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.
@David Futrelle
“including a really vile one from NWO that basically ends up suggesting that terrorism is the only option for MRAs.
I’m going to delete that part, but if you want to see what he said you should scroll up now and take a look before it’s gone.
He’s going to be on moderation for a long time.”
Dave, I in no way suggested any such thing. I stated the actions of three men and various other avenues of activism that have failed to bring about change to an oppressive system. I ended my statement with something along the lines of, “what would you suggest?”
I’m fairly certain every poster here at one time or another has said, “NWO, what would you suggest?” Funny, I never accused anyone of promoting terrorism.
And lets be honest here shall we? This fun loving crew has demeaned and degraded me from the word go. They’ve professed their joy in hating me and revel in it. I’ve noticed no matter what the gang says they never go on moderation. Yet I’m required to guard my tongue and take it like a man.
“Ideas should be argued on their own merits not on their source.”
Breivik’s ideas have no merit, they’re just more recycled right-wing waste, puked up by yet another violent rightist who believes killing unarmed people makes him a brave crusader against the evil marxist/islamist/feminist cabal. He’s what the originators of the rhetoric keep counting on, someone whose head isn’t screwed on tight enough that the threat of imprisonment or death isn’t enough to keep them from acting out the fantasy of a societal purge.
This fun loving crew has demeaned and degraded me from the word go.
Oh Subbie, you’ve demeaned and degraded yourself. Everything from your nym to your gravatar makes it perfectly clear what you’re looking for.
Yet I’m required to guard my tongue and take it like a man.
And you love it.
@speedlines
A fine contribution.
“And lets be honest here shall we? This fun loving crew has demeaned and degraded me from the word go. They’ve professed their joy in hating me and revel in it.”
That’s because you’re probably one of the most revolting excuses for a human being that the folks here have ever had the displeasure of encountering. Even just glancing sideways at your ramblings probably makes people feel like there’s a fresh dog turd being held a few millimeters away from the surface of their eyes.
“I’ve noticed no matter what the gang says they never go on moderation. Yet I’m required to guard my tongue and take it like a man.”
Oh I’m sorry, was anyone supposed to care about your plight? Maybe you should go flounce yourself like the other two douchebuckles did earlier if life’s so hard here.
It might be because none of us have advocated terrorism?
It might be that we don’t suffer from an inability to refrain from vomitting the same tired sets of buzzwords and phrases, no matter the actual topic?
It might be that we don’t engage in passive aggressive refusals to give honest answers (even to your dishonest questions).
I have not demeaned and degraded you. I’ve said one thing to you which was less than civil, and Dave yanked it. Told me not to do it again.
Guess what, I didn’t do it again.
That’s the real difference between us. You can’t change your ways. In short, you don’t listen and you won’t learn.
@Pecunium
” I have not demeaned and degraded you. I’ve said one thing to you which was less than civil, and Dave yanked it. Told me not to do it again.
Guess what, I didn’t do it again.
That’s the real difference between us. You can’t change your ways. In short, you don’t listen and you won’t learn.”
First is the lie you don’t demean or degrade, as in, “can’t learn.”
Second is I can’t change, “my ways” while maintaining your ways.
Third is the assumption you are, “right” and I’m wrong.
Fourth is the mockery itself.
@MertvayaRuka
“Oh I’m sorry, was anyone supposed to care about your plight? Maybe you should go flounce yourself like the other two douchebuckles did earlier if life’s so hard here.”
Pure hatred and mockery.
Again, nothing of substance.
NWO: You get told what it is that leads to being put on moderation.
You keep doing it.
You then complain that your actions lead to the stated consequences.
That, = not listening.
You keep doing it.
That = not learning.
Pointing that out to you isn’t mockery.
Your ways not changing has nothing to do with my ways.
It’s not about be being right, and you being wrong. It’s about me being well behaved.
So, again, there is no mockery on my part.
That others do mock you, has nothing to do with me. I understand why they do it. In some ways you bring it on yourself, with your dishonest arguments, your two-faced switching of arguments from one post to the next (say what you like about those who oppose your views, they are consistent in theirs), your, “oh I’m so bad for disagreeing with you, I am worthless,” which is a farce, given how you present yourself in other fora.
But I’ve not mocked you. If you really want me to, I might, but you’d have to beg.
NWO, you break more of my commenting rules on a regular basis than anyone else I let post here. (Eoghan was worse, but he’s banned.) I let you slide again and again b/c I usually find you amusing. I actually added a bit to the comment guidelines a while back to explain why I haven’t banned you outright despite your constant rule-breaking.
I put you on moderation this time because your random off-topic derailing behavior in the original Breivik thread got too annoying to bear. The “what do you expect us to do” comment was after you were on moderation. None of your behavior since then has inspired me to want to take you off moderation.
It’s kind of telling that you can’t even remember why I put you on moderation. As Pecunium says, you really don’t listen.
