Sunday, November 04, 2018

The male sexualist color and flag

As the leader of male sexualism, I declare pink to be our political color, and a pink flag is to be our symbol.

Why pink?

The simple explanation: Pink is the color of pussy, the celebration of which is the male sexualist ethos. Women of all colors have pink pussies, so it is all-inclusive.

Pink is currently seen as a sort of girlie and cutesy color that men don't want to be too wrapped up in. My picking this color is deliberate because society wants to shame us for our sexuality, and we need to deal with that. By embracing pink we proudly admit that we like pussy, including a great deal of (unfairly) criminalized pussy, which is the raison d'être for male sexualism. Men who are too timid to support us outright yet can practice wearing some pink to get over their embarrassment, as a sort of training wheels for male sexualism if you will.

Another reason is simple availability. The white flag is taken (and we certainly don't want that!), the black flag is taken by the anarchists, red and blue and green and brown are established political colors, but pink is claimed by no ideology that I know of.

Pink is also a beautiful color, admit it! That is almost reason enough.

You might object that it is too heterocentric. To that I would reply that if you don't like pussy, you already have a flag with a rainbow on it. We need a straight pride flag too! The pink flag does double service as straight pride and the symbol of male sexualism. If the gays ever man up to resist the feminist sex laws, in future demonstrations we can even fly the pink and rainbow flags side by side.

Now we also have a new male sexualist rallying cry: "Give me pink!"

If you want to call the pink flag a pedophile flag, I would not object to that even though I and most of us are not pedophiles (this is a way to disarm the ridiculous accusation that we are pedophiles just for liking teen girls under the age of consent too). You can also call it a MAP flag (but not NOMAP or VirPed -- well, I can't stop them either), an antifeminist flag or a positive masculinity flag. All told, it is a flag against oppression of sexuality -- the flag of sex-positivity. Obviously women can use it too against the female sex offender charade, if they ever come to their senses and resist that. My vision is that the pinks will be mentioned alongside the reds and blues and other colors of the political landscape as we gain traction.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Reverse sting

[New footnote to the title, which I cannot change, but want to explain: I see now that the term "reverse sting" is in use already in a different sense than I am intending here, referring to one particular sort of sting where cops pose as sellers or providers of illegal goods and services rather than buyers -- all of which I had just known as sting operations. That is NOT what I mean here; by "reverse sting" I mean that a citizen is trying to hurt the cops and the politics they represent by trolling or otherwise subverting their sting operation. Perhaps a better word would have been something like "sting ambush," but I like the term "reverse sting" and think we should claim it for my usage.]

First a little background for this post to make more sense. Me and my girlfriend have recently broken up and I am now dating again. We broke up because we disagree about having children. She is childfree and I am childless, and that wasn't working out for life.

So naturally, I am now on Tinder, and looking for women who do want to have children. Even though I only look for 16+ women and this site has an 18+ age limit, I have already been a victim of attempted entrapment. Am I vulnerable to temptation? Apparently not, since I actually said no, but with methods like these no man is safe. I am putting this interaction in its entirety out there for all to see what monsters are out there. It is in Norwegian, but the gist of it is this:

I match with an 18-year-old girl and ask her for sex. She says she is actually 15, I consider meeting her anyway but end up telling her to wait until she is 16 and legal. Then she tells me that she is actually 16, and I say I want to meet her, but then she changes her age back to 15 and I give her a definitive no, after which she claims to be police. I say I will expose their scam, they get nervous and start backtracking, but here it is on YouTube (go fullscreen to make it legible).

In the short time I have been single, I have already hooked up with a beautiful young girl on Tinder and had a one-night stand. She was 22. I like a variety of ages and am the first to admit that normal men are also fully attracted to teen girls, regardless of what the age of consent says. In fact a good bit of my activist career has been devoted to normalize this already normal fact for normal men, but I stay within the law for practical reasons while campaigning to have it reformed to end the criminalization of our healthy sexuality.

