Category: terrorism

Categories
alpha males antifeminism beta males creepy evil women false accusations men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape rapey reactionary bullshit sex sexual harassment sluts terrorism the spearhead woman's suffrage

Spearheaders on the SlutWalks. Again. It’s bad.

From the Dallas SlutWalk

Oh dear. The Spearheaders are talking about the Slutwalks again. The discussion may be the worst on the subject that I have run across so far. Some of the lowlights:

Keyster seems downright pissed that women actually have the right to say no:

They’re high functioning children with sexual power and they don’t want you to forget it. They’re outraged that just because a young woman dresses and acts in a sexually provocative manner, that she might receive unwanted attention from young men that don’t appeal to her.

She should be able to dress like a street whore and abuse alcohol to the point of delerium and they feel compelled to lecture us on how that doesn’t mean this is an advertisment to be sexually harrassed, sexually assaulted or heaven forbid raped. …

They want the “RIGHT” to dress as sexually provocative as they want to without being constantly annoyed by lowly beta males. They’d prefer you not “sexually victimize” them, unless you’re hot and they’re into you, then it’s totally OK. …

Remember this: She didn’t bother to get dressed up for the likes of YOU. Her hope was a worthy athelete or Hollywood star might notice her and talk to her; not some weak, pathetic loser …

 “We’ve got the sexual power, the power of consent, the gate keeper of the holy vaginal crevice. See our bouncing propped up cleavage, our long legs and glorious ass protruding from those heels? You want it don’t you?

    ….ha, ha, ha…you can’t have it because I SAY SO! Because I have THIS power over you, lowly little man. Bow down to me and beg me a little, I might even let the others see me talking to you, without calling the cops.” …

    This isn’t feminism, it’s flaunting female sexual power in the faces of men.

You’re seriously complaining that woman have the “power of consent!?” EVERYONE has the power of consent. No one male or female is obliged to have sex with anyone they don’t want to. That’s, you know, rape. It bothers you that women are the “the gate keeper[s] of the holy vaginal crevice?” Who the fuck else should be the gatekeeper of a person’s vagina other than the person whose vagina it is? The mind reels. But apparently the 50+ upvoters of this piece of abhorrent nonsense aren’t bothered by any of this.

Demirogue, meanwhile, suggests we need to better discipline our women:

While perusing FB last week I came across the newest deviation of this mentality which is going topless. …  And they want to cry about rape? They need to cry but only because people said enough is enough and started to belt them on their asses.

Women need to be controlled and on a very, very short leash. They’ve been given every right, every option, every opportunity to be something and what do they do with it? Abuse and manipulate it with reckless abandonment and incessant demands.

Geography Bee Finalist himself thinks the slutwalkers must be retarded:

I wouldn’t worry too much about these Slutwalk sows.

They have no redeeming features. None.

They cannot figure out that if you dress like a whore, you deserve to be treated in a disrespectful manner. Even conservatively dressed mentally retarded women can figure this out and conduct themselves with more propriety and intelligence than these Slutwalkers … .

Knuckledragger blames it on those damned suffragettes:

…we let ‘em drive, we let ‘em vote, and this is what we get.

Ridiculous to even offer attention to another excuse to dress like a whore, goof off in public, and not bring me a beer.

Any man worth his salt should fire any skank who was “sick” from work to attend this nonsense.

SingleDad seems to think that all accusations of rape are made up:

Rape is now the extra tax women charge men if some how their unsatisfied with whatever arrangement was made before or after any encounter in or outside of marriage.

Other lowlights:

Poiuyt agreeing with Anders Breivik’s  “observations surrounding this femaleist pandemic,” while adding  that he  “is to be rebuked for taking the wrong cureative actions to solve it.”

Demirogue (in a second comment) complaining that “overvalued pussy is all [women today] have to offer and only to certain men.”

Anonymous age 69 explaining that “rape laws were intended to protect women of good character, from being sexually violated,” not “to protect promiscuous sluts .”

And more, much, much more. Many of the worst (including most of those quoted here) have many dozens of upvotes.  Go read the thread yourself, if you think you can stomach it.

There are no arguments to rebut here; I can only repeat the basic message that the slutwalks are trying to convey: no one deserves to be raped, no matter what they are wearing or how much consensual sex they engage in. Even if they show some cleavage or prefer athletes and/or rocks stars to so-called beta males.

