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.
Petoria!
Yes, but I still draw the line at eating branes. zrm has no such impulse control.
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.
There’s a part in the Fog of War where MacNamara recounts Curtis LeMay, who was responsible for the bombing of japanese civilian centers, turning to him and saying something to the effect of “if we lose this war, we’ll both be tried as war criminals.”
wow… wtf
I hope that the ppl at the Spearhead are blasting away at him.. esp for not caring about the victims : Even the angriest MRAs I thought would at least go “this is horrible and disgusting! ” and be rly upset for the victims and their families 🙁 I hope they are.. : I just assumed they were… I assume everybody was except maybe like the KKK and the shooter’s organization :
*sighs* 🙁
Hey, Marc, since you’re so damn interested in the ‘both sides are bad’ point, then could you do us all a favor and point out where you’ve gone onto MRA blogs and told them that they really should cool all their hate? I mean, what’s worse – spewing forth hateful comment after hateful comment; or mocking hatefulness?
I keep coming back to this, but a lot of the victims were men and boys. Like… Ok. I can understand (in a twisted way) why MRAs may not care about men (obviously they were all manginas), but boys? Children who couldn’t have betrayed anyone?
Is it really true that the more victims of a massacre, the less you care about them? Where is the outrage over killing males when it was ostensibly women that drove Brievik over the edge?
Ah, but he was the perfect husband and father, before feminism took hold of his now-ex-wife…just ask him, he’ll tell you.
“As in my intro post, I used to be a family man. My dad raised me to be a good father and I was one of the best around. I have had quite a few men tell me they never met a better husband and father. I have had quite a few men tell me that they aspire to be ‘as good a husband and father as you’. So I have no concerns as to how well I fulfilled my vows and role as a husband and father. Yet women HATE on me anyway. Fine. Blah, blah, blah.”
Longer version of his oft-repeated intro available here
Marc, terrorism is not activism.
I’ve read books about terrorism and terrorists see themselves as activists, they are convinced that things will change because of what they are doing.
And about Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), the guy has a all the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He thinks to world should revolve around him and that he’s above the others. All MRAs have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
kirby, well, Ferdinand Bardamu made a big deal in his post of saying the victims were TEENS not children, which I guess in his mind makes it less bad. Nolan obviously doesn’t care about that; their parents are guilty in his mind so they are too.
@David:
Reminds me of the justification of the bible story where a prophet sends bears after some kids who mocked his beard.
Apologists will reframe it as a “gang of youths” rather than “a group of kids” to justify the violence. Yeesh.
I don’t care if terrorists think of themselves as activists. Terrorism is not activism. If people can march and gather in protest in countries where protesting is illegal and they can face everything from incarceration to death at the hands of their government, then those who want to create change can figure out a way to do so without killing innocent people and trying to hold a given population hostage to fear.
Why, yes, it is, he was banned (back when he was posting under the handle of “Globalman”) for committing the unforgivable atrocity of telling Welmer that he was acting like a woman.
ALSO: I moved a bunch of comments out of moderation, so scroll up to see if you missed anything.
I fixed the bad link to the first Nolan comment.
Also, when I went back to check Nolan’s “hero” comment, I noticed that it has started drawing some downvotes, though there are still many more upvotes than down. By contrast, comments by women and/or people who disagree with the spearheaders on the ultimate evil of feminism routinely get dozens of downvotes and no upvotes.
Marc, you’re off moderation for now.
Yes, but I still draw the line at eating branes. zrm has no such impulse control.
See what I said? vs hates zombies, and she has a half-zombie baby.
She probably will be nicer to MRAs.
I will take an army of zombies over one MRA any day of the week.
BTW, do we have a name for mangina zombies yet?
I think I coined Zomgina a while back, but that kind of sounds like a citrus beverage…..
I know after a long day slaving over a hot keyboard, mocking MRA’s, there’s nothing that cools and refreshes like a Zomgina™. It’s the citrus beverage that really eats your branes!
Sorry if it’s OT but Roissy’s blog have been deleted : http://roissy.wordpress.com/
I don’t know why.
Never fear, no more mr nice guy!
He just moved it.
Shambleginas?
there’s nothing that cools and refreshes like a Zomgina™. It’s the citrus beverage that really eats your branes!
Depends on how cheap the rum is.
Also, is heartiste supposed to be heart-iste or he-artiste? The latter almost makes sense.
Lurchtinis.
Lurchtinis.
Braintinis.
Brains on The Beach.
Fuzzy neocortex