Sunday, October 05, 2014

Freedom of speech is reaffirmed in Norway

When the scumbags in law enforcement try to have you criminally prosecuted and you are acquitted in a court of law despite proudly taking full responsibility for the acts you are accused of, prosecutors end up sending the opposite message than what they intended: Such acts are legal and can be committed with impunity and utter contempt for the police. Indeed, it would be a better deterrent against offensive speech to refrain from prosecuting baseless cases and leave us wondering if we are breaking the law. Now Arslan Ubaydullah Maroof Hussain has been acquitted of inciting terrorism, while arrogantly standing by all his statements. Read the full verdict here (in Norwegian), which also includes the quotes he was on trial for -- a useful template for what we can certainly say legally.

I love court cases where the accused proudly admits to all facts and disdainfully proceeds to attack the law itself or its application, and still wins. It is a glorious situation similar to what happened to me two years ago, and now it has happened again in Norway. Supporting and celebrating terrorist acts is now certified legal. The cops acted in bad faith, much to their embarrassment. Their bluff is called, and the slimeball prosecutors are the object of public derision even among politically correct commentators who normally support fascism. I can declare with increased conviction that I hate the guts of cops and wish them the worst, and Islamists now know for sure that they can celebrate the atrocities of ISIS such as beheadings and the like with legal protection.

While I was accused under the general incitement law which covers all crimes (§140), Hussain was accused of inciting terrorism specifically under §147c, but his statements are very similar to mine (in fact I was surprised at the time that I was never charged under §147c myself, since the spirit of this law is the best match for what men's rights activism means). Both statutes also similarly state that you have to call for action (the crucial word is "iverksettelse"; read the verdict for a good discussion) before the law applies. Merely supporting or celebrating criminal acts is not against the law. Neither Hussain nor I told anyone to actually carry out specific acts of violent activism -- we merely stated that such acts comport with our values and we glorified them in various ways. The cops tried to stretch this too far, as if we can "indirectly" incite terrorism criminally by celebrating it. Prosecutors must have known that their line of reasoning flies in the face of the principle of legality, which basically means that laws can't be applied so vaguely, and now they have egg on their faces. The court has ruled that only your explicit statements count as far as criminal incitement law is concerned, rather than the interpreted spirit of your message, even if it most assuredly is the correct interpretation. So both Hussain and I are confidently within freedom of speech as it legally exists in Norway. I already knew that, of course, but it's good to have it reaffirmed. This verdict makes it perfectly clear that we are free to opine publicly that certain crimes are morally right and even wish and pray for them to come to fruition, which is all we have done.

On a side note, it is a little bit funny that when I was cleared of all criminal charges, pundits were quick to denounce me nearly unanimously based on pure politics and call for more draconian laws (confer Lex Berge) without even giving my supposedly illegal statements due consideration, but now the same pundits support Hussain and call his acquittal an obviously correct decision after evaluating the legal aspects dispassionately (and look at this). Go figure. The media pundits must love Muslims much more than ethnic Norwegians. And perhaps they understand that the Men's Movement, if it gains traction, can be more insidious because we are an enemy emerging from within the feminist state with its hateful sex laws that these manginas will defend at any cost. We don't look like Muslim militants. Which reminds me: Should the Men's Movement support the Islamic war effort as well, at least morally? There is at least one powerful argument in favor: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Insofar as the Muslims can hurt the feminist state, they have my support. But otherwise I have very little in common with Muslims, so I don't know how fruitful any cooperation would be. Choosing between feminism or Islamism looks rather like a pest or cholera situation. What do other MRAs think?

