out that the guy was–as part of his insane-conspiracy-theorist package–a raging misogynist who subscribed to a lot of the same beliefs as MRAs.
It’s not “mass murder, also we hate MRAs,” it’s exploring a substantive connection.
Does poverty hurt women and children worse than men?
Does global warming hurt women and children worse than men?
Does poor education hurt women and children worse than men?
Does starvation hurt women and children worse than men?
Does war hurt women and children worse than men?
Everyday the MSM tells us how women are disproportionally hurt worse than men in catastrophies, poverty, education. It really doesn’t even matter what the event is, women and children always suffer worse.
Why not men and children for starters? I guess barring a man from his children so women can be caller the primary caretakers answers that.
So why do women always suffer more? Could it be the hatred of boys/men?
I’ll bet all you’ll see in the MSM is women suffering at their loss for this incident. Not one single man will be shown by the MSM. Any takers?
Yohami – the blog post was about really huge parallels between MRAs and this guy. David didn’t make any value-judgment statements that I can see, unless you think calling the ‘manosphere’ misogynist is a contentious characterisation.
I think the most important connection is, as David says: “Ideas have consequences. Vile, hateful ideas have vile, hateful consequences.”
When it’s confined to the Internet and confined to words, the MRM is merely annoying and sort of amusing. But some people take it seriously. Some people internalize these ideas, and make them part of their belief system, and they take that hatred and instead of pouring it out onto the Internet, they take it into reality. And then they do horrible things.
The MRM is, when its ideas take root in someone sufficiently unhinged and violent, dangerous.
We don’t have proof, and we’re not claiming, that this guy was an MRA, or that misogyny was his only problem. Far from it. But we are pointing out that lunatic-fringe hatred on the Internet is not benign, not a joke. It has the potential to spark very real-life violence.
@YOHAMI:
*ahem* “Norweigian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto reveals him to be a rabid antifeminist with views strikingly similar to many MRAs”
and the conclusion.
“Ideas have consequences. Vile, hateful ideas have vile, hateful consequences”
The blog post is about how close the guys views are to some other MRA screed. It notably does not say “See? This guy was an MRA, all MRAs must want to shoot up a bunch of people!” He’s noting similarities between his writing and other writing by MRAs.
This is a far cry from launching into a tirade about something that is completely unrelated (like how women are so damned evil and all). NWO isn’t even talking about the guy in question, he’s just doing his own little thing. Over at pharyngula, which deals mostly with science and religious issues, he focused on all the sections related to hatred of atheism. And that is just as relevant there as David’s post is here.
Ahh, so many ninjas. Oh well.
@NWO:
The question is, do any of those things affect women more than men. But again, if you wish to rant, there is a perfectly good forum where you can go on for as long as you wish. This blog, and this topic in particular, isn’t the best place to make your point.
NWO, a personal question.
Do you feel, on any level, bad that this happened?
Does it make you feel any sense of sorrow?
Leave aside whose fault it is or what kind of crazy the guy was or how the media will react or whether international passports give men their due manly respect–does mass murder upset you?
Or do you feel exactly the same about this post as you do when David posts about MRAs with skidmarks in their undies?
Lyn, maybe you are not, but live from Holly:
“The MRM is, when its ideas take root in someone sufficiently unhinged and violent, dangerous.”
See? seriously wtf.
Holly, you just got outraged that NWO gives shit about the murders and uses this occasion to fill his own agenda, only so you can do the same.
I´ve only spent three days on this blog and Im already sick.
@Holly Pervocracy
“NWO, those are fucking random questions.
They’ve got shit-all to do with shit except the general fact that women exist.”
No Holly, you can’t/won’t answer because you enjoy the hatred of men in society. It must be quite a cozy feeling to know you can revile and demean men while remaining aloof to any criticism. And has nothing to do with women existing. What a poor arguement.
How nice it must be for the perfect ones. You could of course admit that the hatred of men is quite acceptable, but you won’t. You like it and you want more.
@Holly Pervocracy
You’ve answered none of my questions, I’ll answer none of yours.
Does that insult your sense of superiority?
How vile of me. Not leaping to respond to you. Pray forgive me.
NWOslave, do you feel at all sorry about the 90+ people killed? Do you feel that any responsibility lies with the man who did it?
@YOHAMI:
If you can’t see the difference between taking this guy’s manifesto, looking through it, and noting the simliarities to other stuff you’ve seen, and taking a thread about a murder and posting a long copy/pasta that not only has shit-all to do with the topic, but implies that somehow women are responsible for what a batshit-crazy man did…
And you feel sick about it… Honestly there is no help for you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
NWO doesn’t want to admit that MURDER IS BAD.
I feel like he’s found a new personal low.
kirbywarp,
Theres something called “association”. If tomorrow theres a woman who kills some people and leaves a diary where she talks about girl power, do you think its sane to link her to feminism?
Of course some insane people will link her and start mumbling like holly:
“when these believes gain root in unstable individuals feminism can be dangerous”
Bullshit. Pure bullshit.
Here is how I see it: at no point does the blog post implies that most MRA’s would actually do what Brevik did. But, I think it’s pretty clear that most MRA’s share much of their ideology with Brevik. I don’t see how pointing that out trivializes what Brevik did. Let’s be realistic: there are a lot of hateful people who will not plant bombs or shoot into crowds simply because they are cowardly or feel they have too much to lose. But they’ll be more than happy to encourage someone like Brevik into doing such deeds and later revel in them and glorify him. After all, didn’t they overwhelmingly justify George Sodini’s actions?
Of course he doesn’t. Not when he can blame the guy’s mother. Which… really?
kirbywarp,
What makes me sick is the level of the dialog here.
“Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
Thats so kind of you.