
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.


I think PUA is a stop-gap. To arrange the sex life of the average man with 4 lifetime partners (CDC) suits the men and women on top, and women, nature’s demisexuals, far too well. Although once unleashed women’s sexuality is formidable.
Not really a con man, just a niche appeal. I dunno, do I have to do the self-cockblock by advertising invisible disabilities?
Feeling good beats feeling bad.
I didn’t say shit about advertizing anything. You belong to a cult that adheres to the doctrine of tricking women into having sex. It’s a scam that encourages you to scam others. It’s a fucking pyramid scheme.
Either it is ineffective, and therefore harmless, except for a slight uptick in rejection of men by women.
Or it is effective but harmful.
Or it is effective and beneficial.
My experience, which trumps all is that the 3rd is correct. Most PUAs No True Scotsman as aoon as you don’t follow their preferred scuola.
Things can be ineffective and harmful, you know. Actually no, I woudn’t expect you to understand that level of complexity.
“Things can be ineffective and harmful, you know. Actually no, I woudn’t expect you to understand that level of complexity.”
Maybe with a simple example?
Broken microwaves are generally rather ineffective at actually making food hot, doesn’t mean they won’t be microwaving you while you attempt it.
In any cause, Eurosabra’s experience “trumps all”, and most PUAs somehow go and No True Scotman if you don’t…some PUA lingo. Could you explain how PUAs No True Scotsman?
Oh and follow the directions on the microwave, those aren’t just there because of Safety Girl (the illustrated Book of Learnin’ needs Safety Girl).
Most PUAs deny what I do is PUA, because I refocus attention on the local art/history/literature or the excitement of the party/bar/club with banter. Hence No True Scotsman as soon as you reject their school of thought.
Something that is ineffective is not necessarily innocuous, true.
Fecking literalists.
You don’t adhere to PUA tenets, but don’t see how those tenets could be dangerous?
Or you’re hoping to go with some “mild gaslighting” here? In any case, “demisexual women” — you they exist right? And your usage of the word seems, well, incorrect. (For starters, demisexuals =/= many)
Argenti: I did start thinking about examples after I posted. I was going with a medical one, where you develop, say, a stomach ulcer, and instead of going to the doctor you decide to try out someone’s “home remedy” they made in their bathtub. It’s going to be pretty ineffective at the stated goal (curing the ulcer), and is likely to make it worse or even cause other issues.
Microwaves work too though. 😀
In context, this applies to PUA: the started goal is to get sex. Now, it’s pretty shit at that goal (ineffective), but you’re still harrassing women (harmful).
Has been effective for me.
The cake (female sexuality) is a bit of a lie.
It’s the velvet rope at the club, for straight male sexuality.
Any romantic overture by an unattractive man is an aggression in feminist eyes.
If he merely looks it is a microaggression LOL.
“Has been effective for me.”
Weren’t you just saying how you don’t practice the same PUA as PUAs? Whether not-PUA is effective is irrelevant to whether PUA is effective.
“Any romantic overture by an unattractive man is an aggression in feminist eyes.”
Can anyone explain the source of this bullshit?
I don’t know what’s more repellent about Eurosabra: that he cheerfully admits to harassing women in a way that could hardly be more systematic, or that his system is based on ignorance, wishful thinking and several glutinous dollops of steaming bullshit.
Either way, ‘creep’ would still appear to be le mot le plus juste.
Oh this again. The old “women can choose whether I can have sex with them or not, and that gives them too much control over me!” Do guys who pull this shit know how rapey they sound? The only alternative to the “velvet rope” that pains you so is being unable to say no to anyone.
Oh this again, too. You cheer for a rape apologist, brag about gaslighting and about freaking out your dorm so bad they gave you a minder, complain about how cruel it is that women don’t sleep with literally anyone who asks… and then you think our problem is you’re ugly?
Eurosabra: Something that is ineffective is not necessarily innocuous, true.