Sunday, September 28, 2014

The problem with low oil prices

As a former techno-optimist, up until a few years ago I believed peak oil was nothing to worry about and I saw no reason why we shouldn't be able to carry on civilization on renewable energy in any case. Now I see how spectacularly ignorant I was, and what decisively convinced me was the problem of too low oil prices. Try to wrap your mind around what low oil prices really mean, and therein lies the frightful realization that the future cannot be anything like we commonly imagine. Low oil and other commodity prices are much more problematic than they appear at first glance, because it takes an increasing amount of real resources to produce these commodities, and if the market is unable to afford at least this cost, then eventually the commodities cannot be had at all. As an analogy, consider space tourism. We know it is technically possible to go to the moon, yet it is impossible to book a cruise to the moon at any price, even if you are a billionaire, because the entire potential market is too poor to support the infrastructure investments needed to produce a moon tourism industry in the first place. So space travel cannot be had at any price, despite technical feasibility. And that is the fate of the oil industry as well, and all other advanced technological industries. Everything we value and depend on, including enough food to sustain anything close to the current population, will be gone within our lifetimes or shortly thereafter.

If oil prices could rise arbitrarily high, then there would be no insurmountable problem, and substitution would also be possible. But reality doesn't work that way, because there is a limit to how much the market can pay (in fact, wages seem to have hit the ceiling already for most people), and the universe is under no obligation to provide us with resources we can't afford even if we desperately need them. When oil is getting too expensive to extract, it obviously also does not work to substitute with something even more expensive. Unfortunately, all conceivable alternatives to fossil fuels are more expensive, and the much hyped "green" alternatives may in fact be counterproductive and hasten our collapse. We are therefore surely doomed, and there is nothing science or technology or wealth can do about it.

It is intuitive to me at this point that industrial civilization cannot operate on renewable energy such as solar and wind and biofuels, because these energy sources are too diffuse. While not intuitive, I also tend to accept the conclusion that nuclear energy will not work either (too low EROEI, all things considered, which is manifested in lack of profitability and the need for subsidies), based on the analysis of smarter people than I. Our civilization is all over but the crying, and the only question left to be decided is the time scale and details of the collapse. At one extreme, you have people like Gail Tverberg and David Korowicz, who say collapse will be nearly instantaneous, and on the other hand you have John Michael Greer, who says our descent into the next dark ages will take a century or more. I am still trying to figure out who is right, but I have no doubt that growth is over, it will be all downhill from here, and the end result will not even be worth living in by our standards for the few who manage to survive the bottleneck. On the plus side this also means victory over feminism is assured, because the feminist police state with enforcement of its hateful sex laws cannot be sustained without fossil fuels, but it is a Pyrrhic victory.

Gail is the world's biggest pessimist indeed. She does not think humans can do anything. But she is right -- absent the global economy with all its long and interdependent supply lines that make up the operational fabric of our civilization, there is very little humans can do. It does not matter how smart you are -- alone you are limited to Stone Age technology, and this is even true for isolated countries and regions. If you don't believe this, go and try to dig up some oil or coal yourself with your bare hands, and you understand how dependent we are on the entire networked economy, which is precisely what is on the cusp of breaking down.

These days the news is full of reports on layoffs in the Norwegian oil sector due to decreasing profitability and diminishing investments in new projects. This is happening because the cost of extracting oil in the North Sea has quintupled over the last decade! It is surreal to read Norwegian newspapers which present peak oil as a local problem and pretend we can be fine doing something else and perhaps even thrive by investing in green energy. They do not explain that the fundamental problem is diminishing returns, which affects all resource extraction globally. That article actually admits that there is no profit in renewables, yet they are presented as a solution, and how renewables can be perpetuated without subsidies from fossil fuels is based on nothing but wishful thinking. Exactly what Gail predicted is happening, yet most people are unable to put two and two together and contemplate the full implications. Everyone should read her latest post, because she explains the problem with low commodity prices better than I. Or perhaps it is best not to, if you would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant as long as possible.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

A good read

Elliot Rodger's manifesto is absolutely amazing. It reads like an expertly crafted and professionally edited novel. In fact, it is so well written that it almost makes me suspect the whole thing is a hoax. It is hard to believe that a sophomore from a community college who keeps dropping his classes can produce such a captivating and immaculate book. With the director father and all, could this be something other than it seems? Some sort of viral marketing campaign, perhaps? Propaganda against the NRA? But no, with all this deadly serious news coverage, I guess we have to conclude it is real.

