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.
And the ghonorrhea was special ghonorrhea that acted as a carrier for more ghonorrhea.
Also the cake would have to call you a whore while you were eating it.
The freedom of speech part of me is a little conflicted here- as I think that you should be able to say all manner of things that I don’t agree with because of freedom and liberty and all that jazz.
But there’s also a big difference between FREE speech and INCENDIARY speech. Like shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater or using your speech to incite riots, murders or mass suicides (such as cult leaders).
To me, the MRM feels a lot like a cult. There is an abject isolation required of most of the people who follow it by those who consider themselves the “leaders”- as well as specific instructions and calls to act out violence or murder on the “infidels” (women/anyone or anything that can be construed as “feminist friendly”). In many countries, cults are illegal for this very reason. Most of them end badly, either in terrorism or in mass suicides/murders/shootouts. And I don’t see the MRM as much different.
They prey on young males who are angry and disenfranchised and often feel like the world is out to get them like most teens do, only then they twist it into blaming women and treating them like whores to be raped for their “own good.” Thankfully, a lot of guys seem to “escape” the MRM cult the second they actually do have sex with someone and realize that HEY, sex is COMPLICATED and it’s not just women holding their vaginas by a string and dangling them just out of reach, but many misogynistic beliefs still continue, planted in the brain at a young age.
And then you get the people with severe social problems and phobias who already have to work really hard just to get through normal conversation, much less ask someone out. And they tend to get hit the most by the MRM and the PUA community. Because they are the most vulnerable and ripe for the exploiting. And who doesn’t love to be told that it’s all “THOSE BITCHES” faults instead of a problem with their social abilities and lack of skills?
So the MRAs do have a scapegoat (wimminz), they advocate killing, attacking and generally making women miserable until they either submit or remove themselves from society (this smacks a lot of the activities often eschewed by the KKK, ugh), and they also continue to support and believe in pervasive harmful stereotypes about MEN and what it means to be male. They also appear to ignore or outright exclude gay people, there is a good amount of hate speech that surrounds non-white males (or simply disappears them and assumes that the “men” being talked about are all white, heterosexual men).
It’s like all manner of hate that has pervasively rocked our culture since forever has made its way into one group. And their solution? Murder people. Set things on fire. Rape women until they know their place.
They advocate anarchy, lawlessness and some mythical upholding of The White Man Is Always Right And Automatically Gets Everything He Wants By The Way.
And they honestly call themselves a “peaceful” movement? Seriously?
Yes, I admit there are radical feminists that are so radical that I often can’t imagine living the way they do. But most of them advocate radical behaviors that only affect their own personal bodily integrity, and most legal change and lobbying are to be decided upon democratically by the entire population. It’s not like feminists go into some back room and decide what laws ought to be made and then they become law because vagina power or something.
I’m cool with men going their own way. I’m cool with men never wanting to fuck me (and yes, even though I am married to a man, I don’t get to have sex as often as I would like. I know, it’s amazing, being a woman with a vagina and all!). I am sure that someone will try and turn that around on me by saying that I could “get sex” with whoever I want, but I don’t give a shit about getting sex with random people- my body doesn’t get sexually aroused by most people, and most people are terrible at reciprocation, not to mention STDs, possible abusive behavior or disrespect of my boundaries. The pool of people I would reasonably want to have sex with is actually very, very small. And the pool of people who would reciprocate feelings of wanting to have sex with me is smaller still. Which means that I don’t get laid all that often when I’m single. But I’m ok with that, because I know what I want. And because I also don’t see any shame in masturbation to deal with my stress- it’s far better than sex with someone who could infect me with something or leave me lying alone in the wet spot after they orgasm in five seconds (eww).
I’m cool with men doing their own thing. I’m just not cool with men deciding that women need to be treated like animals and have their legal rights and liberties stripped away, and that treating a woman badly or killing her is akin to throwing out your old computer chair when the wheel breaks.
You can believe what you want. But when your beliefs begin interfering with my rights and liberties to live a happy, full life and have control over my own bodily integrity, that’s when I’m going to take up arms and fight.
“And the bees were special killer bees that carried enough radiation to give you
cancer.acute radiation syndrome”I’m thinking somewhere in the 6+ Gy range here, that gives you about 50/50 odds of surviving with treatment. (PTSD rates in rape survivors run about 50%, this analogy is kind of apt.)