This video is notable for showing some incredibly deceptive efforts at seducing men by first using a picture of a legal-age woman (this one can't be younger than 17 if you look at her Instagram, which shows her 10th-grade prom two years ago; most likely she is 18), and then lying that she is younger than she is in order to brand the man as a "pedophile" and "remove him from society" as she says. Men are considered so worthless that simply believing a woman's lie is supposed to be enough to have us imprisoned, and not even a very credible one at that. Which is nothing but a bizarre thoughtcrime, the crime of being a normal man.

Now tell me who any normal person would see as the bad guys here?

Thursday, September 27, 2018

I am under attack by a criminal harasser

When I was investigated for incitement on my blog in 2012 and later cleared of all charges to the point of being compensated for wrongful imprisonment, the police pretty much stayed within the laws and norms governing their behavior and never even encouraged me to remove any content. If the police are going to arrest you, they will simply do it and not threaten you just because they don't like your blog or disagree with your opinions or whatever. They are capable of bringing ridiculous charges against you, but so far they have respected the courts when told it's not a criminal matter.

And I still don't think the police misbehaves that way. So when I received the following threat today:

"Du har 48 timer til å lukke bloggen din og din Twitter-konto. Hvis du ignorerer dette, vil jeg få en rettsordre for at politiet skal komme inn i huset ditt og ta dine elektroniske gjenstander. Ikke lek med meg."

Translation: "You have 48 hours to close your blog and your Twitter-account. If you ignore this, I will get a court order to have the police come into your house and seize your electronic equipment. Don't toy with me."

I can be sure it is not originating from the police or prosecutors or anyone with the authority to get a court order. What this is is criminal threats or harassment directed at me as a law-abiding citizen. As it happens, I think I know who is behind -- the character known as Gally here on my blog -- but I shall refrain from naming him publicly yet as I don't have proof. I initially thought he was a friend of our movement, but he turned out to be both crazy and evil, having now turned against me and set his mind to shut down my blog and Twitter account and who knows what else he is up to.

Yesterday he posted material which can be construed as child pornography in a comment and reported me for it. I promptly deleted the comment and Google administrators didn't buy into his scheme, thankfully. But this is an extremely serious situation for me as I am targeted by a vicious criminal who also has considerable expertise on computer security and is therefore very dangerous. I am putting this all out in the open so that if something does happen to me, you know the background. While I don't think he is violent, he has demonstrated that he is capable of manufacturing false evidence and make false accusations, which can turn really ugly by itself.

Of course, the appropriate response is to report him to the police myself for criminal harassment, and I am seriously considering this. I will not be harassed into silence, and still don't think the authorities use such methods against free speech in Norway. Of course, I must also look out for my own safety and any advice is welcome from my genuine commenters. I do ask all my commenters to keep it very clean and not give him anything that can be used to escalate this. I just want to forget him and move on with my political blogging, but as he has decided to make a nuisance of himself I am taking the precautionary step of this warning. He has also been impersonating other members of our movement in order to damage us, so any communication purporting to be from us must be treated with extreme suspicion. I even got a request yesterday from a supposed documentary filmmaker who wanted info about our movement, and I suspect he is behind that as well, but can't be sure. As you can see, such behavior is psychologically damaging and is criminal for a reason that I also support. This is threats against an individual, nothing like the political speech that I have been controversial for, and Gally will only be exposed as the common criminal that he is if he tries anything.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as inventing it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated, it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The female sex offender charade once again

I want to write another post about the injustice that bothers me most in the world. Others are equally harmful to the innocent victims, but this one is offensive on a record number of levels. It combines the gratuitous harm of miscarriage of justice with affronts to every kind of reason and emotion that I can muster. Its supporters have exactly zero good arguments, and worse, all evaluation of the subject leads to the diametric opposite of punishment as an appropriate reaction. There is no harm and a lot of good in women having sex with young boys. Of course, they might catch an STD and be stuck with responsibility to provide for children, but that has nothing to do with the entirely spurious sort of psychological harm which is used to justify the current prosecutions.

What I call the female sex offender charade is a byproduct of 20th-century feminism. There was never any prior motivation in history to "protect" boys from female sexuality, because boys obviously don't need any such protection. There was at most overlap with religious morality-based crimes, as some of the women who for example would get the scarlet letter treatment in Puritanical times are called sexual abusers today, but the Puritans did not go full retard and pretend that boys are harmed by female sexuality. That is where we are now, which demands both an explanation and therapy for dealing with this horrible situation (if you are a reasonable, empathetic person).