This isn't insanity, either. Rodger is mentally stable throughout his life, but virginity naturally becomes increasingly frustrating as time goes by. He has poor social skills, which despite counseling will never improve, but he's not schizophrenic and does not slip into psychosis or anything like that. At worst he might be a high-functioning autistic, but even that is unclear. Maybe he is just suffering from social anxiety. The most insane part of the book is when he thinks he will win the lottery and dabbles in the law of attraction, but he gets over that and there are no magical beliefs guiding him on his way to revenge. He is rational and calculating and meticulous, even planning his suicide well in order to avoid capture and imprisonment (use two handguns with a spare in case one jams). There is absolutely no doubt that the rampage is caused by sexual deprivation, and up until the end he holds out some hope that he will get laid after all and cancel the whole retribution thing. As long as he can't have sex, he is determined to destroy some of the happy sexually active people around him. Girls who pick other men and the lucky men who get laid are targeted equally, and he even plans to kill his housemates and brother and step-mother.

You either have to experience celibacy yourself or read this manifesto to comprehend how dangerous this sort of man is. While reading, I was struck with the realization that he is at least as smart as you, and he is going to use that intelligence to kill you. This means he has a good chance of succeeding, which he did. There is no "treatment" for this condition (besides getting sex), because the incel is just as smart as the psychiatrists or cops or whoever tries to intervene, and so he will anticipate their moves and thwart them. The close shave with the cops when they almost search his room is chilling, but here he demonstrates that he is indeed sane and from then on he sleeps with a loaded gun nearby to ensure he will get in at least some kills if they come back.

The monster virgin is a true product of our sex-hostile feminist society, which denies that involuntary celibacy can ever be a problem and is more concerned with constructing the bizarre lie that women can be rapists than acknowledging the basic needs of men. You reap as you sow.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Right-wing feminism is equally odious in Norway

Last year in Norway, the ruling leftist coalition lost the election and their government was replaced by a coalition of so-called right-wing parties. I didn't vote for them, or at all, because I knew they would merely replace socialism with fascism. In past elections I always voted for the Progress Party (Frp) in the belief that they would be a lesser evil, but now I understand there is no such thing. Their authoritarian, police-loving, man-hating views simply cannot be excused even if their economic policy is slightly less oppressive, and now the results of their hateful ideology are starting to manifest themselves. While the new government did decrease the income tax by one percentage point and repealed the death tax, on men's rights they are in fact worse than the old socialists.

The scumbags in the Norwegian legislature, fully supported by the new government, have abolished the statute of limitations on sex crimes, even victimless sex crimes like consensual sex with young teenagers, setting the stage for witch-hunts on old men just like the Savile hysteria in Britain. They didn't yet make it retroactive, so it will take a while for this to bear fruit, but it certainly proves that the Progress Party consists of even more odious feminist scumbags than the Labor Party, and I hate their guts equally profoundly. If anything, minister of justice Anders Anundsen from the Progress Party is a more despicable person than any of his predecessors.

And they are working on expanding the definition of rape once more, inheriting the proposed changes I blogged about earlier from the previous administration.

Thus the march of misandry continues, regardless of which party is voted into power. All political parties in Norway, without exception, represent hatred against men. None of them deserve our vote, and all of them deserve our utmost contempt.

So much for partisan politics, but there is one voice of reason amid all the misandry. Synnøve Brattlie is a psychiatrist making surprisingly lucid statements about rape law. She points out that women are not served well by a dishonestly expansive definition of rape with escalating punishments. She believes that when every woman who has her regrets after sex is defined as a rape victim and the hateful machinery of the state is maximally supportive in having the man convicted and locked up for many years even though the woman shares equal blame for the sexual encounter, then this may do more harm than good to women. Or to honest women, at any rate. In her clinical experience, the dishonest and hateful nature of rape investigations and trials on the part of the feminist state also messes with women's psychology, because the entire point of the proceedings is to perpetuate a lie. In the current system, there is no such thing as bad or regretted sex, or men simply acting like jerks -- everything is rape if the woman has any negative feelings about it whatsoever, so women are not allowed to be honest about their sexual experiences. This realization is progress and very similar to what I have been saying for ten years now, except as usual in public discourse, only the woman's point of view is taken into account. We have now reached the point where in the opinion of at least one psychiatrist, rape law is hurting women because it is too expansive and draconian, so feminist rape law reforms should be reversed to help women. I doubt our hateful legislators will listen to this point of view either, however.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Oversocialization explains the female sex-offender charade

