Thursday, December 10, 2015

Facebook is evil

This week we learned that Facebook has kicked out Rune Øygard because he is a convict of the victimless sex crime of having a consensual sexual relationship with 14-15-year-old girl (there is nothing really unusual about this criminal case, which just shows run-of-the-mill misandry and sex-hostility at work, but it received a lot of publicity in Norway because Øygard is a politician). It turns out that Facebook has an actual policy against convicted sex offenders. To me, this crosses the line and demonstrates unambiguously that Facebook is an evil instrument of political correctness, in the business of enforcing feminist sexual taboos. I believe a private company such as Facebook should have the right to exclude anyone they want, of course, but this policy raises the issue of whether it is a good idea for us to spend so much of our time there. The issue is our willingness to give them power over us. Facebook's ostracism hurts because we have trusted them with too much power and now they abuse that trust, but the fundamental problem is our gullibility. The moral is: Don't make yourself too dependent on any morally corrupt entity. This is an inherent risk of centralized platforms, so we should probably try to avoid these whenever possible.

Censorship on Facebook seems to be a trend which extends far beyond sex offenders. Pål Steigan has also reported an incident of censorship and written more about the worrisome political power of Facebook as well as their devious finances and phony charity. Steigan is a communist blogger who ironically has more faith in capitalism than I do, since he does not believe collapse is imminent. Despite his leftist background, his blog is very honest and informative, and at this stage of the game for industrial civilization it doesn't really matter whether one is a communist or a libertarian because neither ideology can accomplish anything when faced with deflationary collapse. What matters is to preserve as much freedom as possible for as long as we can, and for that I commend efforts from all across the political spectrum. Even the mainstream leftist publication Klassekampen is starting to express queasiness about Facebook's censorship these days.

It is ironic that I am not being censored on Facebook despite being an ardent activist for abolishing Øygard's crime, while he, a pathetic spokesman for political correctness, is. Though his actions speak otherwise, judged by his words, he is a feminist brown-nose who truly believes men should be imprisoned if found guilty on similar accusations. Whereas an upstanding MRA would proudly admit to such an ill-defined "crime" and go for jury nullification, Øygard is in complete moral and ideological agreement with the sick law. He just claims he didn't do the crime and that the girl is lying. I believe he is most likely guilty as charged because the accusations are so spectacularly natural for all men, and plausible, too, for a man in his position, but he did nothing worthy of punishment and the law itself is the problem here. A morally corrupt law which fills my heart with seething hatred against the government as well as scornful ridicule for the primitive buffoons who actually internalize the sexual taboo that tells their puny brains that sex with a 14-year-old is "abuse" -- which is to say the many imbeciles in Norway who use the word "overgrep" with a straight face. In their most common usage these are meaningless words, imbued with the malevolent magic of pure irrational taboos and nothing else. It literally does not matter what these words mean, because most of the time, the media will be no more specific than simply spouting these vague terms, and that is all it takes to make every common simpleton hate the accused man. A "sex offender" can mean anything between heaven and earth from something unbelievably innocuous to truly heinous (the latter being only applicable to a tiny subset, while the majority of sex crimes are completely victimless), but it does not matter, because it is the label itself that counts. We are dealing with an irrational phenomenon of creating a recipient for society's generic hatred, someone to oppress and exclude for reasons that are incomprehensible to me. Sort of like racism and witch-hunts combined, only politically correct.

Perhaps Øygard is a simple soul who has been earnestly brainwashed and can't resist these hateful taboos on an intellectual level. But while sexual taboos are highly effective at empowering the police state, legitimizing oppression and turning almost all his friends against a man, they do little to influence actual sexual behavior. Øygard is, after all, a man and acts like it. Normal and healthy heterosexual men do not turn down sex with well-formed females just because there is a law against it, and Øygard is no exception. Now that he has already served his sentence, he has nothing to lose by aligning his ideology with his actions and becoming a men's rights activist, so I would strongly advise him to do so. It reflects very badly on him that he can't take responsibility for his actions but instead keeps supporting the very feminist sexual taboos that he became a victim of. It puzzles me that he is still sucking up to the scumbags who put him in prison, even after he has nothing left to lose by standing up for a reasonable sexual morality. Frankly, he is a hypocrite. So he is not a great ambassador for the Men's Rights Movement, but I support him anyway because he serves to highlight he injustice of the law and the moral turpitude of Facebook.

I recommend using Facebook as little as possible in order to hurt their revenue and diminish their political influence. I am not saying delete your accounts since I am not doing that myself, but I will not use Facebook anymore unless an old friend sends me a message or something like that. A platform which enforces a morally decrepit ideology is not one I will invest my time in. Don't supply Facebook with content that they can exploit to sell advertising, spend as little time as possible there yourself, and whatever you do, never click on an ad through Facebook. I have never been a particularly active Facebook user, and from now on I will make sure to invest so little in my account that it will hardly be missed when Facebook decides to exclude me.

Instead, we should vote against hateful sexual taboos with our feet and use other platforms to publish our writings and build our communities. I have good experiences with Google's Blogger so far, who has never censored me at all even when I was jailed for my blog. WordPress also seems to be OK, judging by the fact that even brilliant activists for children's sexual self-determination such as Tom O'Carroll (who is a pedophile in the true meaning of the word and a convicted sex offender) are free to promote their agenda on it. Twitter also does not exclude convicted sex of offenders to my knowledge and I see lots of them on there, where activism for sex law reform also seems to be tolerated. So I suggest using these services instead of Facebook, while maintaining good backup routines so as to be ready to move all our content to another platform as needed, which can be a personal website if necessary. I don't know of any truly decentralized, censorship-proof social network, but we don't really need social networks anyway. Just using blogs, books, personal websites and email works fine for all our needs.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you are a little too outraged, though it is ridiculous that an act can be criminal if you are too old, children are basically property of their parents, so it can be accepted as one of the many sexual boundaries. Punishing a man though it is known that the girl lied about her age is of course an atrocity

Eivind Berge said...

I can accept that small children are the property of their parents (or actually the state), but older children should have more self-determination. I don't think parents or the state should be allowed to control children's sexuality after the age of 12 or so, at least not to the extent of creating criminal laws against consensual activity.

Anonymous said...

That first comment... sorry, but is the most outrageous I've read in my life, I hope it's a kind of sarcasm and criticism against society.

Children (or minors) are not property of their parents, that is called slavery, and slavery is a crime against humanity, and has no doubt that this crime will not go unpunished.

On the other hand, pubescents are not children (children are prepubescents) and are not property of anyone, sex (and marriage, pregnancy, etc.) should not be legal at an arbitrary age like 12 or 16, is unnatural and a crime against nature, sex should be legal since puberty without any "age of consent", either at 9, 10, 11, 12 etc. Not at the discretion of beings who not understand nature and are driven by unnatural ideas about sex.

Of course, with this type of commentaries is clear to me why they should be banned relationships between adults, because these people (in general) do not understand love and nature and they will slave their own children, at least potentially, in my humble opinion. I can also put boundaries where I think it appropriate.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree, property is the wrong word, though it is close to reality whether we like it or not. As a practical matter, children are in fact slaves of their parents or ultimately the state. Even if we abolish the age of consent, parents will still exert authority over them, and a lot of that will be driven by unnatural ideas about sex. But we can reduce the damage by at least not having the state enforce these sick sexual taboos.

holocaust21 said...

Having children be "property" of the State is a modern phenomenon that has led to many children being kidnapped - against their will - from their families by bigoted (feminist) social worker beaurocrats. So I think the idea that children are property of the State is an idea to push back on. I'd go towards them being a combination of property of their parents and their own agents. They would only be property of their parents in the event of doubt (i.e. child appears unable to articulate their situation or what has happened to them) then property of their parents should overrule (so for instance, if it is alleged that their parents have abused them then the court would rule that the police can fuck off).

I'm not keen on having any kind of specific age law. It's ripe for abuse by religious zealots and completely arbitrary. I'm sure there are many kids who have engaged in some form of "sexual abuse" prior to 12 (though perhaps not millenials, as they're a disturbed over-protected lot).

Eivind Berge said...

Thank you for that very reasonable comment, holocaust21. I completely agree.

Jack said...

Zuckerberg has just donated billions to charity. You can bet men's rights charities (if they exist) are not going to see any of that money. It will all go to misandry. Zuckerberg made the donation after his li'l daughter was born. Do you see the connection? Females manipulate men even before they can talk. Zuckerberg's billions are going to help making the World even more misandric by the time his li'l daughter grows up.

holocaust21 said...

I'd like to add on here that regarding the question of a "truly resistant censorship-proof social network" the one that comes closest is GNU Social. It uses what they call a "federated" approach to social networking. So basically when you register you can choose which server you want to register your account on. That server then stores your account information. However, you are free to message and follow accounts stored on other servers. Any deleting/moderating accounts is the sole responsibility of that server. Some servers might be run by feminists and restrict free speech (don't register your account on those!) others will be pro free speech. Don't like the existing servers? Set up your own! That's the idea.

Anyway if you or anyone else reading this wants to have a go you can very easily setup an account on I would suggest https://sealion.club/main/all (I understand they are the most pro free expression server). I've currently got an account here if anyone wants to follow: https://gnusocial.de/richardkrafftebing (I chose gnusocial.de initially though I since have understood sea lion club is probably better but I've not been banned yet!)

Anonymous said...

I agree that children are sexual before puberty (adrenarche)But penetration can be painful, before around ten twelve..Tom O' Carroll believes that coitus should be twelve and over, since he's been campaigning for forty years, I think his judgement is of value. Before the 1880's in England the age of consent was twelve, So I usually argue for it to be returned to that.

An old school friend threatened me on FB just for pointing out that attraction to teenagers is normal in most men; I pointed out that I don't take kindly to threats - but since he has the weight of society behind him -- I'll leave it at that, But I left him with a link before we parted company - it was a study highlighting how men downplay their attraction to adolescent girls.

Eivind Berge said...

It's called adaptive preference formation, a phenomenon which occurs when someone realizes that the thing they want is unattainable, and then reduce their dissonance by criticizing that thing. Some of these brainwashed men probably actually believe that they don't find teenage girls attractive because their desires are so deformed by sexual taboos which they have thoroughly internalized. Many more will lie and claim they don't desire girls below the age of consent, even though they haven't fully internalized these hateful norms.

I agree, 12 is a good age to argue for. Even though a case could be made for abolishing the age of consent altogether, most people are so deranged by anti-sex hysteria that they will never listen to it.

Anonymous said...

Du skulle vært buret inne sammen med Øygard.

Anonymous said...

"Even though a case could be made for abolishing the age of consent altogether, most people are so deranged by anti-sex hysteria that they will never listen to i."

Så det er folk flest det er noe galt med?

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, jeg er grunnleggende uenig i samfunnets offisielle seksualmoral og tilhørende lover, og kjemper for det jeg mener er riktig. Om folk flest faktisk har internalisert disse umoralske og hatefulle lovene, er en annen sak. Det er mye hykleri og løgn ute og går, sikkert mange slike menn som Øygard som lirer av seg politisk korrekte floskler offentlig mens de puler 13-åringer så snart de får sjansen. Jeg er derimot konsekvent og gjør det klinkende klart at jeg mener det er ingenting galt med å pule 13-åringer.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3B1AQCndao

Eivind Berge said...

Syke jævler som illustrerer hvorfor vi trenger mannsbevegelsen, og spesielt hva som er galt med groomingloven som muliggjør slike overgrep mot menn...

Og Annar Nilsen, velkommen skal du være i mannsbevegelsen. Håper du tar et offentlig moralsk oppgjør med drittsekkene som laget den videoen og står sammen med oss i å erklære rakrygget at det er ingenting galt med å ha sex med 13-åringer. Da virker slike aksjoner mot sin hensikt, for det er de mannehatende drittsekkene som blir gjenstand for forakten.