It has always been recognized that male sexuality has the potential to abuse, and we male sexualists don't dispute that either. The sex laws arose out of a desire to protect both sexes from the excesses of male sexuality, a need which has some core validity even though it has gone way too far now. At the same time, feminism came with the baggage that the sexes are "equal," and voila, women get prosecuted for the "same" sex crimes. The creation of gender-neutral sex laws crept in without any attempt at justification as far as I can tell. It simply came to be taken for granted by the police and justice system and accusers that women can commit the same sex crimes as men and deserve the same punishment, and astonishingly, this radical new idea was accepted on pure superstition and without debate, all in the span of a few decades.

It is easy to show that it is logically impossible for women to sexually abuse males. This is obvious on every level from parental investment theory to the phenomenology of sex. Since sex is best understood as a female resource and the transfer of value from women to men, women cannot "sexually abuse" boys by giving them sex any more than you can steal from someone by handing them money. To be sure, you can commit some other violation by imposing an axiomatically valuable thing if it is unwanted, such as simple assault, but it is logically absurd to claim that the transfer of the thing itself is exploitative by virtue of being what it is. Any prosecution must stop at whatever crime it would be if you ignore the sexual aspect.

Women's violence can incidentally be sexualized, but sex itself can never aggravate its seriousness or be worthy of criminalization just because it is sex. Let us examine which conditions would need to be true in order for the proposition that "women can sexually exploit boys" to hold up to scrutiny:

We would have to assume that boys have something women want, just like girls have something men want. This currency would have to be not just valuable to the occasional outlier, but universally and intuitively understood just like we understand that men want to fuck girls. Boys would reliably need to be able to convert this asset to other currency just like girls can offer up sex and tempt the average man into giving her something else. And other boys would need to be able relate to the fact that it is by default a burden to give up sex just like girls do. It would have to be intuitive to us that the boy has given up something valuable and lost something that we, too, would not have wanted to lose.

I don't have to tell you that these assumptions are patently false. The market value of male sexuality to women is zero, for boys even lower, and the gut reaction to thus "abused" boys is envy. Yet the imbecile feminists and their brainwashees persist in their false belief that women can sexually abuse boys.

Before we should even begin to consider whether it is worth taking seriously, it should be based on some sort of intelligible theory. Yet there is absolutely none, just a blind denial of sex differences. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would at least come up with an alternative theory for why it is bad for boys to have sex when they don't feel bad about it, in fact feel good and their peers and adult men envy them too. The feminists don't even attempt to explain this, which means they are so full of shit that they can be dismissed out of hand.

Granted, a lot of so-called sexual abuse of girls is also bullshit, and girls can also feel good about it. In those cases there is also no abuse. But at least we understand that a girl can in principle be taken advantage of, because girls obviously have something men want that they most often don't want to give. And even when they do want to give it, we understand that the girl has given up something valuable and lowered her sexual market value ever so slightly by doing so -- while the diametrically opposite is true for boys.

The rise of the "teacher" rationale for punishing sexuality is particularly baffling in its ability to brainwash otherwise intelligent people (Joe Rogan is a victim, for example). It is logically impossible for a positive value to turn negative because of the status of the person giving it. Just like a female teacher giving a boy money can't make him poorer, giving him sex cannot make him sexually exploited, because the sex is still axiomatically a good thing. And the status of teacher is evolutionarily novel anyway, not something with the evolved ability to confer abuse even to girls. Imagine the equivalent of a teacher in our ancestral environment, and it's obvious that they would be just another potential sex partner. The notion that this status equals sexual abuse is the height of modern absurdity, and when applied to boys it is surreal that anybody can be so stupid.

Perhaps the most damning rejection of the idea that women can sexually abuse, which should be understandable to fans of Jordan Peterson, by the way -- and I am sure he would back me on this -- is that there is no archetype for it. There is no archetype for a female rapist or sexual abuser. The closest you come is a succubus, but those are not understood to be scary because of sex itself, only because of deformities and other grossness. Female sexuality is forever and ever incapable of constituting abuse by virtue of being sex itself, and this truth needs to be reasserted in these dark feminist times.

