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.