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.
Uhm, that wasn’t meant to be a counter-point to Ithiliana, who does bring up a very valid point and something that’s really not cool. I was trying to say the MRM don’t actually care about what women want, they care about making women look bad.
If he’s making it for a documentary that he intends to sell, he has to get signed release forms from everyone concerned – not necessarily people ambling past in the background, but definitely anyone who’s interviewed or who makes a significant verbal or visual contribution, or who’s clearly identifiable in a possibly compromising situation. If he can’t produce those at the time of delivery of the materials, it’ll be a deal-breaker – no broadcaster will touch it.
If he’s uploading it onto his own YouTube channel, it’s more of a grey area – legally, he should still get written permission from everyone concerned but in practice there are so many blatant infringements uploaded on a minute-by-minute basis that it’s unlikely that anyone will pursue it. Unless of course they think they’ve been grossly misrepresented by the editing and feel that they have a case under British libel law – which is another reason for getting a release form signed upfront.
Thank you, Ithiliana and TheNatFantastic, as I wasn’t sure whether I read that here or at one of the other blogs that I visit.
LOL!!! Oh yeah, I remember that now, and feminism having taught him the importance of wining, dining, strewing of rose petals, etc., for each and every sexytime, bla bla bla.
@Rutee Katreya
“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.”
The only way to accomplish this would be if a woman decided to be a stay at home mother the father should immediately quit his job to be a stay at home father as well. Two people, neither of them working is good for the children and society. You’ve just created the ghetto and the welfare state. This is why no woman should ever be in charge of anything more important than a ball of yarn, they’re so incredibly stupid,
@Ithiliana
“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.”
Ahhhhh, so this is where your feral hatred of man stems. The feminist hate movements, “click moment.”
@Happy
“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.”
If you don’t have equal custody and are paying an extortion fee, you are not allowed and are being extorted.
If I take someones child and force them to pay upon threat of being caged like an animal, I’ve kidnapped and I am extorting them, if they don’t pay I lock them in a cage. There is no difference between me or the State doing the same thing. If no one is above the law, anything the State can do I should be able to do as well. I can’t do that because it violates peoples rights. Women’s law runs contrary to basic human rights. Women side with tyranny of the State.
I also forgot his name, but I remember feminism tried to stop him being fast. Also tv and movies are misandry, because there is no strong/smart/etc hero, even he doesn’t watch tv, or movies. Except How to train a dragon, which is misandrist because the male hero isn’t the toughest character.
@Tom Martin:
“regarding my sex discrimination case against the gender studies brigade at LSE”
You mean the one that got thrown out? Oh and it’s a brilliant move to represent yourself when you have an obvious chip on your shoulder that one could sense from across the room and a tourette syndrome type tic when it comes the word ‘whore’. Judges normally don’t notice those types of things at all.
(Ten bucks says Tom would have to fight the urge to call everyone in the court room a whore at least a dozen times.)
Ithiliana — yeah I was intentionally not touching the ethics or legality of his little plan. I should note though that observational psych means observing, if he talks to them it doesn’t count (if he’s interacting with them, without an experimental protocol, it just isn’t psychology at all, more like “whee another shitty youtube vid”). As far as I remember the main points of observational was to develop practical experimental protocols, and for claims about how things are (but not why things are).
So he can’t really even prove how women treat men (or vice versa) because it isn’t going to be a random sample or anything generalizable — he can display how women (or men) in the population he films treat men (or women), but that’s it. (Maybe drunk people are particularly rude, that wouldn’t be particularly shocking; maybe women at bars dress like “whores” because they’re at a bar — observational psych does not attempt to answer “why”.)
And he’s going to have to define whore, and without any sort of consensus backing that definition, it isn’t a useful study. I mean, wtf use is “this is the % of women (in X place, at Y time) I think look like whores”? Well congrats Tom, your opinion is noted, and ignored.