Fecking literalists.
Nah, logicians. You tried to present it as a forced choice. It either works, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t work we have no reason to think it’s wrong, ergo we must admit it works.
But the choice you made in leaving out the fourth possibility says a lot about you; coupled to your admitted mendacities, it says a lot more.
Also, I want to live in a world where misogynists don’t ruin video game memes. >.<
“Any romantic overture by an unattractive man is an aggression in feminist eyes.”
PUA = romantic overture?
um, no
As an side, I love how Steele spent an entire week trying to prove a minor rhetorical point, as if that would somehow strike a blow against feminism. At the same time, he has been totally unable or unwilling to address hatred and apathy in the mainstream of his movement, or prove that any of the “evils of feminism” actually exist.
It’s kind of like a flat earther thinking that it would somehow advance his cause to prove that Copernicus’ model is not perfectly predictive of planetary orbits.
As I said, 98% of manboobzers are whores.
“We don’t get 50/50! It’s so complicated/convoluted/manufatured/un-natural. Tom Martin is not a nice man.
60/40? Oh yeah, we love you long time.”
Whores.
Tom, you by your own admission are a whore. You said that you never paid on dates and insisted on the woman getting her purse out at the end of the night. Congratulations, I guess?
One question though – have you ever interacted with actual human beings? I mean like, obviously you’ve passed people in the street or been in the same room with them or whatever, but have you actually had a meaningful relationship with someone? Because it would be really fucking difficult to keep an accurate log of all the expenses in a relationship, and it just seems really pointless and mean-spirited. That’s what people are saying, not that they demand to pay fewer expenses.
For example, last night my boyfriend and I went out. We each bought ourselves a drink, he bought both of us a drink and I bought both of us a drink. Fair, right? However, his drinks were slightly more expensive than mine, so does that count as equal if I actually spent more money on him than he did on me? Does the fact that I paid for our transport (£8) cancel out the £5 he spent on a couple of drinks to take home with us? We can’t remember who bought the pouch of tobacco we’ve both been using, and I’m sure I do the washing up more than he does, but he has spider-catching duty. Does this count, or is it only the literal spending of money?
Oh and we had sex before we went out, so the drinks were nothing to do with that – although I had bought some washing up liquid earlier in the day so maybe he was paying me back for that? I mean, heaven forbid two people in a relationship just like sleeping with each other without any kind of detailed analysis of recent financial transactions. That would be stupid.
See what I mean? When humans decide to be in a relationship with each other, it’s not even that it’s just not desirable to reduce everything down to squabbling about who’s using more than their fair share of sugar in their tea (down to the granule), it’s just altogether too bloody awkward. That doesn’t make anyone a gold-digger/’whore’/whatever, it just makes them have better things to do with their time.
It’s really funny that you have to resort to this bullshit “paraphrasing” –
Wait, what how did you refer to it?
-in attempt to prove your point.
Sad and gross, of course. But still really funny.
So… 98 percent of manboobzers are whores. Less than 80 percent of manboobzers are women (I’m not sure the numbers, but it’s not less than 20 percent of commenters who are not women).
So some men are whores too.
I’ll bet, if we look at it, Tom has done something, somewhen, which was a woman doing something he didn’t recompense her for.
So Tom’s a whore too.
Cliff — +1 internet for calling it.
If everyone who has ever received anything of value from someone they had sex with is a whore… And if everyone who has ever provided anything of value to someone they had sex with is a John (forgive me, “Jon”)…
Doesn’t it all just cancel out? If I’m a whore because my boyfriend gave me a present for my birthday and he’s a whore because I gave him a present for his the we’re whores for each other. How could it be more 50/50 than that?
pecunium — “So some men are whores too.”
You must’ve missed this —
Apparently men accepting gifts need to renounce being Jo(h)ns….or something.
Nobinayamu: Well there is the whole, women are evil and when they whore they need to be punished (several times) but the “jons” need to be understood, what with being men and all.