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something like that, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the more extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminist, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Ted Kaczynski explains how it works in his Manifesto:

   9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
   call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
   inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
   oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
   modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.


   24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
   process by which children are trained to think and act as society
   demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
   obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
   part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
   are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
   Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
   rebels as they seem.
   25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
   think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
   supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
   time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
   so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
   imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
   they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
   and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
   have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
   such people. [2]
   26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
   powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
   by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
   ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
   expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
   especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
   HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
   person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
   the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
   significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
   thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
   someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
   to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
   these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
   shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
   experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
   the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
   socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
   confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
   of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
   leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
   for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
   constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
   that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
   beings inflict on one another.
   27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
   modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
   great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
   Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
   members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
   intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
   society and also the most left-wing segment.
   28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
   psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
   he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
   society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
   conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
   an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
   mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
   equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
   to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
   animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
   society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
   these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
   its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
   explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
   material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
   the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
   oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
   justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
   truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.

I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.

The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.

As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

For the children

After reading through this thread,

I am convinced that Gavin Andresen is an evil man. It is much worse than I thought. He literally wants the Bitcoin Foundation to be an extension of the feminist sex abuse industry. In fact this is even worse than what the feminists are currently doing. He thinks it might be a good idea if the Bitcoin Foundation offered a bounty paid in bitcoin for anyone who can successfully accuse someone of a sex crime against children. This is so sick and absurd, he comes across as a caricature of the kind of dimwitted scumbag who will blindly favor any kind of persecution as long as it is claimed to be "for the children." These are his words: "For example, maybe offering mostly-anonymous bounties to reward anybody who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people abusing children for profit or pleasure is a good idea. Maybe those bounties could be paid in Bitcoin."

Ok, let me follow his example. I hereby offer a bounty of 1 BTC to anyone who successfully accuses Gavin Andresen of a sex crime. If anyone can put him in prison for at least a decade and on the sex offender registry for life, then I shall send the informer one bitcoin. How do you like to live in a world where any idiot could get paid to make up accusations against you, Gavin? Or perhaps send you some child porn and call the cops? What if others chip in and make the bounty 1000 BTC, do you still only feel warm and fuzzy about "protecting the children" then, Gavin? And what makes you think creating these kinds of perverse incentives is the job of the Bitcoin Foundation?

We seriously need to support some new developers, because not even the central bankers could come up with this shit...

Anyone who wants to contribute to the bounty on successfully accusing Gavin Andresen of a sex crime can send BTC to 1Ay8PaesNqgu1QDP7VD9tNKuYKhsneHqSD, and I will hold it for that purpose.

And just to clarify, I am not trying to incite false accusations here. I am just giving him *exactly* what he asked for...

Wednesday, October 16, 2013


For all our talk about gender roles, there is little attention paid in the manosphere to the deeper basis for keeping civilization running. Let us not forget that the economy is an energy equation. Whatever else is going on, nothing can work unless the laws of thermodynamics are obeyed. You can do all sorts of funny stuff with enough energy, but without a huge energy surplus, there is very little to do beyond subsistence farming for the vast majority of people, as history indeed attests to. The inescapable need for sufficient energy input is often forgotten in the manosphere, just as it is in almost every other sphere nowadays. Which is also unsurprising if you think about it, since we all grew up in an unprecedented era of extreme energy abundance and never directly felt the harsh economics of natural existence. MRAs often assume that if we only fix marriage and repeal some laws, everything will be all right. But I fear we may run into a greater problem even if all this is accomplished. There is one sphere dedicated to this problem, and they do seem to be onto something. According to the peak oilers, we will soon reach a point where the energy needed to hold the system together that we all rely on is unavailable. After reading sites like the Oil Drum and Gail the Actuary for a while, I suspect they may be fundamentally right. And I say this as someone who thought believers in peak oil were all tinfoil-hat lunatics until very recently. If this means I too have gone insane, then please point out in the comments which part of the limits-to-growth argument is flawed, because it sure seems more convincing right now than the cornucopian vision.

