Earlier today I wrote about some Men’s Rights Redditors who endorsed the views of Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik – without knowing that the views they were endorsing were his. But others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik’s manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.
On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik’s “lucidity,” and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal society:
[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers. …
He’s not being sarcastic here. He continues:
That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren’t going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they’re all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …
Here’s an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.
(Bolded text in original.) That final reference to “ethnic self-hatred” seems to be Bardamu’s euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.
Then he adds this repulsive final thought on Breivik’s victims:
[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.
Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik’s manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.
Chuck complains that Hugo Schwyzer and I are “try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs” in our recent posts showing the similarities between Breivik’s ideas and those of many MRAs. Never mind that neither Hugo nor I referred to Breivik as an MRA. I described him as an antifeminist, which is an undeniable fact, whose views are “strikingly similar to many MRAs.” (Emphasis added.) Hugo stated explicitly that he didn’t blame the MRM directly for Breivik’s actions, noting that “[m]ost MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic.”
Evidently Chuck feels that to even mention the MRM in conjunction with Breivik is some sort of egregious smear, especially since the shooter spent “only” 23 pages of his manifesto writing explicitly about feminism.
Weirdly, after trying to draw a sharp line between Breivik and the MRM, Chuck goes on to apparently endorse Breivik’s (and Fjordman’s) notions about the ways in which feminism “greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.” The rest of Chuck’s post elaborates on, and seems to fully endorse, Breivik’s/Fjordman’s argument that feminism’s “emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society” and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders.
I’ve asked Chuck to clarify if this is indeed what he means to convey in his post. If so, I can only say: If you’re trying to draw a distinction between your ideas and the ideas of a murderous terrorist, you don’t really advance your case by agreeing with the central thrust of these ideas pretty much wholeheartedly.
I’ve seen this sort of thing in the past. I’m amused, for values of amused that aren’t really funny, to see them extracting the 23 pages, and using it as some sort of prime cause for the rest, while trying to say they want nothing to do with him.
Interesting that the spearhead hasn’t mentioned it.
Futrelle,
You say that I defend the manifesto as if the manifesto is the same thing as the shooting and bombing that killed 76 people. One can easily see elements of truth in the manifesto while disagreeing with Breivik’s tactics.
You say that neither you nor Schwyzer said that Breivik was an MRA. That’s just being coy. Note that I focused mostly on Schwyzer’s post which was titled: “Anders Breivik: Anti-Feminist MRA?” To ask that question is to answer it.
In Schwyzer’s mind at least, Breivik isn’t much different than MRAs. Schwyzer also ignored Breivik’s very obvious goal – which was to root out Islam and mutliculturalism from Norway and the West (you tacitly seem to suggest that it would have only been Breivik’s anti-feminism that made his attack so heinous). But Schwyzer keeps his foot on the anti-feminist pedal:
“The mass murder of so many young people (of both sexes) may well have been his way of cutting down not only the best and the brightest of the future Norwegian progressive elite, but of killing off those who were personally and ideologically committed to the idea that men and women are radically equal.”
Again, Breivik didn’t kill 76 people in order to protest feminism – not that that makes it any better. But you and Schwyzer have carved out a niche here in the blogosphere by pinning everything on MRAs so I’m not surprised that you took 1% of the manifesto and saw it underlying everything else that Breivik wrote.
My reading of Breivik is that he was frustrated with feminism because it was tied to anti-Western, anti-Chrsitian, pro-multiculturalism forces. In his manifesto he touched on those various offshoots of the same cultural marxist branch.
I think Breivik’s (or Fjordman’s) critique of feminism is also prevalent within many feminist circles: some feminists abhor Islamic/Arab society and the attendant lack of rights for women. Breivik seems to be against importing that type of culture into his homeland. Would those same feminists be on the hook too? Why don’t you write a post about them? They and Breivik support the same causes.
We all know how this game works; pin responsibility for the tragedy on every group that shares similar ideology. I’ll end by asking you and your readers here, how many of you own a Che t-shirt? I’m guessing that a lot of people who read this blog do.
wait, I thought blaming society for individual criminals was something liberals and feminists do…
This kind of thing is really hosing up the arguments.
As a former MRA and still somewhat sympathetic to the movement, Schwyzer is purposefully throwing gasoline on the fire here, and also being disingenuous. He says “MRAs aren’t directly responsible” but goes on to pretty plainly state that MRA/antifeminist ideas were a central thrust behind Breivik’s motivations. Which is not true. Breivik is a reactionary, and ONE (of many) things reactionaries usually want is a return to traditional gender roles. Thus, they’re antifeminist, but for *different reasons* than MRAs are, or at least that I was.
I’ve noticed that a lot of MRAs are actually social liberals.
Breivik seems to be against importing that type of culture into his homeland.
yeah, that doesn’t quite seem to be the part that he objected to. In fact, as regards to the treatment of women, he seemed to share quite a few ideas with the fundamentalists…
how many of you own a Che t-shirt? I’m guessing that a lot of people who read this blog do.
