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.
G.L Piggy
Your anxiety about the impending islamification of us poor old Europeans reminds me of an old Giles cartoon from the 1970’s, published in the wake of the mass arrival of Uganda’s expelled Asian population; it depicted the future House of Commons “swamped” by Indian MP’s ( in the 1970’s no one particularly cared about the distinctions between Hindu, Sikh and Muslim ) – this would be the inevitable result of their high birthrates. 35 years later – well, it just neatly illustrates how these anxieties about immigration are a perpetual canard, which in the UK appear at regular intervals ( Huegenot, Irish, Jewish, East European, Afro-Caribbean, South Asian, “Islamic” and Polish/East European waves of immigration over hundreds of years have all excited the same responses ).
Even if we include Bosnia and Albania, the muslim population of Europe is, at most, about 5-7% – and this figure doesn’t disclose the reality that a pretty spectacular percentage of this population is “nominally” so, in the same way that most Europeans are nominally Christian, but in fact are secular/agnostic/atheist/godless that go to church solely for birth, death and marriage rituals.
Perhaps you need to get your head around the idea that Muslims are oftern secular liberals too – just like their supposedly Christian counterparts.
And yet again, the thread gets jacked by people who don’t want to examine the fact that MRAs sympathize and agree with a mass murderer, just as they did with others such as George Sodini and Bruce Pardo. “Oooooh, the Muslims are still WAY worse, see??”
@ Andrea
I don’t think it counts as a threadjack, since the jacker was cited at length in the OP, and the jacker’s point is to explain in greater detail how much he agrees with the mass murderer.
Pecunium again tries to argue about rape and pulls out the statistics.
Too bad that he believes that 90% of rapes don’t end in a conviction, which of course makes his argument unusable, the error margin is just too high.
Rape underreporting might just have increased 5% and the conviction rate might just drop 5% and … look… we have a huge drop in rapes.
selling Chinese stuff and it’s gonna lead to us taking over and we’re gonna be backwards and traditional and etc… but so far we’re just living like nebody else (also you can get all sorts of awesome stuff b/c of the diversity in stores ) :
Yeah, the great quality of Chinese products! Like these Chinese electronic kitchen scales that break after three months. I have a mechanical scale with tare function that’s 100 years old, a bit inconvenient but I’m sticking to that now, it will surely work for another couple of years.
People change religions, leave religions, religions reform,
Look how static Islam was the last 1000 years.
and despite what the hysterics claim a 3% minority religion is not about to consume secular European society.
It’s 5%, not 3%.
the thread gets jacked by people who don’t want to examine the fact that MRAs sympathize and agree with a mass murderer
I’m certainly not an MRA, but the point alot of us are making is that there really isn’t a political philosophy (except for pacifism, I suppose) that hasn’t been taken to a murderous extreme at some point.
If you want to save the planet, it doesn’t mean you support the Unabomber or the dude who shot up the Discovery Channel last year. If you want the US to stop interfering in the Muslim world, that doesn’t mean you’re a member of al-Qaeda.
Unless these mass-murder-sympathizing MRAs of yours actually express approval for Breivik’s terrorism, painting them with such a broad brush is a real cheap shot.
G.L. Piggy, even though Muslims living in ghettos is a big problem in Europe, they cannot take over the continent because there is not enough Muslims for that and anti-immigration parties are more and more popular in Europe.
And many MRAs are not against the way women are treated in Muslims countries, they admire it. That’s why many MRAs live in third world countries.
About the video, it’s from the NRK (national television of Norway) and they are not rabid racists but the subtitles are wrong. The video doesn’t talk about all rape in Oslo, it talks about assault rape, not domestic rape or date-rape.
How hard could it possibly be for these guys to go “Wow. That was fucked up. Here are the ways that we don’t think, and they include bombing residences of Prime Ministers and island summer camps for kids, among many other things!”
Also, it’s pretty funny that even though he cites feminism as a reason for the “weakening” and “Islamification” of Europe, this thread has become debunking that oh em gee, teh moozlims are takingk overs!.
I’mma repeat that part: Breivik stated that what weakened Europe in the first place was feminism, making it so that men couldn’t fight back or whatever. He most certainly was an anti feminist. And who else blames society’s woes on a group that just wants everyone to be equal (besides the whole world)
@ Piggy
“I think it is a forgone conclusion that Islam is a more hostile religion than any other that currently exists – both in principle and in deed. I shouldn’t have to mention 9/11, London, Madrid. So you can complain about a guy burning the Koran, but you won’t get much sympathy from me.”
I think it is a forgone conclusion that Islam is a more hostile religion than any other that currently exists – both in principle and in deed. I shouldn’t have to mention the Westboro Baptist Church, and, I don’t know, this silly little thing that happened in oslo where a christian fundie gunned down 90 kids. Or something. I forget. Let me scroll up to to the original blog post that we are having this lovely little discussion on and refresh my memory. Anyway, my point is, is if anyone where to burn the bible, you wouldn’t get much sympathy from me.