The irony of feminism being responsible for this madness couldn't be starker, because this is the true misogyny of our times. I can't think of anything more misogynistic than pretending women deserve to go to prison for harmless sexuality. Astonishingly, this happens even when women are treated like dirt to begin with:

This poor woman gives sex to ungrateful bastards who call her derogatory names, blackmail her into more sex by saying they will cry rape if she refuses (which feminism has enabled), and then society manages to call her an abuser on top of that. It is so mind-bogglingly wrong on every level to criminalize women for this that I lack words to do it justice, but here was another feeble attempt. It won't be the last either, because this profoundly bothers me.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

What is male sexualism?

You can't live without ideology. Whether you like it or not, your actions and inactions reflect an ideology, for which you deserve moral judgment. In the current political reality, unless you explicitly opposite it, you are complicit in feminism's hateful war on sexuality. This war is mostly fought against male sexuality, but women are victims too. Male sexualism is the name of the only ideology which systematically opposes the current war on sex. As I consider myself the leader -- or at least a leader -- of male sexualism, I am taking it upon myself to flesh out what our ideology is all about. I will do so in a series of blog posts and ultimately a book to be called The Male Sexualist Manifesto.

Today I will attempt to ground our value system and define the scope of our ideology. First I want to define what male sexualism is not. This is important because we want to avoid being ideologically possessed. Male sexualism is NOT a comprehensive ideology which purports to have the answer to all aspects of how the state should be organized. Examples of such an ideology would be communism or libertarianism or Islamism, and history tells us that they are a very bad idea when taken to extremes. Male sexualists want to avoid that pitfall. We do not have an answer for everything, and we tolerate a wide diversity of political and religious opinion; we merely have some very strong views on sexuality. Even feminism is an example of the kind of ideological possession that we seek to avoid; we are not a comprehensive alternative ideology to feminism, which would potentially be just as bad, but a corrective to some of the most hateful aspects of feminism.

So don't look to male sexualists for the answer to how, say, fisheries should be regulated, global warming should be combated or how much taxes you should pay. These questions are beyond the scope of our ideology. Individually we may well be opinionated on such matters too, but they are not part of our platform as male sexualists.

Our concern is sexual legislation. We regard sex as fundamentally good, and resist unreasonable laws against sexual behavior. This is a HUGE political area, so we have no shortage of issues to deal with, but they are all concerned with increasing sexual freedom. The way we do this is mostly to fight criminalization, but we may also advocate sexual redistribution in some form from women to men, since sex is a female resource. And a little self-help advice is in order, such as how to pick up women and preserve your sexual health by not masturbating or watching porn. All of this is to be detailed in our manifesto, and in future blog posts on the various kinds of sex laws, but for now I want to make it clear what our proper issues are.

Theoretically, since the male sexualist platform is so open to diversity on nonsexual matters, it should be easy to recruit men to our cause. So how come there are so few male sexualists? Why is it so difficult for men to get a movement going centered around our sexuality? This is puzzling and I don't have a good answer, but I WILL define our platform so we have an ideology ready for men to join.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Let's make a male sexualist manifesto

Our leader Tom Grauer came up with the idea of a collective manifesto for male sexualism, and I agree that is an excellent idea. I have been wanting to express our ideology in a more coherent way than blog posts, and now is the time. This is a great opportunity to write both individually and collectively. The first step is to come up with a list of topics, so use the comments for brainstorming and general discussion about the manifesto. But please keep it clean so we avoid the fate of other boards which have been shut down lately. I will moderate the comments to protect our freedom of speech above all and avoid impersonators and other disruption. Parts of our ideology may be criminalized and any host can shut us down on a whim, but it is still possible to get our message out there if we use our rhetorical skills for what they are worth, so let's try that.

Saturday, May 05, 2018

How to not be incel

If you are incel and want to know how to change that, this post is for you. I mean actually changing it, not making a political statement like Elliot Rodger. He may be the patron saint of incels, but that doesn't mean you want to end up like him. Even if you could influence politics and not be dead from the process, it would have a modest effect on your individual life. As important as politics is, you should also do the best you can within the constraints you find yourself in. The latter effort probably accounts for something like 80% of your outcome, so unless you are particularly altruistically inclined it should be your first concern.

