Some in the manosphere have been quick to label mass murderer Anders Breivik a “madman,” trying their best to pretend that his noxious misogynist ideology bears no resemblance to their own. Others, while endorsing at least some of his ideas, have distanced themselves from his actions.
As for MRA loose cannon Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), well, I’ll just let him explain himself. In a comment on The Spearhead, which naturally earned him multiple upvotes from the assembled mob, the man with the strangely punctuated name offered this take [LINK FIXED] on the killer:
Anders Breivik sees himself as a soldier who is fighting for a worthy cause. That cause being his country. Women and leftists then make him out to be “insane” and are looking for “who is to blame”. Well they might start looking in the mirror. The most pervasive element of western civilization today is its hatred of men and all things male. There is a particularly strong hatred of fathers and husbands. I know. I used to be a father and a husband. I have never experienced hatred in my life as vehement as by women in divorce.
And then the justifications began:
It is only natural and normal that some men decide to take matters into their own hands at all the hatred spewed at them and their marginalization. Men often see that some things are worth fighting for. Men often then take action to fight for what they believe in.
Anders Breivik is not crazy. He’s as rational as the next man. He sees that his country is being destroyed. He sees that the people responsible for that destruction are the left of politics. And he would be correct. He took action to stop what he believes is the destruction of his country.
Followed by a smug told-you-so:
I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children. Well? We just saw 76.
Of course, when Nolan refers to “telling women” that angry men will erupt in violence, what he means is “offering guys on The Spearhead specific tips on how exactly to kill innocent people.”
I’m not going to repost the vile suggestions he set forth in a now notorious Spearhead comment some months back, but I will note that they included handy tips on how to efficiently kill police officers, as well as specific advice on the best ways to take out large numbers of people in “malls … girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.” He ended the comment with a not-terribly-convincing attempt at plausible deniability:
Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things? I am not recommending them or even condining them. But if a man got into the frame of mind of Sodini and was actually SMART about it. There are PLENTY of ways he could attack women and manginas and their cop protectors with NO CHANCE AT ALL OF BEING CAUGHT as long as he kept his mouth shut.
Naturally, this comment got dozens of upvotes from the Spearhead regulars.
In a followup comment on The Spearhead last night, Nolan mocked another commenter for offering words of sympathy to the “innocent victims.” That last phrase seemed to send him into a fury:
Those who were killed were not “innocent victims” in the main. Anders Breivik is as sane as the next man. …
This was an act of war and he considers himself a soldier. In different times, as in WW II, he would be called a hero.
The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians. I would put forward the opinion that the political leaders are responsible for the war on men and the destruction of the families of men. What could be more “an eye for an eye” than to kill the children of those who were so willing to destroy mens families and destroy the homeland of men?
In killing children of those who are betraying men? He is sending a very clear message.
“You may think you are protected by your police and your security…..but we can find your children…and you can not protect them except by locking them into a secure area.”
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters; I won’t repeat it here.
Then back to the “innocent children” remark:
These “innocent victims” of whom you speak are the children of those who are criminals. And since Anders Breivik could not get to the REAL criminals he went after the children. Is that such a bad idea? Are they not legitimate targets if the primary targets can not be reached?
This also received multiple upvotes from The Spearhead crowd, and a much smaller number of downvotes. [UPDATE: The post has now started attracting downvotes, but the upvotes still outnumber them considerably.]
Yes, it is truly strange that anyone could possibly associate the MRM with violence in any way.
I am pretty sure that even in WW2, killing defenseless children was considered criminal.
Well, you can’t have a war without war crimes.
The MRA responses to this mass murder have been so disgusting I stopped reading the threads about it here. Supporting murder of children? Not cool. Not cool if the children’s parents were criminals. Not cool if the children themselves were criminals. In fact, gunning down a crowd of unarmed civilians is never cool. Right wingers and their support of terrorism is repulsive. Also, those who committed targeted mass murder of their enemies’ children during WW2 weren’t heroes, they were Nazis.
