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.
@Marc, love him or hate him, Leninism is a pretty developed theory and you are totally missing the point of that speech and that quote. First of all, the target in this speech is not actually the tsarists, capitalists, and landowners.
Didn’t claim anything else.
I also didn’t claim that he was arguing for Marxism in the whole speech. But I think he does attack capitalists and landowners in the first paragraph, probably to state the common goal and he also targets (extreme) nationalism worldwide I should have written extreme nationalism instead of nationalism.
Look at the names of the people he is discussing: Rubanovich, Plekhanov, Kropotkin, Burtsev. Those are not the names of capitalists, tsarists, or landowners.
Of course, they aren’t and I would never claim such a thing, I wrote “nationalist” at least for Menshikov you can’t deny that, he was an extreme nationalist later… that’s the reason he calls him “chauvinist by conviction”.
“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.”
He makes it sound like killing innocent women and children is justified because of (perceived) “hatred of men.” Gee, I wonder if killing men and children would be justified in places where girls and women are treated as sub-human (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Wouldn’t that make him a misandrist for saying that men have no control over themselves, whereas women are able to stop themselves from mass murder, despite being treated worse than shit?
“If useful and necessary change doesn’t come peacefully,
Odd how others don’t get to collaborate on what constitutes “useful and necessary” change.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!*
*Note: May not be available in all areas. Terms subject to change without notice. Brown people and women excluded from applying.
If Breivik really cared so much about the Norwegian birth rate falling, then why did he kill Norwegian children? Seems rather counter-productive to me.
Because he hopes that his acts have a much stronger effect on the birthrate than 70 people.
And what is the answer to my question?
42.
Perhaps you need to figure out the question first.
The question is this:
No objective, practical value would be lost if an ethnic group would vanish exactly like an animal species (at least animal species like on the Galapagos Islands which extinction has no bad effect global ecosystem). Yet it’s totally ok, to support the survival of an animal species and implement measures to protect this species, but it’s not an acceptable goal to be, like Breivik, interested in the survival of an ethnic group. Why is that the case?
Because he hopes that his acts have a much stronger effect on the birthrate than 70 people.
So his thought process is:
* Kill Norwegian Children
* ???
* Birth rate of Norwegians goes up!
That’s even more cockeyed than the Underpants Gnome scheme from South Park.
How, exactly, is mass murder supposed to make Norwegian women have more babies so that they can outbreed the Scary Muslim Immigrants?
Because he killed people. is this really that hard for you? he’s a mass murderer. he shot kids. seriously, i know you’re whole deal is bloviating pseudo-intellectual word games that you pretend get a deep philosophical problems, but what is so hard for you to get about the idea that it is wrong to murder people?
marc, have you ever considered the possibility that someone else here has taken a freshman philosophy class, too, and isn’t for a second charmed by ‘what if we’re all just an atom in a giant’s fingernail’ style baseless speculation?
shorter marc: bonghitz 4 anders breivik
Also, I love how these people all, consistently, over and over again, miss the fact that immigration has been happening for millenia. How many immigration waves has the US had? Italians, Russians, Irish, German, at least. And every single goddamn time there are people shouting about how this new, alien culture will ruin us all.
But the Roman Empire for example was brought down by mass immigration.
@Pecunium
“Because of the intent. Each couple may have only one child one child, “Because we as a people are too numerous to be sustained on our resources” is different from, “You may only have one child because we wish to wipe you out”.
How did you reach the conclusion they were too numerous? Were you taught that in school? Is there less poverty there today then 40 years ago? China is now reaping what they’ve sown with a rate of 6 men to 5 women. A recent article ran about how china’s women are demanding a man be financially stable with a house before considering him a viable mate. China’s men are now inflicting self imposed poverty upon themselves to save money for a house to attract a woman. China has ensured rebellion and sealed it’s own fate as this 1 person per couple policy continues.
————————————————–
@Sharculese
“Campaigns of genocide usually include things like forced sterilization of women, or strategic rape, which is intended to either force the dna of the attacking group into the victim population or at least traumatize women to the point where they no longer want to have sex.”
Abortion is genocide as well. 60 million dead in the U.S. over the last 40 years is a sizable chunk of the population. Feminism, which has been largely a white disease until the past decade or two has brought white population down to around 10% from about 1/3 of world population in a hundred or so years.
Reguardless of how it’s accomplished; mass murder, war, State policy or feminism, it’s still genocide. Besides, without white male privilege to blame for all the worlds ills, who will feminists blame?
————————————————–
@Holly Pervocracy
“Admittedly their case might have been unusually drama-free, but it’s really not normal (and not totally unsuspicious) for a father to be denied all contact for no reason.”
And it’s not totally uncommon either, even limited visitation means exactly that, a limit. If either of these outcomes happen 20% of the time you know have a whole lot of men being treated like ATM fathers.
—————————————————
@Shora
“FEMINISTS DON’T THINK CUTTING DICKS OFF IS FUNNY SO CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON NOW KTHX”
It sure sounded like resounding laughter coming from the five feminist hosts and an audience of women on the MSM. A pretty good representation of every race and political affiliation of women. Just because you write in Caps feminists didn’t think it was funny doesn’t make the evidence of joyous laughter go away.
—————————————————-
@Bee
“There was a guy in the last county I lived in who filed a bunch of Sovereign Citizen docs with the recorder’s office. I lost several hours on that job each time a search brought up one of his documents. It was like a tiny peek into a different universe.”