In a word, I have become peak oil aware. I am convinced the world is in a much worse state than the mainstream media is letting on, and it will be all downhill from here. If you watch the news, you get the impression that fracking and shale oil have solved peak oil to the point that the U.S. will soon be an exporter, renewable energy will gradually replace fossil fuels and be almost as good, and of course economic prosperity is always right around the corner. It is also arrogantly assumed that we can easily keep the system running long enough to burn enough fossil fuels to cause significant global warming, which is seen as our most important worry (as if peak oil won't do us in long before climate change possibly can). But if you look more closely into any of these issues, it becomes clear that the official position is catastrophically flawed. Renewables are a joke, with so horrible energy return on energy invested (EROEI) that it's unclear if they can even serve to delay collapse rather than hasten it due to the complexity they add. At best, renewables can work as fossil fuel extenders, but they don't produce enough energy to reproduce themselves. For example, we don't know how to use solar cells to make more solar cells without an oil-based infrastructure. You can't make more hydroelectric plants or maintain the existing ones without oil, either, or wind farms, or any of the proposed alternatives.

There is simply no practical alternative to burning fossil fuels. In truth, we have no idea how to maintain industrial civilization and keep us all fed any other way. Not with seven billion people (except nuclear, but that won't happen in time for political reasons). For every calorie in our food, ten calories from fossil fuels go into growing and processing it, and this is the only way we know how to do it. There is even no readily available alternative to liquid fuels, and these are absolutely essential to prevent collapse. And even more immediately, there is probably no alternative to our debt-based financial system to keep the wheels turning. As soon as awareness spreads in the system that all the growing debts cannot ever be meaningfully repaid because the necessary wealth will never materialize in a shrinking economy, the whole system comes tumbling down. This is not a physical necessity, but it is a strong likelihood. It is also possible that essential services will keep running until we hit hard physical limits (which admittedly would take decades), perhaps by means of government coercion such as forced labor, but this is highly uncertain and would in any case be highly unpleasant.

Collapse could start as early as this week if the U.S. government defaults on its debt, or perhaps they will come up with a way to kick the proverbial can down the road a bit further. In any event, they can't borrow their way out of their problems in a shrinking economy for long, so eventually collapse will catch up with them. Because of globalization, the depression will spread, and so we must return to a world with much less complexity. Because of resource depletion and population overshoot, the future will be ridiculously much worse than any other period in history. The stone age will likely seem like Utopia compared to what awaits us, because back then they were only moderately crowded and still had low-hanging fruit around to mostly subsist (although deforestation was already a problem back in prehistoric times). Whatever technology they had was also realistically suited for their world, while we can't get anything done without computers and oil, none of which will be available in the future.

When I see the malice perpetrated against men by governments around me, I take solace in the likelihood that they will soon lack the energy to keep it up. There will be plenty of benefits for men as entropy overtakes feminist enforcement of all their hateful sex laws. For one thing, a post-collapse society cannot keep a sex offender registry because all electronic records will disintegrate. There will be no functioning electric grid and no Internet, so all surveillance technology will cease to function. Cops will have no way to check if you are wanted, and said cops won't be paid properly anyway, so they probably won't even stay on the job.