MRAs, still a lot like KKK (with less orginization!)
MRAs, still a lot like KKK (with less orginization!)
No snappy uniforms either.
It was a joke, you morans! Can’t you see his…uh. Sarcasm? Irony? Something?
Yup, nothing to see here. No endorsement of violence, nope, not ever. *No true Scotsman goes here* etc.
I really hope the police are keeping track of that Nolan guy, since he’s acting like a terrorist ringleader, laying out tips and plans for mass murder. They should be keeping tabs on him and whoever is reading his horrible advice.
darksidecat:
One small, but I think important point I think you missed in your statement: “Also, those who committed targeted mass murder of their enemies’ children during WW2 weren’t heroes, they were Nazis.”
The Nazis weren’t the only ones who murdered children during WWII, war and the lawlessness that *always* follows wars give bad people the space to do bad things.
And Peter wonders why his wife divorced him and keeps him away from his children. That is what is so awful about the mra, they have to know that there are men in the world that abuse their wives and/or children.
Wouldn’t a guy like Peter who obviously is a delusional narcissistic at best be someone who they might think “hmm could be two sides to this story…” but no, instead they offer sympathy.
Revolting is way too kind a word for his brand of garbage.
Somebody get a screencap of it fast.
I want to point to this every time an MRA gets butthurt about being lumped in with Christian terrorists.
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Heroshima… Sadly our hands aren’t clean either. The Allies didn’t specifically target them like Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) is recommending, but war crimes were involved on both sides. War is a very, very bad thing and we should make every effort to avoid it.
This is where their ideas of blood-libel stretches to all the people they don’t like. They can’t separate out idea from identity.
Yeah, seriously, screencap. Somebody will come along soon to try and scrub the web of it. I want it preserved.
Kave: There are only two sides to the story if the first side is one he doesn’t support, and the second is one he can twist to fit his own ideology.
David, the first two links go to the same post.
Killing children is a horrible, cowardly thing to do and the MRAs who try to defend the shooter are no better than he is. I’ve officially lost what little sympathy I had for the MRA.
I want it preserved.
Hopefully, like a bug. Killed, then pinned and sealed under glass.
http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd505/amagicallaura/nolan1.jpg
http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd505/amagicallaura/nolan2.jpg
http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd505/amagicallaura/nolan3.jpg
http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd505/amagicallaura/nolan4.jpg
http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd505/amagicallaura/nolan5.jpg
The first link is just taking me to his old comment about how to kill loads of people…if someone has the link for the 1st breivik comment I’ll cap it.
Thanks so much, Laura. Preshadit. 🙂
If Wacky Pete actually thinks the First Daughters don’t have Secret Service following them around 24/7, he’s even more out to lunch than I previously thought.
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters.
it wasn’t that veiled.
Because the rational response to your paranoid grievances is to go out and shoot a bunch of people who have no connection whatsoever to you.
This leapt out at me:
“The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians.”
The people he killed WERE his fellow Norwegians, Nolan, you utter waste of skin! And so are their parents!
Interesting. I was just reading on reddit that the MRAs are up in a tizzy because they think we’re “co-opting” the Norway Massacre “for feminism,” and that of course, the fact that *just a few* MRAs have written in support of him shouldn’t be used against the “movement” at all.
The MRAs have been calling for violence for some time. It just goes to show what an abhorrent, failed “movement” would identify with someone who terrorizes their families (Ball) or murders children (Breivik).
They feel “emasculated” by a state that no longer puts men’s rights first, by divorce and custody cases where you can’t always predict a winner, and by a culture that is becoming more and more progressive with time. And with progressive thought comes the advancement of human rights and discussions of privilege. How else do you react to rational thinking that goes against your privilege? With irrationality, of course.
It ain’t just the threat to privilege that pisses these guys off. I really believe it’s the concept of human rights itself.
There’s a yearning for a time when the only real law was manly force – as if that were pure and good.