The universe you speak of is what every person in this country was up until 1913, a Sovereign Citizen. Your rights under the constitution are; The right to life, liberty/autonomy and property. Thats it. You no longer have these rights. Your property is taxed, you’re a tenant. Your children can be taken away by the State. Abortion usurps the right to life. That State can grant or take away anything, you are no longer free.
Because he killed people. is this really that hard for you? he’s a mass murderer. he shot kids. seriously,
yes, that’s not excusable, never said anything else!
i know you’re whole deal is bloviating pseudo-intellectual word games that you pretend get a deep philosophical problems, but what is so hard for you to get about the idea that it is wrong to murder people?
So his goals are not bad, just his measures? Then we can finally agree.
marc, have you ever considered the possibility that someone else here has taken a freshman philosophy class, too, and isn’t for a second charmed by ‘what if we’re all just an atom in a giant’s fingernail’ style baseless speculation?
oh, this freshman thing I hear that so often, you’re getting repetitive.
Marc, Norwegians are not an ethnic group and Roman Empire was brought down by invasion, not mass immigration.
I’m sure “The Turner Diaries” is your favorite book.
@Marc:
“Yet it’s totally ok, to support the survival of an animal species and implement measures to protect this species, but it’s not an acceptable goal to be, like Breivik, interested in the survival of an ethnic group. Why is that the case?”
What. The. Fuck?
No seriously. What the fuck?
Are white people an endangered species now?
“No objective, practical value would be lost if an ethnic group would vanish exactly like an animal species (at least animal species like on the Galapagos Islands which extinction has no bad effect global ecosystem).”
Here is where you are very very wrong, with your definition of objective. What does ‘objective’ mean in this case? Is it where something has universal meaning, independent of life? Well guess what. The universe doesn’t give a crap about us. It can’t. It isn’t conscious. We are. The only things that could create, attribute, and appreciate meaning is conscious beings.
Therefore, objectively, cultures have value because they have value to us as conscious beings. If “an ethnic group” were to vanish, that would be a loss of value.
(philosophical rambling to try to ignore the fact that you basically said we should be worried about white people dying off, so the murder of a large group of such people is justified.)
but it’s not an acceptable goal to be, like Breivik, interested in the survival of an ethnic group. Why is that the case?
Because Breivik’s obsession was NOT EVEN CLOSE TO AN EXTINCTION LEVEL.
White Norwegians are not even in the remotest danger of being eradicate, and so what if they were?
Humans are a single species. different strains of those species may change over time, mixing the colors (to steal a song title from Iggy) ad it is still the same species. PJ O’Rourke said something along the lines of “there is less genetic difference between the riches WASP on wall Street and a tribesman in Uganda than there is between a collie and a shepherd. And I discovered this in the most direct fashion possible: by sleeping around all over the world.”
The difference between white Norwegians and Middle Eastern Muslims is totally fabricated by people who decided that it s the best way to preserve their privilege. Ethnic groups are not the same as a species.
There. Now I feel dirty having to explain exactly why your racist imaginary dilemmas are revolting and need a shower. so I am off to the dog-rape thread so I can feel clean again.
@Marc:
“yes, that’s not excusable, never said anything else!”
“but it’s not an acceptable goal to be, like Breivik, interested in the survival of an ethnic group”
“Because he hopes that his acts have a much stronger effect on the birthrate than 70 people.”
You know, you keep saying you aren’t excusing him of anything. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
@marc: i dont think ive ever called you a freshman philosophy major before, but if you seriously get that frequently, have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, theres some truth to the claim? that your arguments are the same sort of stale ‘how can we know anything ever’ horseshit that people who are encountering thinking for the first time come up with? and that this might be a bad thing?
oh, this freshman thing I hear that so often,
That bright light? It’s the clue train, coming your way!
Oh damn you sharculese, this is getting TIRESOME.
Breivik is no different than any other bonehead chasing after some fantasy idea of racial or cultural purity. It’s more about their own failings than it is about the “others” they think are coming to pollute their purity. At the end of the day, they just want someone below them to kick, people they can abuse, violate and kill with impunity.
@Zombie:
“… so I am off to the dog-rape thread so I can feel clean again.”
Why… does such a thing exist?
But yeah, in terms of race, its almost entirely a product of mostly stationary tribes of humans over a long period of time adapting slightly to the local climate. Now that people can move over the world, I expect the difference in races to decrease dramatically (already has).
“Oh damn you sharculese, this is getting TIRESOME.”
ZRM, obviously you’re just gonna need to step up your shambling to a rapid lurching. Otherwise Sharculese is going to continue to ninja you.
Oh damn you sharculese, this is getting TIRESOME.
lmao.
but srsly, marc, if the shoe fits… equivocate about how its really a slipper or something, i guess.
MGHOW = Marc Going His Own Way.
Well, a girl can dream…
STOP. No, seriously, stop right now.
Your analogy would only work if white people – who are not endangered, by any means – were dying out. They are not. There’s plenty of white people around. Sure, we all have different views and such, but we’re still here and white. White people are not disappearing due to environmental causes (though it’s debatable that climate change will effect us – everyone, actually, humanity – adversely). In fact, many Breivik’s philosophies have existed in some form or another for many decades. Comparing his ideas – the ideas and beliefs of a privileged group – as if they are an “ethnic group” is insulting. If by “protecting” these ideas, you mean protecting the old, antiquated ideas that women and brown people are not, in fact, people but chattel, those ideas should really die a horrible fiery death. Perhaps a few ideas could be saved and displayed behind a glass plaque or something for future generations to ponder on these barbaric times.
And even with your atrocious analogy, remember evolution? If “ethnic groups” die out, it’s because they didn’t have the adaptations to survive and not because someone decided to kill them all.