And governments cannot incarcerate a great number of people in a low-energy world unless they can coerce slave labor out of them to make the EROEI of the prisoners sustainable. This is unlikely because the technology needed to force slaves to work the fields is lacking and cannot be produced at the scale needed. You can't manufacture as much as a shovel without oil, and the machinery currently used will break down, never to be repaired. Contemporary prisoners all have an EROEI much lower than 1 (usually zero), which isn't workable for long. Perhaps slavery was sustainable in previous times when all of society was adapted to that level of existence with the technology and skills to go along with it, but I don't see that happening now. Most likely, collapsing states will be faced with the option of killing off prisoners or setting them free, because resources to employ guards and feed them and the prisoners too will be lacking. This is the silver lining of peak oil from an MRA perspective.

On the other hand, most of us will starve to death or succumb to disease or wars or exposure as we flee the cities, which will be the biggest death traps of them all. I am hardly a rugged survivalist type myself, so I realize I will probably not be among the 1% or less expected to survive the kind of collapse envisioned. But after recovering from the initial peak oil blues most people experience when they become aware of the predicament, I have come to feel optimistic about the coming collapse. Because I hate the sex-hostility perpetrated by our governments so intensely, I will be happy to witness their downfall even if I have to suffer alongside them. At least I will get to see the terror in the eyes of feminists and manginas when they realize the lights of our civilization are going out for good and it's only brutish barbarism from here on. The moment when the scumbags in law enforcement and our legislatures realize their kids will not grow up because there will be no economy to sustain future generations, and their own pensions are as worthless as Monopoly money, will be priceless to us decent folks. There is nothing we can do to prevent collapse, so it's best not to be too invested in any worldly things, but we can still take delight in the suffering of our enemies. Sure, people could have reasonably good lives in preindustrial times, but not with seven billion...

Even if you are a hard-core prepper, I wouldn't expect to survive much longer than most people, because unless you have the kind of fortified facility only a billionaire can afford, it is impractical to have food when others around you are starving. If nothing else, you will quickly run out of ammunition to fend off looters. Therefore, I don't bother with prepping. It is always prudent to keep a well-stocked pantry and learn basic survival and self-defense skills, of course, but beyond that, there isn't much any of us can do to improve our chances. I expect that within a few months after supply lines are cut, things will get so bad, the outcomes for each of us will be largely uncorrelated with our preparations.

This is assuming a fast collapse. It is also possible the collapse will be more protracted, in which case we will live longer and get gradually poorer, our life expectancies will fall and so on. Archdruid John Michael Greer is a proponent of this sort of slow catabolic collapse, and he might be right. He is also probably the most erudite peak oil writer, in my opinion, and his blog is not to be missed. The Archdruid thinks business as usual can continue for ten more years, after which a long series of calamities will befall us over the next hundred years. At that point the human population will be down to three billion and falling. This is possible if we are able to catabolize parts of our infrastructure and recycle it in successive stages for the benefit of a much reduced population, and unfortunately it also enables oppressive governments to stay in business longer. I don't claim to predict exactly what will happen, and I don't think anyone knows. But one thing seems certain: This cycle of civilization is doomed, and we won't make it to the Singularity first like I foolishly believed in my youth, because we don't have enough energy to channel into technological progress. Prosperity isn't something which magically appears as randomly the wind blows, like I used to assume and as economists still seem to think. Prosperity must of course be based in a real energy surplus, and that energy surplus will no longer be forthcoming.

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Rape hoax in Aftenposten

I would like to draw attention to a feminist fraud perpetrated in the newspaper Aftenposten. Women lying about rape is nothing new, but did you know they even make false accusations on behalf of men, against other women? Bizarre, isn't it? But it makes sense now that the law is about to be changed in order to criminalize even more of male sexuality as rape. So in order to drum up support from gullible men for their expanded rape definition, feminists are impersonating a male "victim" of "rape" by a woman, as if men need this law, too. The narrative somewhat resembles the story of the freak show known as James Landrith (and as noted, even he has been exposed as a fraud) -- except this one is obviously not written by a man at all. Read it and see for yourself, if you can read Norwegian.
Jeg er blitt tvunget til å ha sex. Jeg er blitt voldtatt. Det hendte en natt en helg, og jeg hadde drukket en del. Ut på kvelden havnet vi på et soverom. Vi pratet og jeg sovnet. Da jeg våknet, var det en som nærmest lå over meg, mens den andre fiklet med underlivet mitt. Jeg forsøkte å vri meg unna, men kom ingen vei. Og så forsvant jeg, liksom. Kunne bare observere det som skjedde - helt lamslått. Kroppen min var gått i lås. Så forsvant de, og jeg ble funnet sovende på rommet tidlig morgenen etter. [...]
Aside from the fact that no normal man would react to a perfectly harmless sexual situation like the text claims, the last sentence is jarringly incongruent and transparently spoken by a bitter feminist cuntrag: "Synd jeg ikke er kvinne, da kunne jeg bare dratt på meg bestemorstrusen og snudd ryggen til."

And the saddest part is, people are buying it, and it looks like the new rape law will soon be passed by the legistlature with little opposition. Here is an example of a mangina who has been duped by the charade, clearly also influenced by the "men's human rights" gibberish of AVfM which includes blind allegiance to feminist rape ideology.

To anyone with a functioning bullshit detector, it should be abundantly clear that the purported anonymous 19-year-old male "rape victim" is a feminist impostor. As one of my commenters puts it in the comments to my previous post:
Ja, f.eks. måten hun "Mann(19)" bare skriver 'mottak' i stedet for 'voldtektsmottak', som om det er et dagligdags tema, avslører at dette er en person som har voldtekt på sin daglige agenda. På slutten kommer hun "Mann(19)" inn på den reelle agendaen for det falske debattinnlegget, at menn og kvinner må være på lag i å kjempe mot voldtekt, hvilket for henne åpenbart betyr utvidelse av voldtektsbegrepet og senking av beviskrav samt lengre straffer. Folk flest synes å sluke dette tøvet til hun "Mann(19)" rått.
Whether Aftenposten is in on the fraud or they simply got hoaxed, I don't know. It would behoove them to do some fact checking, because this seriously hurts their credibility. They have also published another article by the phony rape accuser, which is also obviously written by a professional feminist. Please get the word out because this is doing serious damage. If I still haven't convinced you that entire concept of female sex offenders is inherently laughable -- which it is -- at least you should not be hoodwinked by outright lies.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Feminist rape gets a reality check in Dubai

As we all know by now, in Norway and other feminist countries it is a simple and routine matter for any woman to have her regrets after sex, cry rape and count on the police and justice system to do its utmost to convict the accused man regardless of how willingly she had sex. A young woman from Norway, 24-year-old Marte Deborah Dalelv, naively thought she could do the same in Dubai, but was shocked to learn that what passes for "rape" in Norway is criminal conduct for women in Dubai. The courts in Dubai didn't agree that her story constitutes rape, and sentenced her instead to 16 months in prison for fornication and drinking alcohol. This case was first widely publicized here in Norway, and now CNN reports it as well. It beautifully showcases the entitlement of feminist women to have all their regretted sex prosecuted as rape. And it also predictably brought the manginas of Norwegian politics out of the woodwork, who vehemently protest this verdict while they are perfectly happy to imprison men for false rape in Norway. In short, this case highlights all the reasons why I became an MRA: Normal male sexuality makes us all rapists in the eyes of the law, and the entire system here conspires to promote this misandry.

One side of a story is almost never accurate, and here we only have the woman's story quoted. Even so, Marte's story does not add up to rape even if she is telling nothing but the truth. She describes only token resistance in going to the man's hotel room before willingly going to bed with him, and then blacks out and implies no resistance at all until she has her regrets the next morning as she wakes up naked. There is no violence; only drunkenness and regret. The case could hardly be more stereotypical of regretted drunken sex redefined in retrospect as rape thanks to feminist rape law -- minus the feminist law. The accused rapist is just a normal, persistent man, behaving like I have done many times and any of us would. Only with perverse, misandristic laws can this be rape, and I am pleased that Dubai rejects the hateful precepts of feminist rape law that Marte thought she could get away with.

