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.
Must be a values dissonance…..
Marc: It scared my nemesis mwahaha one point for mras.
us: dude….people died you know
Are you emotionally dead marc? Can you not comprehend people DIED.
So.. Are you saying that Breivik was an MRA then?
I’m saying that one can’t deny that he shares some often-ridiculed views with the MRAs.
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.”
It wasn’t this blog, that claim would be crazy (as crazy as to claim that MRA-sites inspired him… he planned it the last nine years, how many MRA-sites were online back then?). It’s the general way of the political elite and their lackeys (aka you!) to treat their dissents, especially in Europe.
You know the definition of genocide? If genocide would equal mass murder, one would understand why it is seen as such a horrible crime, but the definition in the UN Rome Statute is surprisingly different:
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
So we have to ask ourself why the integrity of an ethnic or racial group is seen so important by the International Criminal Court.
China’s one-child policy applies to all Chinese citizens, which meet certain conditions (married, urban couples), nobody in the world sees that as so bad and certainly nobody thinks that this is genocide — yet, suddenly if the Chinese government would apply the one-child policy only to Uyghurs with the intent to make them disappear it would be!
We see, preventing births within a certain group is not something that makes our blood boiling (if the group is something like “married, urban couples”) but if the group is a racial or ethnic group everything changes.
So, though we won’t openly admit it, the majority of humans around the globe seem to agree, that the survival and integrity of an ethnic group is something very valuable. It might not have an objective, practical value, but it has a high idealistic value, like Michelangelo’s David or a better analogy, the survival of the rare animal species on the Galapagos Islands (it wouldn’t hurt the global ecosystem or have bad consequences for humans if they would become extinct).
Breivik sees his ethnic group, the Norwegians, threatened. Though nobody prepares a genocide against Norwegians, Breivik thinks that what happens in Norway has pretty much the same effects as genocidal actions as described in point (d).
For him feminism (e. g. women caring for their careers and staying child-free) caused the drop of the birth rate under the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman and liberalism allowed mass immigration. Whatever you think about that, he’s at least right in one point, if the conditions don’t change, Norwegians will disappear, it’s only a matter of time.
That’s what he wanted to fight for and why he sees the people who are responsible for these social changes as traitors to his people. He couldn’t take revenge on the ruling class, the politicians etc. so he took revenge, metaphorically speaking, on their children.
So, I understand that you might disagree with much of his thinking and of course we all agree that what he did was terrorism and violence against defenseless people, but wasn’t it at least a noble goal he had in his mind?
You’re one sick fuck.
ROISSY’S blog and twitter have been deleted from the net. How much do you wanna bet that he wrote something in favor of Breivik and the FEDS got to him?
FINALLY THERE IS JUSTICE IN THIS WORLD!
Roissy is finito.
Marc… There is a critical factor to your hypothetical: yet, suddenly if the Chinese government would apply the one-child policy only to Uyghurs with the intent to make them disappear it would be!
China’s one birth policy (which I find problematic, if not reprehensible) isn’t trying to make the Chinese disappear, hence it’s not genocide.
That’s the difference.
but wasn’t it at least a noble goal he had in his mind?
No.
Next.
Roissy moved.
He took revenge on their children because they were a soft target and because he wanted to strike a crippling blow against the political future of those he saw as enemies. He surrendered the moment armed force arrived and I doubt it had as much to do with his desire to spread his message as it did with his desire to preserve his own miserable, worthless life. As heavily armed as he was and with the advantage of surprise, distraction and disguise that allowed him to infiltrate the camp in the first place, he could have gone after the ruling class if he’d wanted to. But he would have likely only killed or injured a few of them before getting himself quickly killed by their security. While that might not have been any more “noble” than what he actually did, it would have taken a lot more fucking guts than dressing like a cop and calling kids out of hiding so he could execute them.
I look forward to this spineless piece of crap rotting in a concrete cell for the rest of his life, slowly becoming old and decrepit in his own personal tomb while the rest of the world passes by and forgets about him with the only champions he has are those even more cowardly and worthless than he is.
Worthy opponents don’t spend days trying to persuade people to agree with an idea the proponent doesn’t believe in either.
Nolan can enter all the judgements against me he likes. When he sends the police round to enforce them, I’ll worry.
I’d say terrorism is activism. On the other hand, almost no one in the MRA movement is willing to claim Breivik for their own, so it’s hard to use his terrorism as an example of MRA activism.
It’s not good activism, and the “lone wolf” model of the Turner Diaries is doomed to fail, because for terrorism to work (think the Irgun, or the PLO, or various,”Patriot” groups in the US Revolution) there has to be 1: An organisational goal, so that 2: a program can be carried out, be it to suppress opposition, or encourage like-minded action.
