Anyone who has spent much time at all on MRA message boards knows that they tend to be littered with vague and ominous “predictions” of an inevitable violent backlash of men driven to fury by our supposed feminist overlords; some of these predictions are delivered with such obvious relish that they seem little more than justifications in advance for future murderous rampages on the part of people not too far distant in their ideology from Anders Breivik.
Of course, most of those making such predictions-cum-threats don’t want to actually face any culpability when their bullshit gets real. Fear not, MRA prognosticators, for one prominent British MRA has come up with what he sees as a brilliant way for MRAs to avoid getting implicated in future terrorists attacks. According to longtime MRA blogger Angry Harry we shouldn’t blame violence on the beliefs of right-wing terrorists – we should instead blame it on the people they’re mad at.
Angry Harry uses this bit of sophistry to explain away any culpability the right seems to have in the Norway massacre:
The recent massacre by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway is being portrayed by the left-wing media (such as the BBC) as being motivated by extreme right-wing groups – the idea, as ever, being to demonise and, hence, to intimidate, as much as possible, anybody who does not support their malicious self-serving agenda.
But if you look more closely at the evidence, it is quite clear that, if anything, it was the various machinations and rhetoric engaged in by the deceitful LEFT that infuriated this man. …
Quite simply, it is the Left, not the Right, who are the more to blame for this incident.
Ingenious. Of course, this logic only really works if you agree with the extremist ideology of the terrorist or murderer in question. Let’s apply Angry Harry’s approach to a historical example that also involved extremism and murder on a large scale:
Hitler hated Jews. Hitler killed Jews. Therefore, according to Angry Harry’s logic, we should blame the Jews for getting him so mad in the first place.
Is that unfair? Given that Breivik is a mass murderer with many ideas strikingly similar to those of Hitler, I think not. The logic is the same, whatever the body count.
Apparently Harry thinks his bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand will absolve MRAs when, not if, the violence comes:
MRAs need to get to grips with this type of situation because it won’t be long before they are being blamed for something or other – perhaps a family court judge being murdered.
Why might this be a particularly sensitive issue for Harry? Perhaps because in another posting of his, he offered a justification for doing just that — murdering family court justices and those involved in enforcing their decisions.
In a post with the blunt title “Why Violence Is Often Justified,” Harry put it this way:
[A]nybody who takes away a man’s children and/or his home deserves little sympathy if they suffer significant retribution.
I suppose that for some men, arguing their case in court is a reasonable option, but for many men – particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom – such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.
To put it bluntly: If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.
In his recent posting on Breivik, Harry offered an obligatory comment suggesting that, if course, he wasn’t actually justifying the Norwegian’s actions – oh, no! – even though the logic of his argument seems designed to do just that. Then he went on to make some predictions about what the future holds for his leftist and feminist enemies:
I think that it is fairly obvious to my most excellent readers that the war against the Left is hotting up. …
In fact, what I can never seem to understand is why it is taking so long for people – particularly for men – to rise up against the Left, given its appalling attitude and behaviour over the past two decades.
In combination with the feminists, the leftists have done their very best – with much success over here in Europe – to break up our countries, our cultures and our families, while at the same time heaping hatred upon hatred on to their very own people!
I just cannot understand how they have gotten away with this for so long.
You cannot go round continuing to display rigid intolerance and horrendous injustice against millions of men in your very own country and not expect some kind of violent backlash from them.
And matters are definitely going to get much worse.
He ends with a weasel-worded half-endorsement of this “violent backlash.”
The war against the Left will just continue escalating and, at some stage, with any luck, the leftists and the feminists will be defeated without too much carnage.
Well, that’s reassuring. Harry doesn’t want there to be “too much carnage.”
Which naturally leads to the question: just what does Harry regard as the right amount of carnage?
I hope we never have to find out.
I’m going to get first dibs and say that Glenn Sacks repudiated Angry Harry as a person he didn’t wish to associate with, and if I recall correctly this was around 2 years ago.
That being said , in some circumstances obviously violence is justified. Self defense, extreme injustice and all legal options exhausted, yes. Clearly this Norway Nut doesn’t fall under such circumstance.
I do think Harry is right in that I think the next 20 years holds lots more violence from political parts of both the left and the right and from Muslim and Christian. I’m sorry to say that, but I think societies all over the west are splintering.
The word carnage alone tells you the degree of violence he envisions. I sometimes use carnage to describe things in video games or movies. This guy’s talking about real life! (seeing him approaching and crossing the street)
This seems to leave a lot of leeway.
If history is any indication, we’ll definitely be seeing more from the Right.
extreme injustice and all legal options exhausted,
you do realize that Death Wish is just a movie?
“you do realize that Death Wish is just a movie?”
IT IS?!
Awww, now I have shave this awesome brostache I was growing and put away my Nerf gun. Thanks for crushing my dreams, zombie.
It’s like saying you are not a hipster when you are! These MRAs live in the most vile mental environment ever!
