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.
It’s not just that it isn’t scientific or peer reviewed, but that even if he doesn’t have access to any licensed databases of peer reviewed articles, just using GOOGLE will get you more credible links. Not even Google Scholar! Sigh.
“I may get to a TNG munch and talk to people, with no PUA.”
Argh! This is a terrible idea. You are not emotionally competent or ethical enough to handle the most vanilla of sex in a non-scarring manner. You doing BSDM would be like a toddler trying to build a space station.
Wait…wasn’t Tom arguing that the courts deny fathers’ access? Not the mothers? If so, I’m done looking for this study, its abstract makes it clear it isn’t about court orders but parental cooperation, child support, etc.
PUA insists its map is the world, which is the problem. ” Want to submit to an aestheticized sexist repartee?” would work but would be obscure. If sex roles just are, and are natural, because evo-psych, you wouldn’t need to ask. But humans are so variable you’d better.
You can read body language well enough to avoid intrusive touch while still talking. The issues is PUAs who touch intrusively and gaslight (Tartuffe) to get the woman to validate the boundary violation. Which, as mentioned, I haven’t done in ages
Here’s a short overview of referenced studies highlighting the effects of denying men access to their children, on the children:
http://deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.284
“You can read body language well enough to avoid intrusive touch while still talking.”
With a stranger?! No, no you cannot. And please do not go to a munch that isn’t one of the in public with pizza type munches, or you risk proving why you need a minder.
That’s why I said TALK to PEoPLE. And most of the scarring is mine. I don’t really expect to play, I’m too defensive. Bruno has noted that single men are held at arms length, a priori, for good reason, and I respect that.
Yeah, and I’m so totally sure any PUA in the history of ever has actually asked that.
You can’t figure out why cheering for a rape apologist upsets women, and you think you’re sensitive to subtle cues???
If you think anyone here trusts you to ask, or to stop if the answer is no, then you are far more stupid than I had ever imagined.
Single men WHO CHEER FOR RAPE APOLOGISTS are held at somewhat further length.
Also, the courts have certainly been lousy at enforcing child access for the father where interfered with by the mother.
Also, is it helpful to say women wanted the vote? or that women want to have good careers?
There are alternative perspectives, but I would think that from a feminist perspective, it would be helpful to say fathers want access to their children.
“And most of the scarring is mine.”
That’s a neat little dodge, but I’m not letting you get away with it. Regardless of what scars you may carry, that doesn’t justify your scarring others. Which based on everything you’ve said, you are most certainly doing. And if you are unkind enough to inflict yourself on a BSDM group, you may scar even more people.
Also, as Cliff pointed out, and as we can tell based on conversations here, your ability to read social cues is somewhere between “what social cues?” and “fuck you, I don’t care about your social cues”.
Yeah, I’m a lot more sensible in person and no one in meatspace has ever really noticed or cared. I’m considered a bit boring and a bit try-hard in the wider club culture, but have a small circle of friends.
Nope, not buying it. You can attempt to present yourself as the poor harmless little underdog as much as you like, but “mild gaslighting” pretty much said it all, and that was without knowing about the attempt to recruit Berge to PUA.
Tom, I might give a shit about looking up those studies (why no links to individual studies?) if parents were routinely denied access to their children. But they’re not.
It was honestly more amusing when you were calling us all whores and trying to think up reasons why.
Now DANCE, TrollBoy. Studies or GTFO.
Then you’d probably be surprised by my thoroughly consensual real life.
Guys, I think Tom WHORES!!! Martin is trying to catch the attention. So many trolls, it’s hard to chose.
You actually think that anyone believes you about that? Guess we can add “stupid” to the list of your unlovely qualities.
Again Tom, I thought you were discussing court orders here, not wtf mothers do.
And this — 1988 Census “Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report”
GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992 — is not a thing.
“U.S. General Accounting Office Report GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992” = Mothers Report Receiving Less Support From Out-Of-State Fathers
I’m still looking for the first half of that mishmashed citation.
To repeat myself from earlier, Tom, in the UK, only 10% of parents end up contesting custody in court. Only >0.8% of these result in one parent not getting any access. In 2010, that was 300 people, and I’m pretty fucking sure there were good reasons.
Now tell us again why penguins are whores, that had me chuckling for a good long while.
Don’t have to buy it, it’s true.
I think if Berge had become a PUA, he would have mellowed. Maybe jail will do the trick.
Translation: “I’m too sensible to tell my real-life friends about my chummy relationship with a guy who thinks rape should be legal. However, I’m good enough at double-think that I don’t really ask myself why I know this is sensible.”
Child Support and Alimony: 1989
“The majority of absent fathers, 55 (+2.1) percent, had visitation privileges with their children in 1990, another 7 (+1.1) percent had joint custody, but 38 (+2.0) percent had neither.”
Absent fathers includes unknown father, and I can’t seem to find the full text, just the summary.
Is this, like, some kind of bullshit harm-reduction strategy?
Like “if we teach him to emotionally manipulate women, he won’t have to rape them”?
Dude had a girlfriend. His problem was not that he was so lonely and neglected by women that he had no choice but to turn to rape.
Alternate translation: “I’m too twisted to realize that nothing about the way that I approach sex is sensible, or ethical”.