I spent my entire teenage years incel, as well as some shorter periods later. Looking back, it feels absurd that so much sexual vitality could be wasted. Indeed that should be impossible, and I think it is. I now subscribe to the explanation that I wasn't so virile after all. Society is sex-hostile and the system is rigged against men, but unless you are literally confined away from women, there is still no excuse for not having sex as a healthy teenager and young man.

If you aren't having sex by at the very latest 16 or so, you simply aren't healthy. It is pathological to go so long without doing something constructive about the sex drive a boy is supposed to be equipped with. I was a sick teenage boy, though I didn't know it at the time and no one else around me did either. Only with the benefit of hindsight do I know that the incel-enabling pathology was masturbation.

I had all the qualities needed to get sex except I didn't know that masturbation was harmful. Because of one big lie I had been told, I didn't know how to fix it. Society tells you that masturbation is harmless because they are both clueless and uninterested in helping you have sex. If anything, they consider a sexless adolescence a good thing, so if they knew the truth about masturbation, they would conspire to hide it!

There are three components to sexual behavior: attraction, motivation and performance. Masturbation is harmful to males because it degrades all of them! Incels wouldn't know about the performance problems, and there is always some attraction left (however it may be corrupted into thinking fat women are unattractive, for example, and sometimes weird paraphilias appear such as an interest in anal sex), but their feckless behavior is clear proof of a major motivational deficiency.

Your brain is a general-purpose sex-getting machine, and assuming you have a healthy masculine brain it will figure out how to get it given enough motivation, or at least how to die trying rather than waste away in inceldom. All you need to do is let it do its work. Let your natural instincts kick in and the rest will usually follow. Worrying about politics or pickup tactics before you have fixed your motivation is putting the cart before the horse. Your first priority should be your motivation, and the good news is that your libido might still be salvaged, or at least some remnants of it depending on your age.

Even with an intact libido, is entirely possible that a good strategy involves violence. Historically and prehistorically this has often been the case, which helps explain why there has been so much of it. We are now living at unique time where very little violence is needed, however, and you should take advantage of that first and foremost. So cast aside the ER fantasies for now. At the very least, you should be able to get paid sex, an option he didn't go for because something was wrong with his libido.

All you need is one simple rule: "The vagina is the only outlet." This should be your creed and your mantra and your way of life. It maximizes all good things, assuming you share my values. This is the value system of male sexualism, and though I don't seek to impose it on anybody, I tend to think it will make most men the happiest. I think so because it basically consists of thinking with your genes, which is to say thinking with your dick rather than the surrogates and degenerate ideas society throws at you, and biology has arranged spectacular rewards for doing just that.

So follow the advice given at Your Brain On Porn (and see the evidence for it there if you don't believe me), which is no porn or masturbation. If it doesn't work, come back and ask about the finer points of picking up women. I have never heard of a committed nofapper who is an incel, however. If all men gave up porn and masturbation, we would be back to the kind of cutthroat competition seen in prehistoric times, but for now so many men are wankers that it is ridiculously simple to give yourself an almost unfair advantage just by not being like them.

As far as I'm concerned, nofap is the self-help counterpart to male sexualism. Our politics can't do you much good you if you don't have a sexuality to protect anyway. To help you understand that masturbating to porn is as good as asexuality, watch this video of male jewel beetles similarly letting a glass surface hijack their sexuality. Since all humans are to some extent fooled by porn, it helps to see this kind of behavior from the point of view of another species to realize how pointless and maladaptive it is. The incel is his own worst enemy if he does it.

I realize that it also depends on your comorbidities. If you have other issues such as autism or anxiety or depression, this isn't necessarily a panacea, but it should go a long way. I strongly believe that an incel without comorbidities, such as I was (well, aside from hyperpolitical disorder), will be almost universally cured by nofap. Just imagine what kind of sex life you could have had if you did it right, and it becomes painfully obvious. I am convinced I would have slept with a hundred additional women and had lots of descendants now if I had read this post at age 12, or better yet had it instilled in me from infancy that masturbation is harmful and sex is good. No doubt there are many incels who have it in them to be a stud if it wasn't for this unfortunate maladaption. Now is the time to get in touch with your inner stud or lose it forever, dear incels.

