Norway in grief.

#antifeminism: Breiviks misogyny politically motivated

2012-06-04 | Mattias Gardell padlock

UTRIKES

”The political world view that Breivik formulates in his manifesto is supported by cultural conservatism, anti-Muslim and anti-intellectual traditions of thought permeated by anti-feminist perceptions”, writes Mattias Gardell, who has investigated the political belonging of Anders Behring Breivik.

Mattias Gardell is a religious historian and an author.

On the 22nd of July, in 2011, Anders Behring Breivik carried out the biggest anti-Muslim motivated massacre outside of the Balkans in post-war Europe. The majority of the murdered – 41 out of 77 – were women, most of them young and killed close up.

That most of the victims were women was hardly a coincidence. In his manifesto 2083, that was e-mailed to thousands of selected recipients in the anti-Muslim environment hours before the attacks, he writes: ”The perhaps most important insight is that so many of our women are traitors. It is perhaps not a considered treason, since our women only think and act in accordance with the way nature shaped them.” Breivik acknowledge that it sounds sexist, ”but nature is sexist in itself and one can not violate the primary laws of nature.”

Breivik sees himself as a christian crusader in a battle for traditional European values and stresses that cultural conservative men differ from Marxists and men from other cultures by their inherent chivalry which invites them to safeguard the gracious life and honour women as carriers of their offspring. This chivalry, however, has no place in an armed confrontation.


Women traitors

”Every female traitor is someone’s daughter, someone’s sister or mother”, Breivik notes. ”It is essential to understand that about 60-70 percent of all cultural Marxists or suicide Humanists are women, as well as up to 20 percent of police officers and military personnel (system protectors). Being a knight of Righteousness means to kill our targets. If you are unwilling or unable to kill women because of chivalry principles you should stay away from armed resistance movements.

The massacre at Utøya only gave an indication of things to come, when the cultural conservative knights had been victorious in the final battle against muslims and their left intellectual kinsmen. That is when, according to Breivik, the time of justice enters. The traitors, in whose ranks two thirds are women, will be brought to summary military tribunals and executed, expatriated or sentenced to long prison terms and the Muslims shall be expelled.

The women who have had intimate relations with the enemy, or who have married and had children with traitors, await the same fate as the women who socialized with their occupiers during the second World War: ”They were called treacherous whores and were treated with the greatest contempt. Many were starved to death, others were raped and lynched”.


Permeated by anti-feminism

Breivik’s hatred towards women may be assessed as pathological, but is politically motivated and intervowen in the cultural conservative discourse on the gendered order attributed to nature. The political world view that Breivik formulates in his manifesto is supported by cultural conservatism, anti-Muslim and anti-intellectual traditions of thought permeated by anti-feminist perceptions.

In this Breivik leans himself, beside the Norwegian blogger Fjordman (Peder Nøstvold Jensen) against particularly cultural conservative american authors like William S. Lind, director at Centre of Cultural Conservatism, T Kenneth Cribb Jr, former adviser of Ronald Reagan and president of the cultural conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Gerald L Atkinson, retired officer at the Naval Air Force who now runs the conservative bodies Eternal Vigilance och New Totalitarianism, Raymond V Raehn, whose Global Security Council was linked to the World Anti-Communist League and who today is the spokesperson of the tratitionally conservative/white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens, but he also derives material from ”the anti-feminist feminist” Camille Paglia who have attacked Judith Butler, Carolyn Heilbrun and Marilyn French; the American Christina Hoff Sommers who works for the neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute together with, among others, Ayaan Hirsi Ali och John Yoo (who during the Bush administration contributed to legalize torture) and who wrote the best selling Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men; Phyllis Chesler who in The Death of Feminism accuses women of having become pro-Muslim multiculturalists and Melanie Philips, the British journalist who has migrated from left to right with attacks on the ”gay lobby” and multiculturalism, and the author of the conspiracy theory Londonistan, on how corrupt politicians invited the Islamization of England.


The initial decay

The cultural conservative, anti-Muslim and anti-intellectual authors that influenced Breivik and whose material he, with or without reference, incorporated in his manifesto, feminism plays a key role in a dystopian tale of the end of the West. It started already with the early women’s movement in the late 19th century, early 20th century, with it’s social reform agenda, demands for women’s suffrage, equality ideals, war resistance and anti-colonization, which Breivik sees as the initial decay, the beginning of the feminization of European culture. During World War II and the early postwar era society was stabilized.

Breivik is born in 1979, but dreams back to an imagined 1950s as the ideal age, when men were men, women were women, children were well behaved and there were neither criminality nor muslims in our countries. ”Most men treated women like ladies and most women devoted their time to taking care of the home, raising the children and assist the community with charity work. The children grew up in homes with two parents and the mother was there to meet the child when he was back from school.”

Everything was to be destroyed with the second wave of feminism, that during the 1960s turned against the order of nature. ”Whether you like it or not, men are stronger than women and nature has developed the sexes to secure the survival of the human being, just like nature has done with all species. All men are not equal, all women are not equal and the sexes are not and can never be equal.


Defends the nuclear family

The uprising against nature would never have succeeded if the leaders of the West had taken the war against communism seriously. ”If we had executed every marxist and banned marxist doctrines (not only the economic ones, but also the cultural – internationalism, extreme feminism, equality extremism, anti-nationalism) we wouldn’t have been in our current situation.”