Or perhaps he does listen, but, instead, chooses to wear his placement on moderation as a token of his oppression….. “poor silenced Slavey”……
Marc: You are being dishonest again (perhaps yet… I’m beginning to wonder if you know how to be honest): You were the one who said only 9 percent of rape cases lead to convictions.
Ah, the dishonesty accusations… because you are so honest…
Don’t you like the statistics from RAINN anymore? You used to quote them…
http://manboobz.com/2011/05/09/inactivism/comment-page-4/#comment-17483
That’s where the 9% come from! Just multiply the percentages.
But even that isn’t relevant to what I was saying. G.L. Piggy said all rapes in a given period, in a given place, were caused by a given population.
I found the stats which showed he was wrong.
Yeah, only that this blog entry you found is from 2007 and argues with crime statistics that are at least two years old. The claims in the video are about the years 2006 – 2010. Congrats, you showed absolutely nothing.
I will have to chime in with what Peter said. This is a textbook association fallacy.
Example:
Hitler liked dogs. You like dogs. You are like Hitler.
Breivik thought X. You think X. You are like Breivik.
Judge arguments by their merit, not by the person who made it.
I explained this in a reddit post I made (under the same username)
Breivik also says that Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves a nobel peace price. She is an outspoken feminist (amongst many other things, but I will just stress feminist now since that is how this fallacy works) who created a foundation to protect women from hurtful islamic beliefs like female genital mutilation.
Breivik also says in his manifesto “The truth of the matter is that I personally know several gay individuals and have known several gay people during the years and I don’t have any reservations against them. Why would I care what they do behind closed doors?”
Does this mean people who support gay right now also support Anders Breivik? Does this mean people who oppose female genital mutilation are now people who think killing vacationing teenagers is ok?
Can the subaltern blather?
This is only a fallacy if the ideas aren’t relevant. “Hitler liked dogs, you like dogs, you are like Hitler” may not work, but “Hitler enabled mass murder, you hate the same people he did and would do what he did if you got the chance, therefore you are like Hitler” is perfectly valid.
What you are doing is attempting to bar any discussion of intellectual influence whatsoever by throwing chaff around. Why did Breivik say that Ali deserved a peace prize? In what context? When? Has he changed his mind since then? If so, when? Did Breivik’s support of Ali (in X context, for X reason) lead him to do anything concrete about it, and if so, did other people who support Ali for the same reasons (because there are many reasons you can support something) do similar things?
These are the questions you need to ask in order to prove sympathy or influence. I think that’s what we’re doing when we link ideas like those MRAs hold with Breivik’s ideas and examine the place of violence in these belief systems. It is not what you’re doing when you say, “Well, he said good things about a feminist at one time so he must be a feminist then, huh? HUH!?”
On the other hand, if that’s the way you guys think, then no wonder you react to any criticism of one of your own by closing ranks. Even if you hated what Breivik did (or Sodini, or Lepine, or Ball, or etc, etc, etc), once you’ve been associated with him, you have got to double down.
That is one area where he does appear to excel.
Retard blogger calls Breivik a feminist (what a f*cking joke!), and says that he wasn’t really conservative (ha ha ha!) or a xtian (are you kidding me?): http://www.ridingthetiger.org/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-a-decoy-nationalist/
“Breivik is also somewhat approving of feminism, at least in the context of the Vienna School. If not, then he certainly makes no attempt to refute its ideological shortcomings in the same manner that he treats homophobia or racism.”
“Riding the Tiger.” Huh. I was wondering when the Evola people would show up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Modern-World-Traditionalism-Intellectual/dp/0195396014
It’s people like this who show us that conservatism, men’s rights, and anti-feminists are basically terrorists. If they do not act then they are merely time-bombs ready to go off at the drop of a hat. It’s a good idea to try and report these sites to law enforcement so that they can be watched.
Marc: I am honest. I say what I mean. You have confessed to saying things you don’t believe, in an effort to stir the pot. Why should we believe you now?
Speaking of Evola, when I was in college, I worked in the library in my spare time. I’d always be sure to take a note of who was checking out books by Evola. I noticed a pattern that they were usually all 1-conservative males 2-either Christian or Muslim and 3-checking it out with other books like Mein Kampf, the Koran or the Art of War. I eventually made a habit of reporting anyone who checked out any Evola book to the Dean of Students, as I suspected that they could be violent offenders of some sort or rapists. Turns out that most of the time I was right.
Your title is so sensationalistic and so much of a guilt by association job it’s sickening.
You could’ve jus tput “Manosphere and Breivik agree on some gender issues” but no you put
“Manosphere blogs: Hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas!”
To imply that they might support mass murder. Then you want to play the “oh we never said you like murder, you’re just reading too much into this”. It’s a classic yellow journalism tactic of imply what you want to say in the headlines then contradict that in the story.
guy, if blog headlines sicken you that much you should probably talk with someone about that
Also, the headline is, you know, true. They did say they liked some of his ideas. I didn’t say they approved of his actions; in fact, I said explicitly that they didn’t.