Norwegian Men’s Rights Activist blogger Eivind Berge, known for his violent rhetoric and rape apologia, has been arrested for death threats against police.
Not too surprising, given that he once announced on his blog that “[k]illing at least one cop is on my bucket list.”
Here are some Google-translated details from a news account here:
The right-wing extremist and anti-feminist blogger Eivind Berge has been arrested for having encouraged and glorified the killing of policemen. The police have found both ammunition and textbooks in use of explosives at Berge.
The police regard the threats as an invitation to others to kill police officers, but also feared that he would commit the acts themselves shortly.
He was evidently arrested on Wednesday. According to this story — at least as far as I can tell from the obviously crude Google translation — he made a specific threat to kill a police officer this Saturday:
Berge also writes about how he was planning to attack a policeman with a knife on a Saturday evening:
“Then I used the trial to come forward as a good example for men, and I considered it to be worth 21 years in prison for premeditated murder.”
According to this account, Berge is being held for two weeks. He claims innocence.
Berge, as readers of this blog may well already know, is a fan of right-wing terrorist and mass murderer Anders Brevik. On his blog, he’s also argued (among other things) that “Rape is Equality.”
He’s glorified the murder of police on his blog numerous times.
Some examples, taken from the second news account:
“… attack on the police is something 100% in harmony with everything I stand for.”
“I maintain that police murder is both ethically and tactically correct.”
Some other examples, direct from his blog (each paragraph is from a separate post; click on the quote for the source):
I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list.
If ever a victim of psychiatry, here is what I would do. I would first attempt to kill the cops or whoever tried to apprehend me. Failing that, I would feign docility in order to get out as soon as possible and then kill a representative of the industry as revenge. … killing cops is also very much a men’s issue. Every pig killed is also a blow against feminism, so men should be doubly elated whenever an officer goes down in the line of encroaching on our cognitive liberty.
This was his reaction to a news story about a police officer being killed:
Good news for men is rare in this hateful feminist utopia that is Norway, but today is a joyous day! Today I feel schadenfreude in my heart along with all the hate that feminism and resultant mate deprivation have instilled in me. One blue thug less on the streets.
From another post on the same subject:
The swine Olav Kildal died while trying to enforce our lack of cognitive liberty. This was a defensive, much deserved killing that cheered me up.
Here he threatens a female prosecutor:
To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men’s Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate — that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists. …
2011 is the year Norwegian men as a group emerged out of the blogosphere and into the battlefield. This in turn has led to a breakthrough for MRAs such as my good self in the public discourse, probably for the simple reason that the powers that be now realize ignoring us has deadly consequences. Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn’t enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day.
Aside from the explicit threats of violence, the violent and threatening rhetoric here is not unlike much of the rhetoric we see regularly on A Voice for Men and other MRA sites. AVFM founder Paul Elam, for example, told one feminist that:
I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection. … We are coming for you.
The blogger Emma the Emo, Berge’s girlfriend, has posted comments here in the past defending him. The news account quotes someone identified as Nataliya Kochergova, described as his girlfriend; I assume this is “Emma,” because what she told the media is similar to what she posted here. She of course denies that he planned any real violence. According to the article, she said:
There are not really threats. He has never had plans to kill someone, he has said several times in his blog. When for example, he says that “the police killings are an effective way to prevent stupid laws,” it’s a factual description and not a threat. Even those who love the police agree with it.
Berge, for his part, has stated publicly that if he had not met Emma, he probably would have killed by now:
At the time I wrote my last blog post, I believed I would probably become Norway’s first modern violent activist in peacetime. Celibacy enforced by a feminist regime had driven me to the point where I saw no other option. I would target the pigs who enforce feminist law, knowing I could realistically at least kill one of them before I would be captured or killed myself. Thus revenge would be assured and if I lived, my reputation as a violent criminal would make me attractive to some women. But then in the nick of time this blog attracted a lovely girl commenting as “Emma.”
This is why I take violent rhetoric from MRAs very seriously.
Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, MRAs glorify MRA “martyr” Thomas Ball, who killed himself on the steps of a New Hampshire courthouse last year in hopes that his death would inspire MRAs to literally burn down courthouses and police stations.