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Gally's verdict

Do you believe in homeopathy? Well, this is an even more pseudoscientific concept. You take some "sexual abuse," sometimes real but more often not, represent it in some medium such as photography or text, dilute it and keep diluting it until all you have is ones and zeros represented by electrons flowing in computer networks or magnetic fields on a disk. The more you dilute it, the greater is the supposed crime.

Child pornography is the gift that keeps on giving -- to prosecutors and the police state. The potential punishment for each of these inert computer files is on par with genocide, or soon will be. You could already imprison the entire world based on one image, and penalties keep escalating as we speak. As anyone who has seen Murder on the Orient Express knows, culpability for other crimes, even very serious ones, is diluted to nothing very quickly in the opinion of reasonable men when there are many people involved -- so how come child porn is the sole exception that works the other way? Far from being supported by reasonable people, this injustice is backed by a Voodoo theory of harm from representation, every bit as irrational as the belief that someone can steal your soul by taking pictures, but now insidiously institutionalized in feminist jurisprudence and brainwashed into the populace.

And it doesn't stop there, because e.g. the Norwegian child porn law is also a full-fledged blasphemy law, criminalizing the very idea that anyone under 18 can be sexual. Yes, the law attempts to enforce a lie, in all media including drawings and text. It even applies to fiction. I could make a criminal out of myself and all my Norwegian readers right here and now by stringing together a few sentences from my imagination that sexualize minors -- think about that! Drawing a stick figure would also do the trick. The depth of evil required to support this law boggles the mind, and you have to be an idiot to internalize it as "justice." An idiot of the oversocialized and bullshit-indoctrinated rather than undersocialized kind (who, to be fair, would not tend to believe something so stupid), but an idiot nonetheless.

I am proud to say that I have categorically opposed child porn law from its invention in the 1990s, unlike my spineless peers who let the scumbags in our legislatures tell them how to think, and I seethe with contempt and derision against the buffoons who accept it, which is sadly most people aside from male sexualists (hence I have no illusions about being anything other than a quisling to my society). How can you not see the damage you have done? The mistake was to allow censorship of private possession or expression at all. Once the police has the odious concept of a "possession of information" crime in their arsenal, it quickly escalates into a weapon of mass criminalization. Once you allow punishment for the mere possession of ones and zeros, you open a Pandora's box of police brutality. I saw it coming, and here we are, having to live in fear of what we see, write, and soon also think, prosecutions for which is now only a matter of technological rather than ideological or moral restraint.

Gally's case is a good example, and here [link coming soon] is the judgment from the district court (in Norwegian). It is a study in the depraved minds who support child porn law, try to justify their sick beliefs, and even be hateful political activists who take the level of punishment to yet another level, as he is sentenced to two years and three months. He has already filed an appeal, however, and there will most likely be a retrial. Let's discuss it in the comments. These scumbags even affirm that the cartoons in Gally's possession should be used to imprison him ("Det var også grove tegnede bilder i materialet." (p. 12)) -- it is a morality so vomitingly alien to everything I stand for that I need to restrain myself now lest I veer into another kind of criminal speech.

The persecution of child porn possession is made more tragicomic by the fact that it is men who are ruined by pornography (and masturbation). So the joke is on the police state in more ways than they realize, as they help men pursue actual sex more aggressively and ably by suppressing pornography. The children depicted are not victims of child porn, at least not by the depiction -- but the male viewer is. I recommend that all men avoid looking at pornography -- underage or adult makes no difference -- because it is toxic to your libido and virility. This should be regarded a personal health issue, however, such as smoking or drinking, rather than a criminal matter. I am not so opposed to regulating the commercial exploitation of pornography, but I don't buy the charade that anything magical happens at 18 and can't accept criminalization of possession or noncommercial sharing/expression.