(Just so you don’t get confused; you would actually get a lot of sympathy from me if someone burned a Qur’an, or the Bible, or the Torah, or any religious symbol or text that gives many people peace and comfort in their lives. I’m solidly agnostic, and disdain all religion, but I still think it is heinously dick to destroy holy books. What I’m actually doing here is repeating the kind of argument you’re making in another context to show how offensive it is.)
I am a decent and rational enough human being to not take the actions of a few as a judgement of the many. So I don’t judge all christians by the WBC, I don’t judge all muslims by Islamic Terrorists, I don’t judge all black people by those in jail, I don’t judge all women by Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, and so on and so on and so on.
“To Shora specifically: what is offensive about me stating plain facts? Is it not true that Muslims in European countries tend to commit higher rates of crime, on average, than native Europeans?”
I’m no expert on the subject, but I’m pretty sure immigrants of all types tend to have more crime rates because they’re more likely to be poor and face discrimination in the country they’ve immigrated to and have more difficulty finding jobs and so on. I don’t really know, though, and I don’t know where i’d look for for a study. That’s just my guess
Regardless, you were not “just stating plain facts.” You were stating facts with a “gotcha” tone of “And this proves that Muslims are bad people!” It’s like if I brought up that men of color are over-represented in US jails with the smug implication that this fact means that black people are all/mostly violent criminals, and then act all wide-eyed and surprised when people called me out for being racist. You know very well what you were implying and you know very well that you are being a bigot. I refuse to insult your intelligence by treating you otherwise.
I’m sorry, Islam=Christianity. I dun goofed.
I made the mistake of wading into GLP’s blog on the Schwyzer Spermgate issue, only to be confronted with a commenter population that believes that “dysgenic” is a term that makes sense. I came to the conclusion that, no, there was no common conceptual basis for any sort of discussion.
Just to float this out there, how do most of you feel about the prospects of unchecked Islamic immigration into Western Europe? I mean, it is only a matter of time before Muslims become the majority in Western countries.
@Pecunium: I floated this out in a previous thread, but probably got drowned in the trolly backscatter or new-thread excitement, but Wackypedia estimates the Muslim population of Norway at between 2 and 3.4%. That’s after an increase of about 10% between 2006 and 2009. I doubt that it is a coincidence that increase happened when there were a fair number of Muslims fleeing the Freedom Adventure in the Mideast.
Not exactly a tidal wave. And let’s face it, if your privileged racial advantage is threatened by a 10% increase over 2% over a period of three years, you may not be the dominant, world-defining force you think you are.
I mean, it is only a matter of time before Muslims become the majority in Western countries.
Only if you are unreasonably terrified of non-caucasians, and define “majority” as “sizable minority” or “increasingly diverse”
Diversity bothers some people. Has for quite some time. Doesn’t make it a reasonable fear.
It will happen eventually due to their high birth rates (is that bigoted to point out too?).
yes, it is, to answer your question.
But your assertion assumes that the races will remain segregated, and there is no support for that idea. History will show that as minority population increases, assimilation does too, and as assimilation increases, the minorities intermingle with the other parts of the population.
Or is THAT what really bothers you, sweetie? The intermingling? Or the possibility that your much-imagined race war is not really going to happen?
Hyu kep hyusing dat word. I do not believe it means what hyu tink it means.
Eets a kompleet myth. Why hyu ask?
I tink datz a “NO” hyu hazn’t.
I’z gonna uze Jager speek nowz on diz board.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Ferdinand calls Breivik a “lunatic”, a “madman”, a “sick individual”, his act “horrifying” and that “he should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” Yeah, sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. So is this the new liberal meme? If you defend any opinions that appear similar to those shared by Breivik, then you are defending his actions and you must be a terrorist sympathizer. This makes zero sense.
There are strict Muslims who are not violent, would you apply to same criteria to them? No, you wouldn’t. You would judge Islam for a few bad apples. Guilt by association only applies to white guys and nobody else.
Hy vaz just jokeen! Vhy hyu feemeeneest hast to be zo schrill?!
No, but hyu schould mention de Gulf Warz, de Ahfghan Warz, de infasion ov Iraq, de remote bombinks ov Yemen und Lybia, de no flyz zonez bhefoor dat, de embhargoes bhefoor dat, de sellink ov nerve ghaz tzo de leaderz ov Iraq durink their warz mit Iran, und de arming ov bot de mujahadeen und de taliban. Und hyu callz Izlam hochtile?
Got mit unz?
Manhifest Dhestiny?
Vat hybout oll de fooking Hyrish?
It’s way upthread, I know, but I wanted to give Mr. Al props for no longer identifying as an MRA. Any Pharyngulites will know what I mean by this, but I think he’ll be our Walton.