Categories
antifeminism armageddon homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA terrorism threats

More violent talk, more excuses for terrorism, this time from the inaptly named Happy Bachelors Forum

Try pointing the finger at yourself, for once.

On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:

 This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …

If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.

You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.

It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.

Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:

[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.

Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.

Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.

And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:

Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.

Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.

Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?

I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.

Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.

khankrumthebulgar gives his real name

khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).

spocksdisciple comment

khankrumthebulgar’s “burn the building” comment

Categories
anti-Semitism antifeminism armageddon misogyny MRA oppressed men terrorism threats violence against men/women

Angry Harry: Violence is justified, but don’t blame us for it.

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.

Categories
links masculinity oppressed men patriarchy racism terrorism victimhood

Links: Michael Kimmel and Amanda Marcotte on masculinity, misogyny and Anders Breivik

The world doesn't need any more macho Nazis

A couple excellent pieces on Anders Breivik and misogyny.

First: The other day I posted a link to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Breivik and the sexual politics of far-right thought. It turned out that the article was a draft that got published prematurely.

Now the final version of the post is officially up at Sociological Images:  A tale of two terrorists redux. Kimmel argues that what we know about Breivik thus far

indicate[s] that … it will be impossible to fully understand this horrific act without understanding how gender operates as a rhetorical and political device for domestic terrorists.

These members of the far right consider themselves Christian Crusaders for Aryan Manhood, vowing its rescue from a feminizing welfare state. Theirs is the militarized manhood of the heroic John Rambo – a manhood that celebrates their God-sanctioned right to band together in armed militias if anyone, or any governmental agency, tries to take it away from them. If the state and capital emasculate them, and if the masculinity of the “others” is problematic, then only “real” white men can rescue the American Eden or the bucolic Norwegian countryside from a feminized, multicultural, androgynous immigrant-inspired melting pot.

Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon offers some thoughts on Misogyny and Terrorism:

[T]here’s definitely a strong link between misogyny and violence that can’t be denied.  Misogynists are far likelier to be violent people than non-misogynists, which is why rape and wife-beating are such common crimes.  (Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury for women 15-44.)  All bigotry provokes violence at its ends, of course.  This isn’t the Oppression Olympics.  But misogyny and violence go hand in hand so often because misogynists really buy deeply into the idea that women are weak and men are “strong”, by which they mean aggressive.  A steady drumbeat of misogynist thought couldn’t be better designed to reach the unhinged and cause them to lash out violently, all while imagining themselves to be big, tough men who claim they were forced—with “why did you make me do this?” being the battle cry of wife beaters—into violence.

Discuss.

Categories
gloating manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men terrorism the spearhead threats

MRA Peter Nolan on Anders Breivik: “In different times … he would be called a hero.”

The work of a "hero?"

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.

Categories
links masculinity misogyny MRA reddit self-promotion terrorism

Guest post for Shakesville

Just a note: I’ve got a guest post up on Shakesville today. It’s basically a condensed and polished version of my recent Breivik posts. (If you decide to comment there, be aware that their comments are much more heavily moderated than the comments here.)

And while I’m doing the link thing, here’s an excellent piece about Breivik’s misogyny:  Michelle Goldberg’s Norway Killer’s Hatred of Women on TheDailyBeast. And here is a not-terribly-excellent discussion of the piece on the Men’s Rights subreddit.

NOTE: This post originally linked to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Sociological Images. That piece, it turns out, hasn’t been officially published there yet, so I removed the dead link and a link to a cached version in the comments here. I’ll post the official link when the piece goes up.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women idiocy misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit terrorism

Do feminists hate mass murderer Anders Breivik … because he’s a white guy?

Another beleaguered white dude.

So here’s the strangest response I’ve seen so far to the massacre in Norway. On Sofiastry, an antifeminist blog that seems to be broadly sympathetic to the “alt” (that is, the “intellectually” racist) right, blogger Sofia complains that feminist bloggers – she cites me and Hugo Schwyzer – are talking about the blatant anti-feminism and misogyny of mass murderer Anders Breivik.  “The mendacious corollary they are trying to construct,” she writes, falling into the purple prose Alt-Righters seem drawn to like flies on bullshit, “is that all those opposed to feminist principles must be in league with all sorts of unsavory radicals.”