Instead, weak politicians allowed intellectual infiltration from the left at universities, in mass media and in cultural life, from where they could lead the attack against the nuclear family, against which Gudrun Schyman now wants to put the death knell: ”Schyman’s battle cry is ‘Death to the nuclear family’. Schyman complains that ‘the nuclear family is based on the foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinated men, and thereby perpetuate a gender hierarchy with violence against women as its ultimate expression’, which is why she is concerned about the conservatives’ efforts to strenghten the family”.

The reason why cultural marxists like Schyman and the feminists who preceded her attacked the nuclear family was, according to Breivik, the insight that the communist revolution depended on traditional structures and values being decomposed and replaced by its society corrupting opposite.

”The patriarchal structure of society was to be replaced by matriarchy, the belief that men and women are different and should have different roles would be replaced by androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced by the belief that homosexuality is equally normal”. The leftist intellectual feminism turned everything on the head and brought about a general collapse where ”children, women and men challenged the patriarchal, authoritarian structures of the family, society and authorities and demanded equality for all, regardless of gender, color or race”.


The feminist hegemony

The quick decay had not succeeded unless the cultural marxist had not realized that also they must corrupt the Church, which traditionally has been the guardian of morality and tradition. By government dictates ”church was forced to ordain women. As we all know the emotionally unstable nature of women quickly led to the promotion of same sex marriage, ordination of homosexuals, sagging chastity, breach of human [gendered] duties related to reproduction, support of Muslim mass immigration and even religious dialogue with muslims”.

The feminist hegemony is now nearly absolute and, according to Breivik, completely devastating. Feminists are fueling multiculturalism, they feel for refugees, for those who are vulnerable and they have feminized Western men, who know how to change dipers, but not how to fight. The feminization of Western culture is nearly complete and the last bastion of male hegemony, the police and the military, are now also under attack. This will facilitate the ongoing Muslim takeover.

”What will liberal feminists do when they meet aggressive muslim youth gangs? Burn their bras and throw the pocket version of the Vagina monologues at them? Women may be able to transform their men into doormats, but at the cost of their nation and civilisation”. When the Islamization of Europe has been conducted, the women of the West will get to know real (unlike imagined) subordination, for unlike Muslim men are unlike European men (and a muslim can never be European even if he is born in Europe) no gentlemen but women oppressive slum by nature. But that is perhaps what the women really aim at?


Cultural conservative avantgarde

Here Breivik mobilizes the Danish anti-Muslim author Lars Hedegaard, who put forward the thesis that Western women encourage Muslim immigration because they ”dream of being subordinated”. But Breivik thinks that perhaps ”the feminists are only testing men’s limits” to ”find the man that is powerful enough to resist their demands and thus able to stand up for them”?

Breivik sees himself as a participant in a cultural conservative avantgarde whose spectacular attacks against traitors and Muslims will lead to a European civil war that will bring the white man’s slumbering warrior instincts to life. From the purifying acid bath of war, a reborn monocultural christian Europe will regain its position as the world’s leading civilization.

When the ”cultural conservative have taken the political and military power in the Western European countries, patriarchy will be reinstated” to secure the survival of the nuclear family and, thus, the civilisation. Breivik envisions that this can be done without statutory prohibitions for women to hold influential positions in the society (exept for immigration policies and defence).

Breivik thus prove cultural marxists like Gudrun Schyman to be right: the nuclear family is the linchpin of patriarchy and the hierarchical society. ”As soon as women are again schooled through righteous institutions and grow up in strong and united nuclear families headed by a confident patriarch, she will know her place in society and further adjustments will be excessive”. To accomplish this it is only necessary to implement a restricted number of ”strategic laws”, according to Breivik, out of which three are the most important.


Order in family and school

Firstly, the father needs to be guaranteed custody of the children. That will make women stay. Secondly, no-fault divorce must be prohibited again, and thirdly the ban on disciplinary spanking must be lifted, so that order in family and school may prevail. This ensures the traditional family through which the gendered order of nature can characterize the children: boys learn to be confident, aggressive, dominant and productive while girls learn to be mild, caring, emotional and reproductive. They learn that men are expected to make decisions and that women are expected to obey.

To secure the reproduction of new generation the government should subsidize spacious homes for married couples with three children (as long as they stay married and before the children move out) and adopt one of two possible models Breivik sees: the conservative and the feminist-liberal. According to the conservative model, the access to contraceptives is limited, abort criminalized, sexual education reformed (so that only reproductive sex within the frame of marriage is promoted), women advised not to have a professional career (it should not be forbidden to get a PhD, but women should only be encouraged to study up to a Bachelor), focus on family and work part time.


Restrictions on the media

The traditional role of women is to be glorified in series on the TV and in films, which implies restrictions on the media: Sex and the City and Madonna are bannished. Breivik is aware of that the conservative model, which he – with reference to the 1950s – say ”is shown to function”, implies certain restrictions to the freedom of women and the media. The alternative would be to let the government have a greater role in reproduction, the model Breivik of an unexplored reason labels the feminist-liberal.

This alternative ”allows” women in the monocultural European federation to continue realizing and liberating themselves, without being inhibited by procreation. The model is outsourcing: the government establishes factories of surrogacy in low cost countries, so that the Nordic genotype is reproduced by fertilizing and growing sperm and egg of high quality in rented wombs.

Because ”career obsessed” women, according to Breivik, hardly will prioritize their surrogate children the government can step in as foster parents creating different families by pairing three boys and three girls with an employed and educated couple of christian northerners, a man and a woman, who will be the childrens surrogate parents in a life long contract, where all share the same surname, for instance Andersson. The choice of model is free, according to Breivik, but a third is not given.

Verktyg


Skriv ut

Kommentarer

Du måste vara inloggad för att kunna lämna en kommentar.

annons: