Sunday, November 09, 2014

I'll Take My Stand

My compensation case is going to trial.
On the Fourth of July in 2012 I was arrested, jailed and charged with criminal incitement because of my no-nonsense approach to men's rights. I have stated bluntly that cops are our enemies and I hate their guts. I have said in no uncertain terms that I wish them the worst, making it clear that I morally support violent activism against cops, for revenge and more importantly with the aim of influencing legislators to reverse feminist sex law reforms. Make no mistake, the gender war is a civil war where it all comes down to sex laws such as the definition of rape, age of consent, child porn laws, sexual harassment laws, grooming laws, criminalization of the purchase of sex and so on, and law enforcement is our actual enemy in the real world. As men's rights activists (MRAs), we are intensely aware of the fact that our ideology is mutually hateful to the prevailing norms of (feminist) society. I know I am so different from the man in the street, or should I say the mangina in the street, that there is no political party I can vote for. Our mutual hatred is far stronger than most people realize, because the great unwashed do not fully comprehend the scope of the sex laws that they tacitly support. But MRAs do, and that is our defining characteristic along with the hatred that these laws breed in us. If you conform to political correctness like most people, we hate you for criminalizing our sexuality and your willingness to hurt us just for being normal men. To mince no words: I am ideologically aligned with violent activism. Please understand that this is an exposition of my moral convictions and not an incitation to commit such crimes. I believe the most honorable response to state feminism is for men to inflict damage on society (and I hasten to add preferably not by violent means; simply refusing to contribute to society can be sufficient if enough men do it) to the point where all the odious feminist-reformed sex laws do more harm than good to women when you include our activism in the equation. Our hearts and souls are seething with hatred against the feminist state and its enforcers. Simply put, men's rights activism is all about politicizing and radicalizing sex offenders -- which by now is synonymous with men -- in order to hurt the state enough to give up its war against male sexuality (and to some extent female sexuality as well, since some women also become victims of feminist sex laws).

My published opinions are perfectly sincere and I was certainly guilty as charged as far as all the facts go, but there was one problem with the prosecution's case: None of this is against the law. While I am not exactly concerned with respecting the law in a moral sense (quite the opposite; in fact my entire blog is about resisting the normative power of laws and turn back the tide of feminist legislation), I know intuitively what freedom of speech is, and as a practical matter I made sure not to cross the line into criminal speech as defined by the Norwegian penal code. Thus I never wrote a sentence without carefully crafting it to conform to freedom of speech. Considerable restraint was required as I was fuming with hatred, but I always made sure to obey the law.

The police are the ones who disregard the law. They abused their power and arrested me without any legal basis, as confirmed by the Norwegian Supreme Court, who ruled that I had done nothing illegal and ordered my release. Having already been cleared of all criminal charges but denied compensation, now I have filed a civil suit against the state seeking to be compensated for wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. My allegedly criminal utterances (or the supposedly most egregious of them, anyway, that were also most widely quoted out of context in the media at the time) were part of a philosophical discussion, far into the comment section under this post pertaining to the Breivik trial titled "Thoughts on the trial." Old and new readers can judge for themselves, as every word that triggered my arrest still appears exactly as it did the day I was arrested. Having read through that old thread again now, I see that my comments in the discussion are actually a fairly comprehensive and quite persuasive description of why I came to be radicalized into an antifeminist. Those statements will now receive renewed publicity in connection with my compensation trial, to my benefit and the detriment of the scumbags in law enforcement, which goes to show how futile it is to suppress speech by means of cops and prisons. I fully admit to glorifying crime, which is legal, but my rhetoric did not cross the threshold of section 140 in the criminal code (or §147c for that matter, which would actually be a closer fit), whether it was "public" or not (I won't rehash the technicality of whether the Internet is "public" here except to say it is irrelevant; see my posts on Lex Berge if you want more background on that non-issue).

I did not make the decision to become a militant political dissident lightly. I realize that openly and avowedly advocating the murder of police officers is the sort of behavior that is likely to get you killed or tortured or imprisoned for decades, so I was lucky to only be imprisoned for 22 days. Nevertheless, I did nothing illegal, and now I am suing for compensation. Just like communists can say they support a revolution (which incidentally would have to involve killing many more cops than I ever contemplated), and Muslims can legally say they support beheadings of infidels or whatever terrorist acts the Islamic State is up to, as affirmed by a recent ruling, I can legally say I support killing cops for antifeminist reasons. Islamists and I share the same enemy and we are both equally sincere and serious about our ideology, which can also be expressed with equal legality. I am proud of what I have done and make no apology for it. But at the same time, I realize it wasn't necessarily wise. To beat the cops at their own game -- violence -- is not for amateurs. It also doesn't matter much as far as risk goes that my alleged incitement was and is legal, because as evinced by their baseless prosecution of me, cops and prosecutors do not respect the law. As John Michael Greer said in a slightly different context of peak oil:
Violence against the system. It’s probably necessary to say a few words about that here. Effective violence of any kind is a skill, a difficult and demanding one, and effective political violence against an established government is among the most difficult and demanding kinds. I’m sorry if this offends anybody’s sense of entitlement, but it’s not simply a matter of throwing a tantrum so loud that Daddy has to listen to you, you know. To force a government to do your bidding by means of violence, you have to be more competent at violence than the government is, and the notion that the middle-class intellectuals who do most of the talking in the peak oil scene can outdo the US government in the use of violence would be hilarious if the likely consequences of that delusion weren’t so ghastly. This is not a game for dabblers; people get thrown into prison for decades, dumped into unmarked graves, or vaporized by missiles launched from drones for trying to do what the people in these discussions were chattering about so blandly.
For that matter, I have to wonder how many of the people who were so free with their online talk about violence against the system stopped to remember that every word of those conversations is now in an NSA data file, along with the names and identifying details of everybody involved. The radicals I knew in my younger days had a catchphrase that’s apposite here: “The only people that go around publicly advocating political violence are idiots and agents provocateurs. Which one are you?”
These are points well taken. I have played a deadly game, and I was aware of the risks. Those were calculated risks, of a kind I was more willing to take in my younger days. I have toned down my rhetoric since I got out of prison, just to be on the safe side, though I continue to express forthright hatred against cops and I still glorify violence against them because this sort of speech is so unequivocally legal. Now I will also have my day in court to promote my cause and seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment. My lawyer and I have started preparing the case. All my readers are welcome on November 24th at 9 AM in the courthouse. I would especially like to extend a cordial invitation to all Islamists and sympathizers of ISIS (as noted in a previous post, the Men's Movement ought to join forces with jihadists since we share a common enemy), who are also often maliciously prosecuted for bogus speech crimes. If you hate cops for any reason or just support freedom of speech, now is a good time to show up and exhibit your contempt towards the police state. Let us jam-pack the Bergen courthouse to prove that the Men's Rights Movement is a force to be reckoned with, promote brotherhood against feminism among men of all ethnicities and religions, and help legitimize hateful public rhetoric against the scumbags who enforce the feminist sex laws.

33 comments:

Nataliya Kochergova said...

I remember talking to a feminist who said you were foolish to aggravate the cops like that, even though it's wrong to imprison people for their opinions. I just wonder if feminists who think that way, would have said the same about a rape victim who "teased" a man into raping her. Somehow I doubt that.

Eric said...

Eivind:
I doubt if I can make it Oslo by Thanksgiving. Besides, as you pointed out, the American police would likely have a welcoming party at the airport since

"The NSA are monitoring e-mails..."

A lot of MRAs just don't get this. We are ALREADY on watch-lists. In fact, Futrelle---the same guy who defends torture porn films like 'Salo'---has been eagerly advocating that the FBI/NSA treat us like unindicted criminals for opposing feminism.

Hopefully, the Norwegian Government will grant compensation.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Menn og kvinners seksualitet er motsetninger, hvorfor det er slik er beskrevet i Terje Bongards bok "Det biologiske mennesket". Det fundamentale er dog at kvinnens rett til å velge hvem hun vil ha sex med, respekteres. Dette er naturlig, da hun kun har ett egg hun er genetisk programmert til å beskytte, mens vi har millioner av sædceller vi er genetisk programerte til å spre utover. Mannens seksualitet er dog i stor grad formet av kvinnen, da menn har langt færre forfedre enn kvinner formødre, som en logisk konsekvens av ovennevnte forskjeller. Å ikke få velge føles som en straff for en kvinne, da dette bryter med den biologiske koden om å beskytte egget.

Feminismen i dag har dog ingen forståelse for mannlig seksualitet og hva det betyr å være mann, og for mannens rolle i samfunnet. For et par år siden leste jeg ei bok av James Kalb, "The Tyranny of Liberalism", hvor han også kommer inn på disse temaene:

http://isibooks.org/the-tyranny-of-liberalism.html

Hans hjemmeside er her:

http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/node

Personlig er jeg allikevel mest bekymret for kravet om at kvinnene skal delta i det kapitalistiske markedet, hvor de ikke hører hjemme. Dette er ei mannegreie laget av menn, for menn. Men det meste av kvinnearbeidsplassene består heldigvis av mellomleddet eller tjenesteytingsleddet, hvor de parasitterer på de som driver med virkelig verdiskaping, dvs. hovedsaklig menn. Selv i dag blir tungt fabrikkarbeid etc. for tøft for de fleste kvinner, samme hvor feministiske de er. Men poenget er at alle disse kvinnearbeidsplassene snart vil forsvinne:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.no/2014/11/dark-age-america-end-of-market-economy.html

Personlig håper jeg å være med å legge fundament for en ny type føydalsamfunn, basert på ideene til Terje Bongard og inngruppe-demokratiet. Hvor menn får være menn og kvinner kvinner. Men hvor vi føyer oss for inngruppa istedenfor føydalherren.

Personlig forstår jeg godt hatet ditt mot feminismen, da dette er en av mange konsekvenser av moderniteten og energiorgien. Selv føler jeg på et hat mot moderne arkitektur, som også ville vært umulig uten energioverflod og den moderne liberalismen. Det er mange moderne bygninger jeg kunne tenke meg å bombe, selvsagt uten folk inni. Men når jeg ser hvordan det gikk med WTC er det liten vits, da de satte opp et nytt modernistisk frankensteinmonster ti ganger uhyggeligere enn det opprinnelige. Så nei, jeg lener meg tilbake og gleder meg til sammenbruddet, hvor både feminismen og alle disse forferdelige skyskraperne etc. vil bli ribbet for alt av glass, metaller og bygningsdeler, for så å bli gjenbrukt til å bygge en ny menneskelig urbanisme:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6336

Lykke til med rettssaken!

Anonymous said...

Yet another woman regretting sex, and crying rape

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/--det-var-hyggelig-a-hilse-pa-deg-sa-kvinnen-og-anmeldte-mannen-for-voldtekt/8507579.html

Eivind Berge said...

And if the man didn't happen to have an audio recording, the false rape accusation would likely have succeeded, too. The woman's lying word alone was already enough to have the man jailed for two days before he could present his evidence, which goes to show the bias of the scumbags in law enforcement to believe a woman's word by default with no evidence.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, du har aldrig fortalt hvordan du blev behandlet mens du sad i fængsel - både af fængselspersonalet og de andre indsatte?

Anonymous said...

Jeg har klippet ut de viktigste passasjene i manifestet til Elliot Rodger. Han tok en "sosialistisk" approach - han vil utslette noe fordi han selv ikke har det - men psykologien hans utover dette er ikke i noen leir...


s. 56 /57

I began to have fantasies of becoming very powerful and stopping everyone from having sex. I

wanted to take their sex away from them, just like they took it away from me. I saw sex as an evil and

barbaric act, all because I was unable to have it. This was the major turning point. My anger made me

stronger inside. This was when I formed my ideas that sex should be outlawed. It is the only way to

make the world a fair and just place. If I can’t have it, I will destroy it. That’s the conclusion I came to,

right then and there.
I spent more time studying the world, seeing the world for the horrible, unfair place it is. I then had

the revelation that just because I was condemned to suffer a life of loneliness and rejection, doesn’t

mean I am insignificant. I have an exceptionally high level of intelligence. I see the world differently than

anyone else. Because of all of the injustices I went through and the worldview I developed because of

them, I must be destined for greatness. I must be destined to change the world, to shape it into an

image that suits me!

---


I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to

destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided

that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything

right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in

my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

I became a new person, furiously driven by a goal. My torment would continue, but I had something

to live for. I felt empowered.

--

When I returned to the U.S., I felt so relieved that I forgot about my troubles for a few days and

relaxed. It was good to be back home. This is where my fight is, right here in the U.S., and nowhere else.

---
Life is not fair. One can either accept that fact, keeling over in defeat; or one can harness the strength

to fight against it. My destiny was to fight against the unfairness of the world.


---

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight

back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James

and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be

insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it

takes.