It’s the lack of organisation which prevents the uprising some MRAs fantasize about from having any hope. The odds that enough of them understand the principles of revolutionary action well enough to avoid ending up another Huttaree Militia is thankfully also slim.
marc, shockingly, you know not of what you speak. the idea of genocide was developed by a polish legal theorist named raphael lemkin. it was a specific reaction the massacre of armenians by the the ottoman empire, and the intent was to create a term for the deliberate extermination of one population by another. it doesn’t reflect an inherent value put on the survival of an ethnic group (seriously, try telling that to the members of disappearing indigenous groups that the world is ignoring) it reflects the idea that wiping out another ethnic population is a fucked up thing to do.
there’s been a lot of debate about whether or not “auto-genocide”- the idea of wiping out your own ethnic group, is even possible, but a culture that leads to negative population growth certainly doesn’t qualify.
Hitler would have considered Breivik’s goal a noble one.
Yeah, that’s right, I went there. Does anyone disagree?
“So, I understand that you might disagree with much of his thinking and of course we all agree that what he did was terrorism and violence against defenseless people, but wasn’t it at least a noble goal he had in his mind?”
Uh, let me think about that… NO! Jesus Christ, are you joking? In what way was it a noble goal?
No, Marc, it wasn’t a noble goal. Nothing about him or his manifesto is noble.
Is this another troll like your “let’s get rid of the men! anyone? come on, doesn’t anyone here agree with me” nonsense or do you actually believe it?
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?
Thanks for this question, I had nearly forgotten how powerful Lenin’s rhetorics are.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm
Look how in the first paragraph he first ridicules his opponents, the nationalists (but still manages to paint them as evil as possible), then he goes on and links them to a more powerful, hidden evil force, the scheming of capitalists and landowners.
I think you try something similar, just replace the nationalists with MRAs and capitalists & landowners with GOP.
Here one cannot tell where the venal eulogist of the butcher Nicholas Romanov or of the brutal oppressors of Negroes and Indians ends, and where the common philistine begins, who from sheer stupidity or spinelessness drifts with the streams, begins. Nor is that distinction important.
Brilliant, how he manages to paint them as despicable, yet still unworthy of serious analysis.
Is this another troll like your “let’s get rid of the men! anyone? come on, doesn’t anyone here agree with me” nonsense or do you actually believe it?
Then explain me point (d) of Article 6 of the UN Rome Statute. Why is it so much worse when you prevent an ethnic group to get children instead of a group like “urban, married couples”?
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”.
Intent, it’s not magic, but it does matter.
it doesn’t reflect an inherent value put on the survival of an ethnic group (seriously, try telling that to the members of disappearing indigenous groups that the world is ignoring)
Has the survival of a rare animal species an inherent value for you?
it reflects the idea that wiping out another ethnic population is a fucked up thing to do.
Ah, interesting, a very detailed, well-thought justification to make something punishable by imprisonment for life.
It’s just “fucked up”. I think drinking vanilla coke is fucked up, it should be prohibited under the pain of death.
And yeah, Marc’s just pretty much trolling here. Not my idea of a fun Thursday night, but then, I’m not a douchenozzle.
Then explain me point (d) of Article 6 of the UN Rome Statute
Gladly. 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.
in the context of “urban, married couples” you’re talking about, what? encouraging the use of contraception and responsible family planning? you get how those aren’t the same thing, right?
So we have to ask ourself why the integrity of an ethnic or racial group is seen so important by the International Criminal Court.
As I read that, it isn’t so much the integrity of a racial or ethnic group that is being focused on, but the application of FORCE.
Perhaps you missed that.
Of course Sharculese made my point before me, and much more eloquently.
I believe I am beginning to dislike Sharculese.
And yeah, Marc’s just pretty much trolling here. Not my idea of a fun Thursday night, but then, I’m not a douchenozzle.
Here, have a Nom Collins.
I think drinking vanilla coke is fucked up, it should be prohibited under the pain of death.
jesus mother of fuck. marc, if you’re seriously interested in clearing up the misconceptions you have about genocide, i’ll happily help you out, but if you just want to play your dumb equivocation games you can take a flying fuck off a rolling donut, because maybe other people have the patience to put up with it but i don’t.
Has the survival of a rare animal species an inherent value for you?
what the hell?
animals=ethnic groups for you?
Marc, you’re using the same rhetoric that Serb nationalists were using to justify ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. It’s no wonder why you defend Anders Breivik.
I think drinking vanilla coke is fucked up,
I am considering vanilla coke/rum as an early contender for the Official Harvey Braineater.