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.
And if david is to claim authority over my property he needs the queen to explain why she did not rebutt my affidavit and default judgement.
David is the judge, btw. He refuses to refer to the judge by anything but his first name.
@Marc:
“David once wrote that MRAs aren’t activists at all because they don’t do anything outside the Internet. Another poster here compared MRAs to a silly single angry little clansman, evil but ridiculous.
Now you have mocked enough, Anders Breivik, like Wayland the Smith, said to himself “I won’t be mocked again, revenge is mine!” and did his terrible deeds.”
So.. Are you saying that Breivik was an MRA then?
Now you have mocked enough, Anders Breivik, like Wayland the Smith, said to himself “I won’t be mocked again, revenge is mine!” and did his terrible deeds. This is the end result of all this cowardice and of going the easy way to just ban uncomfortable opinions from normal discourse and to surrender them to the extremists, to the Internet you can’t control. As always the cost for this have to pay innocent people.
Oh my god. You guys.
It wasn’t even feminism. It was MANBOOBZ that killed all those people. If only we hadn’t made fun of the MRAs! If only we hadn’t exposed them to critical thinking and opposing ideas! If only we hadn’t occasionally made jokes while doing so!
I, for one, am wracked with shame for my crimes.
“I warned you!”
Marc warned us! But we were too blind to heed his warning. OOOH THE HUMANITY!
You are afraid to acknowledge them as worthy enemies.
Because they aren’t.
That’s not fear. It’s contempt.
Also, Wayland the Smith’s act of revenge was for being hamstrung, imprisoned, and enslaved, and I don’t think that’s quite the same thing as “mean comments on the Internet, that weren’t about him, on a site he probably didn’t read.”
I just read P-A:N’s manifesto, and this guy is seriously unhinged. I’m glad he lives so far away, but I feel sorry for the Australians who have to put up with him.
Now you have mocked enough, Anders Breivik, like Wayland the Smith, said to himself “I won’t be mocked again, revenge is mine!”
revenge is not perpetrated on innocents. Terrorism, however, is.
“I warned you!”
I know, Snowy! That’s my favorite part.
I’m 99.99999% certain anders breivik never even heard of manboobz, let alone was whipped into such a fury that he decided writing a 15k pg manifesto and killing a bunch of kids was a good idea.
‘Why can’t you just say “These people are wrong and evil because reason 1, reason 2 and reason 3.” like a normal honest person?”
I can. It’s just sometimes I don’t want to and I really don’t care about the feelings of people who have such utter hatred and contempt for me because I have a vagina.
Also I do it for the lulz
@Marc- A good chunk of my day is spent thinking about procedural and structural aspects of anglo-american law. it’s kind of what i want to do for a living. so these guys with their nutty theories about how the common law is supposed to operate fascinate me.
and yeah, they’re also pretty fucking hilarious. dude could probably have saved himself a lot of hardship by just hiring a competent lawyer, but it was more important to him to stomp his feet and proclaim what a beautiful, special snowflake he is, and welp, what are you supposed to do except point and laugh.
Also I do it for the lulz
Yeah. It’s like the MRA trolls who stop by here ALL manage to miss the Mission Statement in the header: “Misogyny. I Mock it.”
and welp, what are you supposed to do except point and laugh
Be warned! Be very, very warned!
peter nolan is going to sue manboobz for a bajillions ounces of gold in the people’s court of australia
Marc, terrorism is not activism.
Somehow (to hide you own insecurities) you feel the strong need to paint your opponents even more worse than wrong and evil: they are also ridiculous
well, actually, they usually manage the “Ridiculous” part on their own. We just point and laugh. This is known as the ‘Sharculese’ reaction.
TROY ounces, Sharculese.
Oh crap! We’ve been warned!
Of course, now that I know the mockery really gets their knickers in a twist it just makes me want to do it all the more.
Marc, as an aside, which of Lenin’s writings are you specifically referring to? Would you point me to some passages that you consider emblematic of Leninesque writing that you claim you also find on Manboobz? Because see, here you are, warning us to weigh our words and handle nutjobs with kid gloves while you yourself throw words like “Lenin-like” around for effect without actually knowing what you are talking about.
And by the way: The way you and your ilk use terms “Lenin-like” and “Marxist” is pretty hilarious. Oops! I guess me saying that you are hilarious is tantamount to “banning” you from public discourse, right?
yeah, and VS is VICIOUS with the mockery, let me tell you.
MRAs, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
You are afraid to acknowledge them as worthy enemies.
Hell, I’m happy to say it: yinz are not worthy opponents. Look at this. You’ve already been reduced to violent threats. That’s not the action of a worthy opponent. That’s the action of a jerk who doesn’t have an argument.
Half the time, I laugh because MRA ideas are laughable. The other half, I laugh to keep from crying. I mean, it’s sad that this Nolan guy is taken seriously in some circles even though he’s a violent, delusional bigot living in an imaginary country he made up.* But what can you do but laugh?
*No, not Australia. Australia is an imaginary country made up by taxidermists.
Marc, as an aside, which of Lenin’s writings are you specifically referring to
Probably “Double Fantasy”.
@shaenon:
“Hell, I’m happy to say it: yinz are not worthy opponents. Look at this. You’ve already been reduced to violent threats. That’s not the action of a worthy opponent. That’s the action of a jerk who doesn’t have an argument.”
Indeed. Worthy opponents are not those who make threats (then later say “It’s just a joke”) from behind a computer screen, nor are they those who only seem to be able to attack the unarmed or the outnumbered in real life. There are no worthy opponents there, just cowards and backstabbers.
“Indeed. Worthy opponents are not those who make threats (then later say “It’s just a joke”) from behind a computer screen”
Nor are those who make threats, say “its just a joke” when called out on it, then cheer on the crazies who actually carry out those threats. Opportunists, jack-asses, words seem to fail to describe this particular brand.
Sadly and horrifically it wasn’t on either side (though the Nazis were worse and a lot more methodical about it).
If it was a criminal act for the ostensibly good guys, there would have been no Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or any other countless bombing raids that hit civilian targets.