As I’ve already noted, this is not actually true;  Sofia is being, well, mendacious. Yes, I pointed out the similarities between Breivik’s noxious misogynistic beliefs and, well, the noxious misogynistic beliefs of an embarrassingly large number of antifeminists and MRAs. But at no point did I (or, for that matter, Hugo) suggest that these people supported his despicable actions.

After purporting to be shocked – shocked! – that anyone would connect Breivik with the antifeminists of the world, Sofia offers an appreciation of sorts for Breivik’s awful manifesto. Waxing pompous yet again, she writes:

[A]lthough his actions were cruel beyond belief, and committed by a delusional, psychopath driven by his delusions of political grandeur, there is lucidity and sense in much of what he writes. He never seemed to explicitly advocated for a genocide of Muslims within Europe, but superficially claimed that he just wanted to sustain European culture.

So, let’s weigh Breivik’s  pros and cons here. CON: He murdered 76 people in cold blood, motivated by a hateful ideology. PRO: He didn’t explicitly call for actual genocide?

Here’s where it gets weird. Really weird.

I feel that Breivik is being tried for more than his cruelty within the feminist community. The fact that he belongs to the privileged group of the white male makes him hate-worthy along with every other privileged white male who might sympathize with his ideology, even if they don’t happen to be psychotic. Breivik exemplifies White Men, even though Osama Bin Laden to the very same liberal ideologues did not represent Every Muslim.

It’s another symptom of our culture that feels it is OK to hold white men to higher standards of political correctness, self-flagellation and martyrdom whilst simultaneously relentlessly berating and mocking them on a cultural level.

Yep, that’s right. We hate Breivik … because he’s a white dude.

She continues on in this vein:

The subtle manifestations of an anti-white male agenda could be expounded upon for some time, even in the sexual sphere. In porn, the genre of cuckolding usually involves black men fucking white women to the dismay of her white husband. Something tells me this wouldn’t be acceptable if a black man were to stand helplessly by while a white male was sexually coercive with a black female.

Somehow we started off talking about mass murder and ended up talking about … cuckolding porn?

What. The. Fuck?

Categories
antifeminism crackpottery douchebaggery misogyny MRA oppressed men racism reactionary bullshit reddit terrorism

Manosphere blogs: Hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas!

The "thoughtful" Breivik in custody

Earlier today I wrote about some Men’s Rights Redditors who endorsed the views of Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik – without knowing that the views they were endorsing were his. But others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik’s manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.

On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik’s “lucidity,” and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal  society:

[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers.  …

He’s not being sarcastic here. He continues:

That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren’t going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they’re all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …

Here’s an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.

(Bolded text in original.) That final reference to “ethnic self-hatred” seems to be Bardamu’s euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.

Then he adds this repulsive final thought on Breivik’s victims:

[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.

Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik’s manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.

Chuck complains that Hugo Schwyzer and I are “try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs” in our recent posts showing the similarities between Breivik’s ideas and those of many MRAs. Never mind that neither Hugo nor I referred to Breivik as an MRA. I described him as an antifeminist, which is an undeniable fact,  whose views are “strikingly similar to many MRAs.” (Emphasis added.) Hugo stated explicitly that he didn’t blame the MRM directly for Breivik’s actions, noting that “[m]ost MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic.”

Evidently Chuck feels that to even mention the MRM in conjunction with Breivik is some sort of egregious smear, especially since the shooter spent “only” 23 pages of his manifesto writing explicitly about feminism.

Weirdly, after trying to draw a sharp line between Breivik and the MRM, Chuck goes on to apparently endorse Breivik’s (and Fjordman’s) notions about the ways in which feminism “greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.”  The rest of Chuck’s post elaborates on, and seems to fully endorse, Breivik’s/Fjordman’s argument that feminism’s “emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society” and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders.

I’ve asked Chuck to clarify if this is indeed what he means to convey in his post. If so, I can only say:  If you’re trying to draw a distinction between your ideas and the ideas of a murderous terrorist, you don’t really advance your case by agreeing with the central thrust of these ideas pretty much wholeheartedly.