----

That is a crime that can never be forgotten, nor can it be forgiven. I always

wanted to exact my revenge on humanity for forcing me to live such a life, but I’ve also always had the

hope that if I can do things in life to make up for all my suffering, then that in itself would be a form of

In truth, the move Santa Barbara was actually a chance that I was giving to the world, not the other

way around! I was giving the world one last chance to give me the life that I know I’m entitled to, the life

that other boys are able to live with ease. If I still have to suffer the same rejection and injustice even

after I move to Santa Barbara, then that will be the last straw. I will have my vengeance.

Anonymous said...


---

me up. I was literally being bullied, and it was truly horrific. I wanted to kill them both, but of

course I was smart enough not to go through with that desire. All I could do was remember every single

insult, so I can get revenge in a more efficient way in the future. That is who I am. I don’t act stupidly or

rashly. I remember every insult, and I wait until the time is right to strike. When that time comes, I will

crush all of my enemies in the most devastating and catastrophic way possible, and the results will be

beautiful.


--

As the phrase that I had coined goes: If I cannot join them, I will rise above them; and if I cannot rise

above them, I will destroy them.


---

Only now, I was ready and capable of fighting back against the cruelty of women. Back when I was a

weak and timid boy at Taft High School, I was powerless and frightened, having to resort to hiding in a

life of playing video games. All of the suffering, loneliness, rejection, and humiliation I had to experience

since then had strengthened me. The hatred that festered inside me in all of those years leading up to

this point had empowered me in a dark, twisted way. I was now armed with weapons, possessed great

intelligence and philosophical insight, with the willpower to exact the most catastrophic act of

vengeance the world will ever see.


---

Gavin came to visit me at the hotel, and he was welcome company. It was really getting lonely there,

though it was definitely better than being lonely in Isla Vista. The two of us sat down for three hours in

my hotel room to have an important conversation. I explained to him my finely altered version of

everything that happened on that night in Isla Vista. He didn’t seem surprised. When he was my age, he

used to go up to Isla Vista quite often. He told me that the kind of brutal, rowdy atmosphere I’ve

witnessed was part of the culture there. The boisterous, wild frat boys get all of the beautiful girls, and

everyone is looking for a fight, like the vicious animals they are. He said it was a truth I had to accept,

advising me to move out of there. I couldn’t accept this truth, because it was unjust. I couldn’t let such

evil exist, and I will not run away from it by moving out of there. I will either thrive there, or destroy the

place utterly. Since I failed to thrive there, I had no choice but to plan my Retribution.


---

I am not meant to live such a pathetic, miserable life. That is not my place in this world. I will not bow

down and accept such a horrific fate. If humanity will not give me a worthy place among them, then I

will destroy them all. I am better than all of them. I am a god. Exacting my Retribution is my way of

proving my true worth to the world.


---

think like beasts, and in truth, they are beasts. Women are incapable of

having morals or thinking rationally. They are completely controlled by their depraved emotions and vile

sexual impulses. Because of this, the men who do get to experience the pleasures of sex and the

privilege of breeding are the men who women are sexually attracted to… the stupid, degenerate,

obnoxious men. I have observed this all my life. The most beautiful of women choose to mate with the

most brutal of men, instead of magnificent gentlemen like myself.


---


Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be

made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder

the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate

offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have

more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and

depraved than the human female.

Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights. Their wickedness must be contained

in order prevent future generations from falling to degeneracy. Women are vicious, evil, barbaric

animals, and they need to be treated as such.

caamib said...

Why only now? After more than 2 years have passed?

Eivind Berge said...

Because the process simply took this long, and it wasn't because I delayed anything myself. First I had to wait several months after I got out of prison for prosecutors to formally drop the charges. Then I applied for compensation to the government branch which usually handles it ("Statens sivilrettsforvaltning"), and they took six months to decide that they would deny me any compensation (even thought the rules clearly state that I am entitled to it). So then I promptly sued the state, but I had to wait almost another year before the case now finally goes to trial.

Eivind Berge said...