Friday, March 30, 2018

Quisling therapy for hyperpolitical disorder

To be an MRA of the male sexualist persuasion is to be extremely isolated. We don't share society's values in the profoundly important area of sexuality, so we are not one of them. Our open hostility to laws that most people around us have internalized (whether they obey them or not, funnily enough) makes us quislings, and I mean that literally. But lacking either an effective male sexualist insurgency or an external enemy with whom to collaborate, and also assuming we don't want to stage an unsuccessful coup and get killed or imprisoned, we are faced with the need to manage our hatred. This post is concerned with strategies for such hate management, the most promising of which I call quisling therapy.

The fact that I am a quisling is already determined. A country with all these hateful sex laws and which on top of that has abolished the jury of your peers in criminal trials is not my country. Indeed, just the abolition of the jury is more than enough justification for civil war. Now, what do I do with this conviction? How do I live my life with such a all-consuming hatred against the government?

We don't strive for a "cure," because the only cure is war, which currently can only lead to death or imprisonment because resistance to feminism is so ridiculously scarce that MRAs can't even muster a small peaceful protest. Furthermore, we don't have an "anger management" issue, since we don't act impulsively. (If we were to get violent, the level of premeditation would be just as intense as our views.) Our issue is separate from and runs far, far deeper than anything to do with impulse control; it consumes our very souls. This is more a rhetorical figure than a proposed psychopathology, but it helps to have a name for it:

Diagnosis: hyperpolitical disorder

Diagnostic criteria: Over a period of at least six months, a person has experienced daily intense hatred against laws and their enforcement, hatred which is distressing and interferes markedly with quality of life.

I have met these diagnostic criteria since at least 1998, when Norwegian legislators began working in earnest on sex law corruption, with the first huge feminist victory being the rape law reform of the year 2000. Since then, the misandry has only accelerated, culminating in the abolition of the jury in 2018 (which alone should be enough to make any decent person hyperpolitical, obviously, but bizarrely isn't having that effect on most of the population) and still getting worse.

The aim of quisling therapy is to correct the quality of life part, but not the hatred, because the hatred is righteous. I am, without question, the person who hates the government the most out of everyone I have met or ever heard of aside from actual terrorists. The only reason I did not become a violent activist myself is due to circumstances and nothing else, as I am cut from the same ideological and moral cloth as those who do take that path. It is important to emphasize that a pragmatic decision to obey the law such as I have made does not equal a peaceful disposition. I would be the first to take up arms against my government if such resistance were realistic (and if I had access to arms, which I don't). Integral to quisling therapy, then, is to still feel like a warrior. That is the first step, which assures that we retain our pride and integrity. And of course we can incite within the limits of the law, like I have done with great success at avoiding a criminal record.

But I am still thinking about the other steps. Quisling therapy is a work in progress, and I welcome input. There are basically three ways to deal with hyperpolitical disorder, or three endpoints: become a terrorist, let the hatred destroy you, or get quisling therapy (I guess a fourth would be to change your political views, but I am not interested in that one). Thus if we develop a helpful quisling therapy, we may prevent some tragic fates, so this is important.

Most people are only noticeably bothered by odious laws when they are accused of breaking them or at least at strong risk of being so. I can't fathom how they do it because I am very, very different -- I am truly hyperpolitical, or oversensitive to laws. My soul seethes with hatred almost to the point of self-destruction. I am talking about the negative health effects of stress hormones associated with a constant state of intense raw hatred. This is a problem, because we have to admit that hate is toxic to the hater as well as the hated object. The childish safe spaces employed by liberals serve a similar purpose, but they only help naive people who are bothered by ideas and not the monopoly violence of the state. There are no safe spaces against laws; that would be like trying to hide from gravity. So we have to come up with a different strategy.

The number one, and most obvious strategy is (non-violent) activism and political activity, and I do that, but it isn't enough. So I started thinking of myself as a quisling -- honestly the worst quisling since Quisling himself -- which helps more, but can be refined. I have also thought of converting to Islam as a step in my quisling therapy, but haven't committed to that yet.

PS: After I wrote the above, I googled "hyperpolitical disorder" to see if someone had thought of it before. I got two hits, neither of which describe what I am talking about. One of them referred to Ben Carson, but his views are just hyper-dumb, not bordering on insanely hostile.

PPS: Gally was found guilty and sentenced to two years and three months in prison (which he is appealing, so this is not final). I plan a separate blog post on that hateful verdict, which is a very good example of why I am hyperpolitical.