And film wise, yeah he needs model releases — really even if it’s just portfolio work you should get one of those.
themisanthropicmuse — lawyer joke — anyone who represents themselves has an idiot for a client.
@Cliff
For an MRA?
@Cassandra
But they’re so friendly! I love drunk West Enders, they don’t have me doublestepping outta there like Liverpoolers
@Argenti Aertheri: “themisanthropicmuse — lawyer joke — anyone who represents themselves has an idiot for a client.”
I’ve heard that one many times. In all seriousness people who represent themselves normally come in three categories:
1.) Those who actually went to law school and think they reasonably know what they are getting themselves into.
.
2.) Those who don’t want to spend the money on a lawyer for various reasons and think they might be able to pull it off on their own (which can be a tactical nightmare)
3.) Those who suffer from terminal dunning-krugar and think they can waltz right into the courthouse like they are Perry Mason. They think they’ll have everyone eating out of the palm of their hand because they are just that awesome and super-smart.
Wanna guess which one I think Tom falls under?
…and they’re also the people who are most astounded when they lose the case.
Whereas I suspect if I ever went to court either as the plaintiff or the defendant, I’d assume upfront that I’d probably lose, even if the case was open-and-shut in my favor.
@Argenti Aertheri
“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).”
Since the suffragettes goal was to get the right to vote the year would be 1920. Everyone had to be 21 to vote at the time. Even if we use 16 as the age you claim, which makes no sense since a 16 year old couldn’t vote that’d be 108 years old not 98, if you go by the voting age that’d be 113 years old. Instead of being generous, try being honest.
By 1930 women had voted themselves so many privileges the government had doubled in size and has grown to the astronomical number of over 22 million since. The actual workforce including part time labor is about 144 million, meaning around 15% of the workforce are overpaid debt producers. It takes pretty much every person not employed by the State just to pay the States payroll, this of course doesn’t include what they spend on all the worthless projects for which they are employed.
Job well done ladies!!! As always women answer with, “we need more government.” How do we solve the problem of so many people on welfare? Why the ladies all answer, “by taxing more people into welfare.” No wonder the only constituants that count are women.
themisanthropicmuse — category 3, probably while thinking he’s category 2 and should be pitied/sympathized with as another poor person screwed by the system (unlike him, actual members of category 2 have my sympathy). I’m not sure category 1 isn’t a subset of 3, but whatever.
Isn’t it odd, that feminists typically criticize men’s rights activists for being ‘men’s rights slactivists’ etc, but then when I take on the massive endevour of bringing a court case, raising media attention, presenting the facts and evidence on my website, even without the help of a lawyer, I get criticized for it, because I did it without the state holding my hand. Or getting a library to put some decent seats in, and getting the EHRC to agree that hard seats may be an infringement of EU law… more mockery. Not one of you has the moral fibre to admit I did a good thing there. Or making a film, just more preemptive criticism from you twits. Or conducting some experiments in a film – more naysaying.
The “If women ruled the world we’d still all be living in grass huts” argument really does seem
true with you people. It’s like watching yogurt set.
It seems to me, you’re taking the lead from David Futrelle who (in case you haven’t noticed) is (in direct contravention of EU regulation 517A Part 1 – Subsection II) … a cunt.
You people really do need to get out more.
You did absolutely nothing of consequence, though. Your experiments are not experiments, and your “film” is just going to be you ranting about whores. How is calling 97% of women whores doing something constructive? What does that build? What does it accomplish?
They threw out your case because it was utter nonsense, and you think you are some kind of revolutionary genius.
I like this game! EU regulation 517A from which year? Also, please explain to me how David Futrelle is a member state of the EU and can therefore contravene regulations. Please do, I’m utterly fucking fascinated.
Also Tom, I haven’t forgotten that you planned to sue the LSE before you even applied, you disingenuous little twit.