… What a terrible cake.
Cake AND death?
When random women fail to have sex with NWOslave, it’s like they’re withholding delicious cake from him. When they offer sex to the whole bar, as they do, it’s like they’re handing out delicious cake. Sex is a female resource because women’s cake isn’t made of shit.
“Also the cake would have to call you a whore while you were eating it.”
LMAO XD
Thanks, man. No offense taken.
RAMPANT NERDING-OUT AHOY. FEEL FREE TO SKIP THIS BIT.
This is actually pretty relevant to my own research, which is early modern armies and warfare. Historians know that a number of things changed during this period: wars get longer, large armies start getting kept around for longer periods, technological changes occur (for instance, the development of gunpowder weapons and a new, mathematically sophisticated type of fortification known as “Italian trace”), battlefield tactics change, bureaucracies start forming, and taxes go up (to pay for all this).
What we’re less clear on is when all this occurred, how it occurred, why it occurred, and whether some elements of this narrative happened at all, or at least in the way that we always described it. Here, narratives of “progress” really seem to have steered us in the wrong direction.
Take, for instance, the rise in army size. At first glance, it just seems like armies are getting bigger from the 1450s to the 1690s, peaking in the middle of the Thirty Years’ War
with Wallenstein’s army, falling, then getting bigger again at the end of the 1600s when France ramps up an army of completely HOLYSHITWTFBBQ proportions to fight the Nine Years’ War and the War of Spanish Succession. (These conflicts bankrupt France, incidentally, and it would never again attain unquestioned preeminence on the European continent.)
One narrative that we can construct around this data is the story of “the birth of the large army” or, if you take a different tack and look at what’s being done with these armies, “the birth of a standing army.”
But there are problems here. In the first place, population is already increasing during this time, and once you factor that in, army size doesn’t rise as impressively, and at least one historian maintains that the ratio of troops to civilians remains more or less the same. In the second place, large armies were not unknown in the late middle ages: Philip of Valois could assemble an army of (around) 100,000 in 1340. The difference is that that army only stuck around for a few weeks.
So it may not be that armies are getting bigger, just that big armies are sticking around longer. Why? Older research frames this as a question of progress: big armies are better than small ones and at some point European political heads just realized this. But that doesn’t explain what happens when army size goes down, for instance.
Research in the past ten years, which I am really stoked about, has moved to thinking about changes like this in terms of adaptation rather than progress.
For instance: Wallenstein’s army was so huge because most of his soldiers were not there to fight but rather to enforce contributions (razing the surrounding area for food, cash, and supplies). Armies which relied on pay rather than contributions were smaller. And the move toward armies that remain in service for longer periods is because wars started lasting longer.
Military change isn’t “progressing” in terms of some previously defined ladder of perfection, what we’re seeing is adaptation to changing political, social, economic, etc conditions. And these are only a few examples.
Thinking of these events in terms of “progress” blinds us to what is really going on, and it has also led historians to denigrate “backward” political entities (Spain, the Holy Roman Empire) in favor of “progressive” ones (the Netherlands, Sweden)—even when countries in the first category are still winning battles.
It’s like the difference between the lay person’s usual idea of evolution as some teleological process and what evolution really is, which is adaptation to your environment.
SHAMELESS NERDERY COMPLETE
I once dated an ugly, geeky, spineless man because I was so afraid of dating one of those “assholes” who cheated on people and were so hot that ladies from like everywhere were trying to get into his pants. This was after I starved and dieted myself down to a size 8 in pants with a relatively small tummy, and still had huuuuuuge boobs (I was something like 30-32 F), a cute face, hourglass shape, etc.
I still got dumped a couple months later for non-specific reasons. For someone who cheated on him in a couple weeks with his own brother. And then she dumped HIM.
Then he wanted to date my best friend.
Eventually, he decided that he had fallen in love with his internet girlfriend and as far as I know, he’s moved in with her and they own a house together now.
By that time, I was just like “WHAT THE HELL, DATING MAKES NO SENSE.”
And that’s basically where I am today.
