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.
Thanks, ZRM, that really hit the
BRANES!!!!! BRANES!!!!!!
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.
Now we are there again. I think we all agree that the potential results must be bad, too. If I pinch my voodoo doll of you with a needle, I have bad intent, too, yet nothing bad happens and nobody cares.
Ok, the Chinese may have a good justification for what they doing. Like a man shooting someone in self-defense. Yet there’s no international committee looking every year if the conditions that justify this one child policy still exist. Nobody even cares about that a bit. Even if we would know that the Chinese have no reason to still enforce the one child policy, it would not be genocide.
Only if a special intent is there, preventing birth it’s genocide.
Also, totally agree about Sharculese. She’s way too brilliant and articulate. After the MRA Revolution, she’ll be back in her proper station in life, in the kitchen making me a sammich.
I have to return to this point.
marc is evidencing one of the disturbing things I consistently note in rightwing tropes and arguments; the inability to clearly understand the effects of FORCE and CONSENT.
It’s a very odd thing. It’s like arguing 3 dimensional chess with a fish. There’s just no common ground.
I believe I am beginning to dislike Sharculese.
🙁
*sigh* i just… i just want to talk about war crimes…
“*sigh* i just… i just want to talk about war crimes…”
Don’t we all, Sharculese, don’t we all.
So, Marc, what are you saying? And no, his intent was not noble in any way.
Ok, the Chinese may have a good justification for what they doing. Like a man shooting someone in self-defense. Yet there’s no international committee looking every year if the conditions that justify this one child policy still exist. Nobody even cares about that a bit. Even if we would know that the Chinese have no reason to still enforce the one child policy, it would not be genocide.
Okay, ignoring the fact that like i said, scholars disagree on whether a group can commit genocide against itself, and that it’s not even clear that ‘chinese’ counts as an ethnic group for the purposes of article 6, there are over a fucking billion of them. it’s gonna be a long long time before they get anywhere close to wiping themselves out.
drop it, marc. that dog won’t hunt.
So, Marc, what are you sayin
best I can tell, he’s saying shooting a few liberal kids ain’t so bad, if your intentions are noble.
Also, totally agree about Sharculese. She’s way too brilliant and articulate. After the MRA Revolution, she’ll be back in her proper station in life, in the kitchen making me a sammich.
I just wanna clear up that I’m actually a dude. Deviant art pictures of haley williams have just been my avatar theme for years and years now.
altho im not above letting some misogynist asshole think im a girl if it fucks with his head.
@Sharculese:
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.
This is are crimes defined in the Rome Statute in itself, regardless of the targeted group.
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?
“Encouraging”?
Getting more children than you’re allowed to will be punished. With a heavy fine or in some cases a prison sentence. State officials loose their jobs when they break the one child policy.
@Zombie:
what the hell?
animals=ethnic groups for you?
As always, an analogy can never be perfect. It’s just that in both cases that no objective, practical value would be lost if they would vanish (at least animal species like on the Galapagos Islands). Yet it’s totally ok, to support the survival of an animal species, but it’s not an acceptable goal to be, like Breivik, interested in the survival of an ethnic group.
In all seriousness, marc makes a good point. People should have to come up with long-winded and detailed manifestos on the subject of why genocide is bad. I mean, you’d think that it’s the sort of thing that we’d all just instinctively recognize is bad. Like, say, raping puppies. But in marc’s world THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. One must EXPLAIN why raping puppies is bad.
I do not want to be in marc’s world.
I know where you’re coming from, Sharculese. I’ve lost track of the number of times someone has asked me to fetch them their slippers.
As always, an analogy can never be perfect.
OK, but it can be relevant and not so offensive. And in skilled hands, analogies and similes can be damn near perfect.
Look, if an analogy requires backpedaling and explanation and apologies, then try to use normal fricking language to explain your ideas.
Analogy and satire and irony are more sophisticated techniques; master the basics before attempting.
And I was just going to see if you’d bring me the paper. Very well then, no biscuit for you.
@vs:
RAPING PUPPIES IS BAD?
Why don’t people TELL me these things?
@marc: the one child policy is not genocide. i’ve explained to you every way i know how why it’s not genocide. no credible theorist would call it genocide.
i disagree with the one child policy. people’s bodies are there own business. but it’s not genocide.
the rome statute is a revolutionary advance in law. it took years to draft, there’s tons of disagreement about it, the definition of one of the root offenses is still tba. the icc is still grappling with how to apply it. it is a difficult piece of text. you can’t interpret it by doing a cursory reading and declaring, ‘when i use a word it means just what i choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
marc is evidencing one of the disturbing things I consistently note in rightwing tropes and arguments; the inability to clearly understand the effects of FORCE and CONSENT.
The Chinese were just a real life example, to show that my ideas aren’t just theoretical. As alway you’re attacking just the examples and analogies, not the abstract idea behind it.
I surely understand force and consent.
I just don’t understand why when group A implements measures to prevent births in group B with the goal to wipe them out and it’s only genocide when group B is an ethnic or racial group this is not a proof that the survival of an ethnic group has a value in itself.
“Why don’t people TELL me these things?”
Even a zombie should know this!
Analogy and satire and irony are more sophisticated techniques; master the basics before attempting.
And what is the answer to my question?
I’ve lost track of the number of times someone has asked me to fetch them their slippers.
fetching slippers is below a dog as badass as the nobel basenji.
And what is the answer to my question?
42.
Perhaps you need to figure out the question first.
Absolutely, I ought to be asking them to fetch my slippers.
And ZRM wins the thread.
@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. Lenin’s audience here (socialist newsletter readers) at this point (1914) already saw those people as the enemy. He isn’t arguing for Marxism here, but rather against his socialist political opponents. Look at the names of the people he is discussing: Rubanovich, Plekhanov, Kropotkin, Burtsev. Those are not the names of capitalists, tsarists, or landowners. Rather, they are the names of extremely active leftists who were against Lenin (for example, Rubanovich was living in France because of his involvement with the assassination of a former tsar, that’s how much these people were not tsarists). What Lenin is doing here is slandering other leftists, accusing socialist expatriates, anarcho-socialists, anti-Leninist Marxists of being similar to the enemies (the tsarists, the capitialists, the landowners). As a number of the targets expatriates because the government hated and hunted them so much, Lenin is trying to invoke the notion of them as corrupted by foreign influences (Rubanovich, for example, was strongly involved in French politics), while also carefully engaging in some fast apologism due to Marx’s strong anti-nationalism and years as an expatriate. Also, as Burtsev spent years in prison under the Lenin administration, claiming that Lenin was not really serious about his criticisms also falls flat.