Lets see how this reads if we tweak the central argument a bit, perhaps we could add two letters and see how it comes across:
You cannot go round continuing to display rigid intolerance and horrendous injustice against millions of women in your very own country and not expect some kind of violent backlash from them.
I suspect Angry Harry would no longer agree with it.
They never apply their reasoning to anyone else. I happen to have had a feminist lesbian professor who actually did have her children taken from her on the grounds that she was a lesbian, a feminist, and associated with black people and Jews. So does she get to go around killing heteros, racists, and anti-feminists at her whim?
“Why’d you make me hit you?” is a rationale that’s been used for ages.
Pecunium – Unfortunately, I suspect he’d only disagree with the first half, because MRAs have selective blindness in the case of any discrimination against women.
Although, I suppose you could follow that up with “Then do you think it’s possible for someone to mistakenly believe they’re the victim of injustice? Do you think violence is appropriate to combat perceived injustice if you might be wrong?” Wouldn’t get through, but, y’know, worth a try.
Personally, I just wish MRAs would give this a fucking rest. If they have any intention of sounding like a benign social justice movement, they really need to say “Breivik? Horrible, and not one of ours.”
Instead, they’ve got way too much “Horrible, not one of ours, and had some interesting ideas didn’t he.” Ugh.
And the irony is I don’t think he was even that big of a sexist compared to his racism. I’m sure the racism was a much bigger motivating factor. He probably wasn’t one of theirs, but apparently a mass murderer is someone they’re willing to be inclusive in welcoming.
These guys need to get together with the rapture people. They’ll have something to actually work towards And there’s a greater chance the will actually get secluded away from the rest of society in a compound somewhere. I mean, they both think the end is nigh for *someone*.
Shorter Angry Harry, men are neanderthals!
MRAs: “I’m not a misogynist, it’s just that women are terrible!”
Angry Harry: “Violence is wrong, except when the victim deserves it.”
or
“Violence is wrong against people; but women aren’t really people.”
There’s also a major target problem here. If you feel oppressed by feminists so you attack random women, or you feel oppressed by lawmakers so you attack a summer camp, you lose what tiny thread of justifiability you could claim.
There’s no form of oppression that justifies violence against just anybody.
I wonder how many future trolls will not notice the “just” xD
for many men – particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom – such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.
“I am stupid therefore I should be able to kill another person. Who may also be a father (if male) thereby depriving that person’s children of their father-permanently. But since I am stupid, that makes it okay.”
Newsflash Angry Harry-killing someone is never allowed simply because you are stupid.
@darksidecat
“I happen to have had a feminist lesbian professor who actually did have her children taken from her on the grounds that she was a lesbian, a feminist, and associated with black people and Jews.”
I’ve heard some whopping fish stories in my day but they all pale in comparison to this.
——————————————
@Holly Pervocracy
“And the irony is I don’t think he was even that big of a sexist compared to his racism.”
According to leftist ideology by being born both white and male I’m automatically privileged, therefore, any poor treatment I recieve is justifiable. If I inflict that same treatment on anyone who isn’t a white man I’m a mysogyinist /racist oppressor and they are a victim.
——————————————-
@Victoria von Syrus
MRAs: “I’m not a misogynist, it’s just that women are terrible!”
Women can never be terrible or wrong, anyone who disagrees is a misogynist.
———————————————
@pervocracy
“There’s no form of oppression that justifies violence against just anybody.”
Except when enshrined in law by leftists.
———————————————-
@Andrea Vaughn
“Why’d you make me hit you?” is a rationale that’s been used for ages.
“Why’d you make me have the authorities incarcerate you?” is a rationale that’s been used for ages.
———————————————–
@Bedelia Bloodyknuckle
“These MRAs live in the most vile mental environment ever!”
All men are thrust into a vile world that hates them.
-sighs at NWO’s post-
Baiting trolls is no fun when they don’t even exist in the same plane of reality as you. Do you guys have any better ones? xD
So, NWO, do you think Breivik was justified? Do you support his actions?
Baiting trolls is no fun when they don’t even exist in the same plane of reality as you. Do you guys have any better ones?
Sadly, no!
Ooops. Wrong blog.
Dear Angry Harry,
Not scared. Bring it, motherfucker.
Signed,
Fuck MRAs
@Johnny Pez;
Damn you, quit winning the internets.
Really, NWO, it’s just getting tiresome at this point.
I have to find out where NWO lives, if only to get into his awesome LSD stash.
@darksidecat, that is horrible. Did she ever get her children back? When/where did that happen? I want to know so I can never, ever, ever go there.
There was a case in, I think, Winnipeg not long ago where two children were removed from their mother’s care because she was a neo-Nazi. I believe she got them back after meeting some conditions, including “not drawing swastikas on your kid before sending them to school”.
Not that I’m saying it’s the same thing, but that removing kids based on a parent’s ideology rather than their parenting is not a good idea.