Those are interesting quotes by Elliot Rodger. He is a strange case in some ways, but the source of his anger is commonplace, I think. Notice how his hatred works to empower him rather than just break him down. I think that's an admirable quality and I can relate to that. Hatred wouldn't exist as a basic emotion if it wasn't adaptive, and it can certainly be harnessed to do great things. He is also completely right about how much power women have because they are the gatekeepers of sex. When this fact is denied by feminist society, it serves to exacerbate aggression from involuntarily celibate men, because their surroundings don't even acknowledge that there is a power imbalance against men (perversely, the opposite claim is held to be true). I don't agree with his conclusion that "sex should be outlawed," however. Elliot Rodger's tragic flaw is his unwillingness to accept the world as it is including the less than egalitarian or noble nature of the female sex drive and cultivate qualities, however base, that women might be attracted to, which would be the rational thing to do. And finally, if one must go on a rampage, I am much more impressed whenever the target is government enforcers rather than random civilians.

Eivind Berge said...

Someone asked how I was received by other prisoners and treated by guards during my stint in prison. And the answer is I was well received and considered almost a hero by the prisoners, who were very friendly. The guards treated me pretty much by the book, although funnily they were a bit paranoid in the Bergen prison (but not Ålesund, which is more laid-back), worrying that I was inciting other prisoners at recreation time. Other prisoners told me guards came to their cells and questioned them after seeing us talking together. This suspicion had some justification, I suppose, since I certainly set out to proselytize, but I wasn't inciting other prisoners to do anything illegal. Going to prison is an excellent networking opportunity for MRAs, in my experience. I have befriended all sorts of criminals and who knows, maybe some of them will support the Men's Rights Movement in the future. And hatred of cops is certainly one thing that all prisoners can agree on. I am privy to how prisoners talk among themselves in the recreation yard, so I know how intense the hatred is. I put into public discourse what we all feel. Most prisoners aren't very political, though, so there is definitely a need to raise awareness about how feminist ideology is to blame for many of the laws responsible for their incarceration, not to mention the insane politics behind the drug war. It is a pity that most criminals in prison got there because they tend to do impulsive things with little regard for the consequences, often under the influence of drugs. As a political prisoner I was a bit different than most, but there is still plenty of common ground. In some ways it felt like I had the most guilty mind in the entire prison, since my alleged crimes were so thoroughly premeditated. As it turned out, those were not crimes at all, however.

Anonymous said...

Do tell us how the court case went. We are all excited!

Eivind Berge said...

I thought it went well. Of curse the government lawyers keep insisting that I deserve no compensation at all, but we have better arguments. The judge will decide within two weeks.

Attendance by the public was underwhelming, however. Nataliya was there, and one journalist for a while, but otherwise nobody showed up.

Anonymous said...

Hvad var anklagemyndighedens begrundelse for at du ikke skal tildeles erstatning?

Anonymous said...

Straffverdighet, men ikke straffbarhet

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, når staten har straffeforfulgt deg uten at du har gjort noe straffbart, så er det "blaming the victim" som gjelder. Du må selv bære risikoen slik at erstatningen settes ned eller faller bort hvis staten mener du har opptrådt "straffverdig" eller har balansert på grensen av det straffbare. Regjeringsadvokaten mener til og med det vil være støtende om jeg skulle få erstatning.

Jeg er uenig med hele den praksisen, som er ganske utbredt (regjeringsadvokaten la frem 270 sider med dokumentasjon). Det burde holde at du faktisk er frikjent, men så enkelt er det altså ikke.

Når vi legger til grunn at forherligelse er lovlig, mener jeg at jeg ikke engang har balansert på grensen av det straffbare. Hva som er "straffverdig" må alle mene hva de vil om, men hva så?

Artikkel i BT nå:

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Fengslet-blogger-krever-erstatning-3248109.html

caamib said...

What was the government lawyers argument lol? What pathetic morons...

Eivind Berge said...

The government lawyers blame me for bringing the prosecution upon myself because of the things I wrote. Even though they admit I did nothing illegal and was rightly acquitted, 22 days in prison is just what I should expect for that kind of provocation, according to them. It is a bullshit line of reasoning, blaming the victim outright for the state's transgressions. So we both have freedom of speech and we don't have it at the same time. You can make these offensive statements and you can't be punished for them, but you have to expect going to prison nonetheless.

Hopefully the judge will overrule this nonsense and decide I deserve compensation.

Eivind Berge said...

Now the judgment is ready and unfortunately the court has decided to give me zero compensation. The full text can be accessed here: 13-210379TVI-NOHO.