Also, GL Piggy, freaking out over Muslims out-breeding “us” is dumb and ignores the history of immigration to, well, pretty much anywhere. I mean, my grandparents were non-English-speaking religious fanatics who moved to an ethnic enclave and had a boatload of minority religion children. Their religion was considered a dangerous threat to law and order and public morality.
They were German Catholics and the ethnic enclave was rural Alberta pre WW1. My dad was their 11th child (out of 12). I have the distinction of being the youngest of 40-odd cousins and have more 2nd and 3rd cousins than I know of. Almost none of my cousins or 2nd cousins speak any German whatsoever and only one has had more than 3 kids (one of my 2nd cousins had, I think, her 7th last year, but she’s more a hippie than a Quiverfull). We range from atheists to run-of-the-mill Catholics to a few Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In other words, those scary ethnic people with their funny religion* and weird language had children and grandchildren who are seamlessly integrated into the mainstream. That’s what happened with basically every immigrant group to Canada ever. Why do you think Muslims will be any different?
*And if anyone says “But Catholicism isn’t oppressive to women! Islam is!” I will tell you some stories from the 14 years of Catholic school I went through.
G.L. Piggy: The loaded question you don’t care about is the one you posed, and VOIP was pointing out. It’s right up there with the veiled insult at, “secular liberals”.
It’s not a legitimate point to say that “msulims are outbreeding ‘us’ and they are nasty too,” and then saying it’s because we hate christianity.
I really don’t think the bigot you are being needed anything more than they least, manufactured, excuse for you to release it. The ways in which you say things makes it fairly plain you are an angry bigot.
Looking at history… better to be a Christian under a Muslim ruler than the reverse. Look at the sack of Jerusalem when the Crusaders caputured it, and then the non-sack when Saladin captured it.
Newsflash, just as all Christians aren’t like Brievik, not all Muslims are like Khomeni.
That you pretend to not see this is why you are a bigot, wailing about the Evils of Islam, scared they will outbreed your unmarried ass* and we are disgusted at the things you say about women (and now Muslims).
Care, by the way, to respond to the fact that 40 percent of the rapes in that survey were committed by Norwegians? Care also too look at the rates of outgroup rape in other cultures? Guess what… I’ll bet outgroup rape is higher everywhere, and in some of those places it’s not muslims in the outgroup).
About your “hostile religion crap”
Christian Dominioninsm
Were you one of the bleating crowd who was all upset when the DoJ pointed out the profile for terrorists in the US is White, male, Christian
Care to guess what the profile is for terrorists in Europe?
It’s not Muslim
The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2007 to 2009 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.
So yeah… we aren’t worried about Muslims. Because, contrary to the weak-kneed fear of the idiots like you, we have a fairly solid grasp on reality, and look at the facts.
*Dude, if you are so worried about them outbreeding you, get to work. I know there are groups out there also worrying about this, and would love to have a stud of your demonstrably similar thinking in the stable.
First, of course, you have to get a wife.
Damn tag-fail. There are two links in the big-block-o-link-text.
The second one at, “White Christian Dominionists”
Er, White, male, Christian. I think I need coffee.
cynikal: It’s not the fucking Irish you need to worry about* it’s the fighting Irish.
*unless you are worried about them outbreeding you.
Your intent is as clear as your love for logical fallacies, manboob: lie, twist, smear.
And RW summed it up what should be obvious, July 26, 2011 at 5:25 am
@Pecunium
Hy’m vorried ’boutz mizzink oot.
Hy gotz ah veekness fer de redhedz.
Things Are Bad: I’m not surprised you are defending Brievik, when you agree with things like this:
I don’t think I ever suggested that Mack, himself, should be exonerated and, at the time that I wrote the piece, my main point was that it was both dishonest and disingenuous for MRA authors to assume in advance that men who murdered their partners – like Mack – were simply bad or ‘evil’.
And I still hold to that position.
and this:
Norway shootings: Wow, another 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. If you want proof of Breivin’s lucidity, peruse his absurdly long manifesto, …which is poorly edited and rambling but otherwise a scarily accurate summation of alt-right thought – hence why the alt-right has been either ignoring the Norway story or rushing to dissociate themselves from him.
The time required to index the fallacies in your own thinking… well I have a lunch date, and need to file a change of address at the post office.
I get it that Chuck doesn’t like Muslims, thinks they’re dangerous and everything, but … is he also trying to say that the reason that Breivik murdered 92 ethnic Norwegians is because he wanted to protect the mostly Muslim victims of the Muslim rapists in his country?
I’m kind of secondarily confused by Chuck’s argument, after reading so many MRAs lately state that they don’t think rape is that big a deal. So either Chuck is breaking with the rape-apologia section of the MRM and agrees with feminists that rape is, in fact, a very big deal, or he likes to trot it out as a very big deal when convenient for his argument, and treat it otherwise when not.