I don’t. Am I authorized to comment now? I do own a Black 47 T-Shirt.
Oh, I should add, nothing that Breivk wrote pertaining to feminism was really new information or a new way of thinking about feminism’s impact on Western society. To that end, you misframe the debate by saying that me or In Mala Fide said “hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas.” Breivik coopted those ideas that have been floating around for a long time and used them for his own ends. Sadly, he went a certain direction and crossed a certain line.
FWIW, I don’t own a Che t-shirt. Che was an asshole. Castro is an asshole. Stalin was an asshole. Mao was an asshole. Lenin was an asshole. Heck, Trotsky was an asshole too.
Beyond that, I absolutely DO think that his brand of antifeminism (similar in many ways to what I see regularly on MRA/MGTOW/”alternative right” sites) was part of the toxic mess of an ideology that motivated Breivik to kill. If you (a hypothetical you) think the contemporary world is some big matriarchy in which men are abused by the govt, etc etc,that certainly is going to contribute to your sense that regular poltiical activism is hopeless and the only real answer is violence.
No, antifeminism wasn’t the central driving force, but it was obviously a big part of it.
@MRAL wrote, “I’ve noticed that a lot of MRAs are actually social liberals.”
Like, how? They’re okay with universal health care and gays getting married, but still think taking reproductive rights from women is okay?
So… you say it’s painting with a broad brush to say he shared goals with MRAs.
You also say you share goals with him.
The problem with saying he shared your basic ideas too is?
Right, that we are saying it in public, where other people might see it too.
Most MRAs are pro-choice, in my experience. Choice 4 Men does not equal “taking reproductive rights away from women”.
[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.
pretty sure most people already figured that aspect of the attack out, but this clown has to spell it out in the most grandiose terms possible, and on top of that chide people for being ‘schocked’ so he can look edgy.
it’s like something gary brecher would write tongue-in-cheek, but he’s not only serious, he’s really really angry about it.
I think Breivik’s (or Fjordman’s) critique of feminism is also prevalent within many feminist circles: some feminists abhor Islamic/Arab society and the attendant lack of rights for women.
I know women against immigration that have these ideas, but their problems is that all their favorite conservative forums/blog have been invaded by angry misogynists from the manosphere. So these women are fed up of MRAs too.
We all know how this game works; pin responsibility for the tragedy on every group that shares similar ideology. I’ll end by asking you and your readers here, how many of you own a Che t-shirt? I’m guessing that a lot of people who read this blog do.
I don’t go trolling MRA blogs under the ‘nym Lord Sebastian Flyte (although I should), so if you’re going to make childish swipes at leftism (a che t-shirt joke? in 2011?) could you please have the decency not to appropriate the writing of an actually radical leftist for your name?
actually should be actual there, of course
Most MRAs are pro-choice, in my experience. Choice 4 Men does not equal “taking reproductive rights away from women”.
Most MRAs are against contraception because they believe that women use contraception only to have sex with Alpha males : Just check the insanities that are said on Hookingupsmart.
Just because some batcrap crazy guy has X view doesn’t mean that X view is somehow violent or hateful. If he’d said in his manifesto that he thinks that puppies are the most beautiful, amazing beings on the planet, would you all be tossing your puppies on the street and calling anyone who still likes puppies a soon-to-be mass murderer?
@MRAL,
MRAs are pro-choice when it suits them. They’re in favour of contraception when it suits them. But you are right that at least some MRAs do identify as leftist. After all, the first MRA I ever came across identified as such. Indeed, it would be foolish to say that misogyny exists only on the Right; it’s just that it seems to be more pervasive there and, since learning more about the MRM, it does seem as though most of them identify as rightist.
I think ppl should refer to David as “Dark Lord Futrelle” from now on xD Other ppl can have titles too 🙂 G.L. Piggy, Warrior of Light, as a good ring to it 😀 Ami Angelwings, Jerkface Extraordinaire does too xD Or Alpha BItch of Ultimate Cat Doom xD
Srsly tho..
As a former MRA and still somewhat sympathetic to the movement,
MRAL, do you mean Hugo (dunno his history) or yourself? 😀 (not mocking, serious, and cautiously preparing to be surprised/impressed)
OH MY SWEET LORD even a mass murderer gets the “sure, maybe he went a little overboard, but he makes some good points, and anyway he wouldn’t be all angry if women weren’t evil whore robots from Mars” response! I love it!
And by “I love it,” I of course mean “now I have to rethink my basically benevolent view of humanity.”
Most MRAs I’ve encountered have been vocally anti-choice and often anti-contraception, which has always confused me because they tend to be vocally anti-babies-they-have-to-take-care-of, too.
Interesting. And where would one find one of these robots?
I ask because a friend of mine…
I mean myself. Hugo as an MRA? It’s more likely that Obama runs al Qaeda.
YAY! Can I hug you? :3
It doesn’t even have nething to do that I think it’s better or worse, it’s just the personal growth you’ve done and changed lately and stuff is making me happy for you 🙂 (esp today I need something to be happy about : I’ve had an awful day 🙁 )