However, this was only the lowest Norwegian court (tingretten), and their decision is by no means final if I don't want to accept it. My lawyer has advised me to appeal (to lagmannsretten) and that is what I plan to do. We obviously believe this decision is wrong and we have good arguments. So it looks like I will be inviting you all back to court for another round, probably sometime next year. Hopefully more spectators will show up then.

Anonymous said...

What a bummer!
My prediction is that the appeal will be dismissed. The state does not want to criminalize itself, but I would strongly advise you to make such an appeal.

Anonymous said...

I dommens præmisser hedder det at du opfordrede til drab på politimænd, og derfor har du ikke ret til erstatning. Men så vidt jeg ved er opfordring til drab strafbart - hvorfor blev du så frifundet, hvis du opfordrede til drab på politimænd?

Eivind Berge said...

For det første er det bare straffbart å oppfordre til (iverksettelse av) drap når oppfordringen er fremsatt offentlig, og på den tiden var ikke Internett regnet som offentlig etter straffeloven (men loven er nå endret i ettertid på det punktet). Derfor ble jeg frikjent i straffesaken før retten i det hele tatt vurderte saken noe nærmere. Og for det andre er det slik at oppfordring til drap ikke er straffbart i seg selv. Det er oppfordringer til IVERKSETTELSE av forbrytelser som rammes. Så selv om bloggen hadde vært regnet som offentlig i 2012, så skulle jeg like fullt blitt frikjent fordi jeg faktisk ikke har oppfordret til noen konkret iverksettelse. Og så har jeg forherliget, som også er lov. Jeg har bare sagt hva jeg mener moralsk om politidrap, samt snakket om planer jeg hadde på et tidspunkt før jeg slo dem fra meg, og det var og er lov. Det er lov å si at man støtter straffbare handlinger så lenge man ikke oppfordrer noen til iverksettelse. Akkurat som kommunister kan si at de mener det er riktig å gjøre opprør, for eksempel. Det fins ikke noen tradisjon i Norge for å straffe folk for den type ytringer, og mine uttalelser ligger på akkurat samme plan. Husk på at denne paragrafen (§ 140) sist ble brukt i 1989, og da var det snakk om en oppfordring til å angripe politiet der og da i en konkret situasjon på gaten i en ulovlig demonstrasjon. Det fins ikke rettspraksis som ligner på det jeg ble anklaget for. Det jeg gjorde kommer ikke i nærheten av oppviglerbegrepet slik det forstås i norsk straffelov. Derfor skulle jeg aldri blitt straffeforfulgt, og det er ekstremt urettferdig at jeg ikke får erstatning. Men jeg skal anke, og det kan godt hende at lagmannsretten gir meg medhold. Slik var det også i straffesaken, hvor jeg ble varetektsfengslet av tingretten, men løslatt av lagmannsretten og Høyesterett.

caamib said...

What was their argumentation?

Btw I love the idea they presented, how you deserved to be in prison though you were declared innocent. Nothing shows the sick, psychopathic, lunatic nature of the cops and prosecutors better.

Anonymous said...

"I continue to express forthright hatred against cops and I still glorify violence against them because this sort of speech is so unequivocally legal."

... og staten bare "BOJAAAA!" - ikke én krone i erstatning.

Sorry kompis. Jeg tror de fleste forstår at du har hatt en vanskelig periode, og på mange måter har du min sympati. Men hadde du vært en ekte mann hadde du sagt deg ferdig med dette, gitt opp bloggen og heller brukt tiden din på noe matnyttig. Det du driver med nå er ganske veike greier som ikke er en mann verdig.

Eivind Berge said...

Erstatningssaken er ikke avgjort enda. Vi skal først se hvordan det går med anken til Gulating lagmannsrett og eventuelt Høyesterett. Og som svar på din balleløse avfeining kan du lese 12 sider med argumenter her, skrevet av advokaten min:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6cEdhSWOOmjS2IxRk83VTRBT00&authuser=0

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank you for making my otherwise boring day a bit more amusing! Reading only parts of your blog and your case against the government is enough to understand that this world is really full of people that are so unlike myself :)

I love women, I am married and live a good life together with a woman that makes me happy. I can not understand that I could be more happy if I could treat her like shit and make her feel insignificant. Your case is a side effect of your inner beliefs of how society basically should treat women!

I understand you want to be a man and thinks that your way to manhood is through disrespecting women. But you never share what feeling you have inside of you when you feel love for a woman. Can you try to explain what love is for you?