Ball’s manifesto is still up on A Voice for Men in its “activism” section, including these passages:
So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. … This is too important to be using that touchy- feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!
Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers
AVFM tastefully omitted Ball’s specific instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails, but left this in:
There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.
For many more examples of violent threatening rhetoric from MRAs, I urge you to go through some of my posts here and here.
Oh man, I can see it now.
Tom Martin: Excuse me Miss, but would you agree that you’re a whore?
Random Woman on Street: Pardon me?
T.M.: I was just wondering if you accept the obvious fact that 97% of women are whores, including you?
R.W.S.: Fuck off!
T.M.: Don’t be so sexist, whore!
Holy shit you’re hilarious.
My God…it’s full of whores…
Also, I know I already said it, but I can’t believe the “you only quote fringe extremists” argument is coming from mister “WHORES WHORES WHORES.”
That’s a goddamn crowning achievement in lack of self-awareness.
I think I will check this shit out on youtube though.
I just want to remind everyone that I was the cause of his “Female penguins are whores” ejaculation too. Not that it’s too hard to prompt old TM to say hilarious shit…
Maybe I’m sitting on it funny. I tend to move right to left sitting down in it. Maybe if I sat in it square on, then moved it into position? It’s tricky in my cramped room, I’ll give that a try.
“It’s going to be a single take odyssey around the West End of London, taking in all the sights, and all the bile.”
To be fair to Tom, if you wander around the West End on a Friday or Saturday night you probably will see a lot of people vomiting, especially after midnight.
I actually am opposed to this as the default assumption. I see no reason why we should assume both parents equivalently parented the child when most of the work of parenting is dumped on women.
If a particular dad wants shared custody, he should do an actually reasonable share of the labor of raising children. Your characterization of “full time mother” as “inactive whore” is just a symptom of the cause.
Not only did Ball want you to burn those courthouses down when they were full, Berge, up in the OP? Made fucking death threats. Y’all have relied on threats of violence, to varying degrees, from the word go. Your attempt to confuse the issue of vandalism with that of actual violence is noted, and pathetic.
(For some doubtless very good reason this comment isn’t going through with the link, and I haven’t even had a notice of moderation – so I’ll try a link-free version: it’s not hard to find)
Just to get back to the OP, Berge’s girlfriend has just explained why she’s his girlfriend.
After blithely dismissing the pro-rape stuff and completely ignoring the pro-murder stuff (she doesn’t mention, for instance, why she’s posting a generalized defense of him right now), she concludes:
Doesn’t that just warm your heart’s very cockles? Bless.
Hang on, “economically inactive whore”? Isn’t it the economic activity that makes it whoring?
Well, it’s Tom. He basically uses “whore” as a synonym for “woman”.
Magpie: no, you whore, most women are whore. I am a whore, Saudi women are whore for bossing men around and making them drive everywhere, female penguins are whore -I don’t remember why), David is a whore for being feminist. Tom’s mother, however, is presumably not a whore. I’m guessing that wooden chairs are whores.
Whores, whores everywhere!
My wife is definitely a whore: she earns more than me, and her job involves exposing vaginas all the time.
Never forget that “midwifery” is an anagram of “if dewy rim”, which could hardly be more blatantly sexual.
@ Tom Martin
Only 2% of *parents* (not fathers) are prevented from seeing their children in the UK.
The lurid MRA myth that men are not “allowed” to see their children has no basis in reality. None whatsoever. No study has ever found any evidence to support your claim.
It’s an MRA myth. You guys made it up.
I challenge you to give me solid, peer reviewed data justifying your claims and demonstrating the scale and gendered nature of it.
Or wait a minute… Are you going to claim that it hasn’t been carried because of misandry?
Oh, wow – Tom Martin’s back!
Tom, I saw this the other day and thought of you XD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18370797
Ugh, OT but I met this guy through my job recently who uses “bitch” as a synonym for woman and even admitted as much (ALL THE TIME–he’ll even refer to female children as “bitches”). When I tried to point out how misogynistic that was, he just called me a white knight. He’s not an MRA but I can easily see him fitting right in with their crowd.