OMG, Tom is right! Having your frivolous lawsuit thrown out of court and being stuck with a 37 thousand pound bill because of it is definitely something notable to have done. Not everyone pays the stupid tax in quite such a dramatic way.
@Wetherby: “…and they’re also the people who are most astounded when they lose the case. ”
Of course they are! After all, they are Perry ‘Fuckin’ Mason and should have won. They had built an air tight case by googling about legal shit! The judge was just [insert insult here] and he/she fucked them unfairly out of pure jealousy for their sheer awesomeness.
“…but then when I take on the massive endevour of bringing a court case, raising media attention, presenting the facts and evidence on my website…”
Plenty of people have done that without it being anything like a good idea.
“…even without the help of a lawyer, I get criticized for it, because I did it without the state holding my hand.”
No no, you mean “specifically without…” not “even without…” — I was specifically implying you’re a fool for trying to bring a case without a lawyer (actually, I was implying that anyone who brings a case without a lawyer is a fool). And laywer =/= “the state”; lawyer = “someone who passed the bar exam” (or whatever the equivilant standard is).
“Or getting a library to put some decent seats in, and getting the EHRC to agree that hard seats may be an infringement of EU law… more mockery.”
Anyone here mocking the idea that hard seats hurt everyone’s butt? Or just that hard seats are misandry? I’d actually assume you’d have had a valid case under the EU equivilant of the ADA — but your argument was not that hard chairs are discriminatory against the disabled, but against men (based on some really hilarious logic, are they not discriminatory against overweight men with extra ass padding? what about tiny women with less ass padding?)
“Not one of you has the moral fibre to admit I did a good thing there.”
See above, I have issue with the logic you used, not the case itself.
“Or making a film, just more preemptive criticism from you twits. Or conducting some experiments in a film – more naysaying.”
That’s not an experiment, yeap, I still mock bad research, that one really isn’t anything personal (maybe you can prove to NWO that my thing against bad research isn’t anything personal against him?)
“The “If women ruled the world we’d still all be living in grass huts” argument really does seem true with you people.”
Your racism is showing, wtf is wrong with cultures that live in grass huts?
“(in direct contravention of EU regulation 517A Part 1 – Subsection II) … a cunt.”
Citation needed on that EU reg bit, I just tried finding it and that doesn’t appear to be enough information to count as a citation. Also, I highly doubt the EU regs say anything about cunts.
Actually, on further looking, there’s no EU regulation 517A of any year – only 517. So Tom, are you talking out of your arse while claiming all women are idiots again? Because, idiot, you’re talking to a woman with a degree in law, from the UK, who studied EU law for five years.
Now tell me how David is a country in the EU please, I really honestly can’t wait for this.
Also tell me how getting yourself a £37k bill for your own vanity helps, say, male victims of rape. That should be interesting too.
Yeah, why are all you idiots out there wasting time on trivial shit like making laws against beating and raping domestic partners and children, when there are IMPORTANT ISSUES like HARD CHAIRS to be addressed?
Never mind that a polite, reasonable suggestion to the library in question may result in action the next time they order chairs (although, really, hard chairs last longer than padded ones and have to be repaired and replaced less often, leaving $$$ for library resources that are not ass-related).
MISANDRY!
Yeah, it’s SOO weird that we’d make fun of your incoherent raging about hard chairs and whores.
I mean, who WOULDN’T take a ranting screed about WHORES and hard chairs being MISANDRIST seriously?
To explain to non-UK readers, regulations are instructions from the EU about laws, standards etc. that have to be enforced by member states – that is, the government of the member state. Only governments/public agencies of the member states may be held to be in contravention of them.
@Tom Martin:
” I get criticized for it, because I did it without the state holding my hand.”
No, you got mocked for it (get your terminology straight) and it wasn’t because the state wasn’t holding your hand, (after all the state *couldn’t* be holding your hand when they are busy holding you down to forcibly keep you seated in a hard chair).
It’s because you are made of epic fail Tom. It’s really just that simple.