Marte Deborah Dalelv was at worst taken advantage of while drunk and careless, like any normal man would do, but she was not raped. I am happy that she is now experiencing a backlash for her hateful attitude that she is entitled to have men imprisoned for our normal male sexuality.

Remember also that admitting it was not rape amounts to confessing to the crimes she is convicted of, so she has a powerful incentive to remain a false accuser, even as she probably understands by now that she made a foolish mistake by calling the police.

In Norway a woman is never at fault for her actions, no matter how irresponsible. If a woman has any sexual regret at all, for any reason whatsoever, a man is always guilty of rape. Kudos to Dubai for standing up to this feminist ideal. While I am no fan of the sex-hostile moralism of Sharia law, their system is clearly superior to ours and admirably equitable. I don't agree with criminalizing fornication. But if we must have so repressive laws, it is much fairer to hold the woman responsible along with the man in cases of regretted sex (and in this case the man was sentenced to prison as well, just not for rape). Sharia law is the lesser of two evils. Rather than institutionalizing false victimhood like feminist law does, it holds both sexes accountable to rigid moral standards. I would take excessive moralism over excessive misandry any day. Thus, as an MRA, I applaud Dubai and I welcome Islamization of Europe too, over feminism at any rate.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Lex Berge is in effect

As a direct result of the embarrassing failure of the Norwegian police to prosecute me for statements on this blog (all of which can still be found here), politicians promptly set in motion a process to change the law. And now on May 24th, 2013, the new law went into effect.

In hopes of having better luck prosecuting MRAs and other outspoken undesirables in the future, the government has changed the legal definition of "public" in such a way as to include the Internet. Not just anything on the Internet, but statements communicated to at least something like 20-30 people, as explained at length here. So private email is still not public, but blogs and forums are. Specifically, this was accomplished by changing section 7 of the old Penal Code of 1902 into this:
§ 7. Med offentlig sted menes et sted bestemt for alminnelig ferdsel eller et sted der allmennheten ferdes.

En handling er offentlig når den er foretatt i nærvær av et større antall personer, eller når den lett kunne iakttas og er iakttatt fra et offentlig sted. Består handlingen i fremsettelse av en ytring, er den også offentlig når ytringen er fremsatt på en måte som gjør den egnet til å nå et større antall personer.

Endret ved lov 24 mai 2013 nr. 18.
While defining the Internet as public is not problematic in and of itself because that merely reflects the truth, given the laws it in turn affects, this legal reform is sadly a setback for freedom of speech in Norway. Changing the legal definition of "public" acts and utterances has implications for several more criminal laws, so I dare say I have had quite a significant impact on our penal code. In my case though, it means §140, the law on incitement according to which I was charged, could theoretically have been applicable. §140 applies to incitatory public speech, and now statements made on the Internet can qualify.

However, contrary to popular belief and tabloid portrayals this doesn't necessarily mean they can convict you just for advocating cop-killing like I did. The incitement law specifies the advocacy of initiation ("iverksettelse") of a crime, and I don't believe anything I have said on this blog would qualify as such. Did I tell anybody to go out and kill cops? No, I said killing cops is the right thing to do for MRAs as activism against misandric sex laws. I said cop-killing is in complete harmony with everything I stand for. There are weighty reasons for why this law is not meant to criminalize this sort of speech, according to precedent and legal scholarship. Statements about the morality, utility and desirability of revolutionary acts are meant to be exempt, or else a whole lot of leftists and feminists also ought to be prosecuted. So even if I had not been liberated by the Supreme Court on the technicality that the Internet is not public, it is dubious whether the cops would have been able to convict me anyway in a jury trial. And let us not forget that glorifying crime, which I was also wrongfully charged with, is and remains legal as I have emphasized before. We are free to celebrate publicly when acts of violent activism befall our rulers and their enforcers, and we are free to make moral pronouncements about such acts and state that we support them. What is new is merely the criminalization of incitement on the Internet to initiate specific criminal acts, but I never engaged in that anyway.