Um…think you mean observational psychology there, and observational psych has all sorts of issues. For example, no one holds doors for anyone, ever, everyone just pushes the handicap button (that was totally what my group “proved” freshman year, and then proceeded to write up how this isn’t generalizable).
Re: Suffragettes — math time! Let’s assume the youngest suffragettes were 16 and call the end of the suffragette movement 1930 (I’m being generous with both these numbers) — that’d make the youngest suffragettes 98 currently (1930-16=1914). Could you please try arguing against things that happened since, idk, WWII at least? 1945, still assuming 16, that’d mean you’re arguing against 83 year olds.
I mean, if we’re going to argue against things that happened 100 years ago, it was a damned shame the Titanic didn’t have more life boats, clearly that’s proof no boat has enough life boats (they’re required to now, because of the Titanic).
And the issue with your hard chair thing is that you think hard chairs are only hard for male butts, when really, they’re not comfortable for anyone.
Sir Bodsworth — try lowering the chair a bit? If your feet are dangling they’ll fall asleep, if not, idk, good luck with your pesky chair?
Everyone — Titanic, yes I had to go there, maybe he’ll say something funny that doesn’t sum to “WHORES!”
“Only 2% of *parents* (not fathers) are prevented from seeing their children in the UK. The lurid MRA myth that men are not “allowed” to see their children has no basis in reality. None whatsoever. No study has ever found any evidence to support your claim.
It’s an MRA myth. You guys made it up.
I challenge you to give me solid, peer reviewed data justifying your claims and demonstrating the scale and gendered nature of it.”
Here you go squire:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html#
Took me all of, oooh, five seconds on Google. Anything else I can help you with, you let me know.
TomTroll thinks he’s conducting experimental psychology?
Without any academic affiliation, any training, or any review for human subjects’ rights?
Depending on what he does, that might end up with him being arrested…….
And whatever he’s doing it’s NOT experimental psychology.
@Argenti: AH, observational psychology.
Thanks–that makes more sense.
But even so–just wandering around filming people (and I don’t know the laws regarding filming strangers in public and making the footage available online in UK) isn’t exactly going to prove anything about how women treat men and vice versa beyond, yeah, opening doors?
Or maybe he wants to see who is sitting in what comfy chairs! OMG that’s it!
He will be tracking the percentage of women who get comfy chairs and the men who have to sit in hard wooden chairs despite their skinny butts!
I’m currently a woman, in the UK, sat on a comfy chair being a whore*.
I am also a reverse vampire in league with the RAND corporation.
(*where ‘being a whore’ = sat at home alternately working and cleaning while my partner is at an exhibition because…something)
Filming men’s skinny butts in public is not only legal but SCIENCE? Who would have thought.
“the economically inactive whore of the house”
I’ve oft wondered why traditionalists continue to level the accusation of devaluing stay-at-home-mothers at feminists. Wasn’t there another troll here at this blog, in the not-too-distant past, whose wife is a strident anti-feminist because feminism won’t allow her to stay home rather than be employed outside the home?
@Pam yes there was, though I forget his name.
She also wanted a REAL MAN.
Sadly, there has been a good deal of conflict between women who work at home and women who work outside the home (sometimes referred to as a “mommy wars”) — I know during the 1970s my mother felt that feminists were insulting to her for the choices she’d made–some of it was confusing criticism of a system where women had few choices (the fact that my father undermined her attempts to go back to college after she’d put him through to his PHD, the asshole, wasn’t really dealt with then) with the women themselves.
But it still happens–sadly, horizontal hostility is easier/safer than striking up.
@Pam
Yeah, that’s another one of the MRM’s ‘heads we win, tails you bitches lose’ pet logic-fails. Women a) shouldn’t be allowed jobs outside of the house because they’d be taking them off men, and that’s misandry, b) shouldn’t expect a man to provide for her, because then he’s working all day while she’s at home and that’s misandry. Finally, c) women shouldn’t point out that work done in the house is economically valuable as this would be misandry due to c1) it being performed by a woman, and therefore intrinsically useless and c2) it being a perfect justification for alimony and child support, which as we all know is slavery.