Anyhow, keep on blogging, i will certainly read it. Sometimes I will giggle, and other times I will maybe nod a little bit along.

But my good - you have to be a little mentally challenged to end up with a view like yours. Someone have been very bad to you once, I urge you to also share more with us of your past and what could have triggered your mind to create the views of life that you carry around with you so dearly.

Happy thoughts, and be kind to your woman - you know you need her - even if you get a kick out of making her feel like a nobody to you....

Me out!

Eivind Berge said...

There is something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension if you have gleaned those conclusions from reading my blog. Men's rights activism is about opposing hateful laws against sexuality, not disrespecting women. Indeed, these laws often hurt women as well and plenty of women also oppose them. Even when they are specifically designed to hurt only men and treat women as obligate victims, such as the Norwegian criminalization of johns but not whores, the scumbags in law enforcement will gleefully use the sex laws as an excuse to harass women as well as men and make life worse for all of us. Antifeminism is about disrespecting the scumbags in our legislatures who make the odious sex laws and the blue thugs who enforce them.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"We might here focus on two related developments: pre-emption, and punishment by process. Pre-emptive tactics are those which stop protests before they start, or before they can achieve anything. Kettling, mass arrests, stop-and-search, lockdowns, house raids and pre-emptive arrests are examples of these kinds of tactics. Punishment by process entails keeping people in a situation of fear, pain, or vulnerability through the abuse of procedures designed for other purposes – such as keeping people on pre-charge or pre-trial bail conditions which disrupt their everyday activity, using no-fly and border-stop lists to harass known dissidents, carrying out violent dawn raids, needlessly putting people’s photographs in the press, arresting people on suspicion (sometimes in accord with quotas), using pain-compliance holds, or quietly making known that someone is under surveillance. Once fear of state interference is instilled, it is reinforced by the web of visible surveillance that is gridded across public space, and which acts as strategically placed triggers of trauma and anxiety."

http://www.weareplanc.org/we-are-all-very-anxious#.VLylDEfF-uJ

Eivind Berge said...

Interesting. So anxiety is the predominant affect of our times. That is pretty true, and it fits the current obsession with criminalizing every conceivable deviance and putting everyone under constant surveillance. I suspect the next predominant affect will be despair, when collapse occurs.

Johan said...

Haha, denne bloggen oser "beta"! Ser du ikke at du bare er landsbyidioten som aldri fikk pult? Sånne som deg har alltid eksistert, kompis.

Anonymous said...

Any 'cop' or person given the authority to do things by INITIATED force rather than strictly the DEFENSIVE variety against, actual, criminal violations of a person or his property, is already a criminal as far as natural law is concerned and the dictates of the ultimate dictator, nature and objective reality, unchanging and yet with a million and one forms, the more truthful, the more useful and the more so tending towards harmony and equilibrium both inner and outer.

Lysander Spooner

Vices Are Not Crimes

A Vindication Of Moral Liberty

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/46

"Our natures are now so warped in many directions, we are so conditioned by education, we have no longer any straight, true, clean reactions that we can trust, and we have to be pretty wise and careful what it is we give up to, what it is we admire, what it is we are inspired by. I dare say that the stevedore's inspired by the prostitute whom he seeks, I dare say that all these things may be good so far as they go because they are necessary. But I wouldn't say that they are what should be, I wouldn't say that they are ideal." ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

“Every idea that is a true idea has a form, and is capable of many forms. The variety of forms of which it is capable determines the value of the idea. So by way of ideas, and your mastery of them in relation to what you are doing, will come your value as an architect to your society and future." -- "Idea and Essence" September 7, 1958” ― Frank Lloyd Wright

In Defense of Women by H. L. Mencken (FULL Audiobook) - not a feminist book but strictly a hilariously argued realistic one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atosY1lu_0Y

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/indefense/a/mencken_0000_e.htm


~ Negentropic

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous Johan said...
Haha, denne bloggen oser "beta"! Ser du ikke at du bare er landsbyidioten som aldri fikk pult? Sånne som deg har alltid eksistert, kompis."

Sånne som deg Johan har også alltid eksistert, og det utrolige er at du representerer majoriteten av alle menneskene i denne verden som alle er så opptatt av å være rettferdige og hjelpsomme - samtidig som dere ler av "betaen". Go figure.

Jeg skjønner godt at Eivind Berge hater slike mennesker som deg dypt, og jeg håper han står igjen som vinneren til slutt.