Dating doesn’t make any sense. Who you love and who loves you doesn’t make any sense. There are no real “rules” or laws that keep people in check. Love and lust are both messy and often painful, but the only way to actually experience anything worthwhile is to get out there and do it. I think that is the problem. If you want the gain without exposing yourself to risk, it makes you look like a HUGE SHITHEAD when you sit around complaining that you want to “win” at love/sex/relationships without ever having to worry about the possibility of failure. Meanwhile, the rest of us who have had to deal with some level of rejection, failure, heartbreak, etc, are looking up at you and thinking, “Is this person SERIOUSLY SERIOUS? They think that they can just DEMAND that sex/love/relationships just be SIMPLE for them and somehow REALITY WILL COMPLY?!”
MRAS- we don’t laugh at you because we’re crazy. We laugh at you because you delude yourself into thinking that you can bend reality in ways that will make it so you never have to experience an uncomfortable moment or face possible failure in finding a partner.
Sorry to break it to you, but that’s just not how it works.
@magpie…
Well, it is a lie, you know.
@magpie…
sorry if i double posted word press seemed to swallow the first one.
Saying that killing a cop is on your to do list and going to great lengths to explain why it’s a civic duty is a Threat. Threats are not and have not ever, the modern world as far as I know, been covered under ‘free speech’.
————————–
Also, NWO does not think raping a man is possible or bad? Because the only way he can conceptualize the harm against women is to assume they must be having a different experience than if it were to happen to him?
Well first of all let me say DERGHGHHEDH herpity derp. If you don’t imagine rape being a bad thing, yet somehow millions upon millions of people swear that it is, then yes… gee, I guess this is a “good” way to look at it if you’re that dense.
Secondly, you’re claiming men aren’t harmed by rape? The quote you laid out from Mr. Crazy Dangerous here only spoke of women and erased men from having any negative rape experience at all.
Which …
confirms my suspicions that MRAs actually think the issues they bring up are only clever talking points and do not feel for the issues or give a SHIT about them.
Also, NWO, you going to say anything about this total whackjob saying that abusive females are a feminist lie? No?
You are a piece of shit troll.
I was wondering how long the cake discussion could go before it being a lie…
Has this thread devolved to the point I can plug another song? Because I have one for “Love and lust are both messy and often painful, but the only way to actually experience anything worthwhile is to get out there and do it. I think that is the problem.”
http://youtu.be/zxazWMlxQLM
Most men think cake is delicous, and most men are heterosexual; the result is that cake is a female resource. Most women think cake is shit unless they’re in love with the cake owner, i.e., they are demisexual. Demisexuality is the norm for women.
I demand a picture of this cake.
There is another more devious meme that involves hentai manga where people photoshopped cake where a man’s penis was supposed to be and use the line “Delicious cake, you must eat it NOM NOM NOM….” So cake is a penis?
>_> Stupid internetz, you hurt my brains.
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/203741-this-is-delicious-cake
^kinda NSFW if you think that penis=cake
… the penis is a lie?
:'(
katz — the closest cake I could find (worth1000 or not, don’t view that while eating)
Wasn’t it NWOSlave who said that the idea of any sex ever being about power is a preposterous feminist invention?
At this point, it’s a wonder he can stay consistent within the same sentence.
From hearing NWO go on in the comments, I am seriously thinking that he has either severe psychological trauma issues that he’s trying to subvert and not deal with by channeling rage and hatred against women instead, or he may have a bone fide mental illness that he is not properly treating. Either way (or if both things are the case), I feel more pity for his incoherent ramblings than rage. Most of what he says contradicts itself within a sentence or two, and he just seems so…well…unhappy.
Not that this excuses his poor behavior, mind you. There are plenty of people who have both mental illnesses and trauma regarding sex that they have to deal with on a regular basis without resorting to hating entire swaths of our population just for their gender.
Yes, that’s almost certainly emma the emo. Her facebook page both says, “in a relationship” with berge, and has a photo which matches that used in her gravatar.
Emma confuses me. Her creepy boyfriend at least makes a twisted kind of sense, but she completely baffles me. Why isn’t she concerned for her own safety? I just don’t get how she can be so convinced that he’d never hurt her.
Nanasha, you’re a better person than I am. I don’t feel any pity for him at all. I only pity the people forced to interact with him in real life and I worry about their safety. And I again question why this rape apologist piece of shit is still allowed to post here; any amusement value he had is long gone and all he does is say the same vile things over and over with little variation.