Anonymous said...

https://www.facebook.com/Barnastrygghet2.0/?ref=ts&fref=ts

Eivind Berge said...

Bortsett fra når de får politiet med seg til å ta menn, så gjør egentlig Barnas Trygghet mannsbevegelsen en tjeneste, for jeg mener også vi skal stå frem som sexforbrytere (eller politiske sexforbrytere; jeg sier ikke det er smart å bryte loven så lenge den finnes selv om den er umoralsk). Det er bare slik vi kan få gjennomslag og bryte ned hatefulle holdninger mot seksualitet. Jo flere som reiser seg mot lovene og sier at vi forkaster dem moralsk og vil prøve å undergrave dem så langt vi kan også politisk, ja, så desto mer blir de faktisk undergravd inntil de en dag også kan fjernes.

Se bare på meg som nå har fått enorm anerkjennelse (i form av oppreisningserstatning) for å si hva jeg mener. Det nytter! Så ikke vær feige, gutter, si hva dere mener hele tiden selv om det er politisk ukorrekt. Hvis du for eksempel mener at det er greit å ha sex med 13-åringer, så SI DET offentlig under fullt navn slik som jeg gjør. Bare vær oppmerksom på at purkejævelen nå kan få deg fengslet også for å ville ha sex med fiktive 13-åringer, noe Barnas Trygghet vet å utnytte, så ikke vær godtroende, men la dere fylle med hat av nettopp slike lover. Det er BRA at de eksponeres så mye som mulig, selv om det kan være ubehagelig for enkeltpersoner som blir konfrontert med samfunnets hatefulle normer. Barnas Trygghet og feministene har voldsmakten på sin side, men vi er moralsk overlegne! Det er vår styrke og hva vi bør spille på, for kun ved å internalisere seksuelle tabuer i befolkningen kan feminismen bevare makten sin. Så understrek at vi ikke anerkjenner disse tabuene ved enhver anledning, og slik blir Barnas Trygghet faktisk nyttige idioter for oss i mannsbevegelsen, da de bidrar til å normalisere våre holdninger når de viser at mange sosialt respekterte menn ikke har internalisert samfunnets hatefulle seksualmoral, i atferd om ikke i ord. Åpenhet tjener vår sak og anonymitet tjener feministene; det er derfor media sjelden tør å omtale anklagde menn ved fullt navn, fordi de er redde for denne normaliseringen.

Anonymous said...

Din venn Rune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWHfZZGQpdM

Eivind Berge said...

Hvordan er det mulig at en mann kan bli forfulgt av feministstaten for sin sunne seksualitet, og så komme ut av det som en enda større støttespiller for mannshatet som felte ham? Det er bisart og trist. Øygard er ikke mann nok til å stå inne for sine handlinger. Han er en feig hykler. Jeg sympatiserer med ham fordi han ble straffet for offerløse seksualforbrytelser, men han er ikke min venn ideologisk. Han har ingenting i mannsbevegelsen å gjøre med de meningene der, annet enn å tjene som enda et eksempel på at også menn i høye posisjoner nekter å rette seg etter feministstatens hatefulle seksualmoral i faktiske handlinger.

Anonymous said...

"Jeg sympatiserer med ham fordi han ble straffet for offerløse seksualforbrytelser"

Ja, stakkars mann. :-p

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg er så glad fordi jeg ikke tror på lavalder, or synes synd på mennesker som er så evneveike at de lar seg indoktrinere på et så personlig moralsk plan med hva enn drittsekkene på Stortinget måtte bestemme. Som om en vilkårlig avgjørelse av en gjeng med mannevonde jævler kan styre sannheten om hva som er seksuelt misbruk. Stakkars dere som er så lett påvirkelige og ikke klarer å tenke selv.

Steve Rocco said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcA97xZ5iVc

Har du lest boken?

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, aldri hørt om den og har lite lyst til å høre mer av hva den syke jævelen i videoen har å si. Fy faen for et hatefullt tryne! Alt feministsamfunnets mannshat destillert inn i én rævslikkende mangina! Jeg tåler det bare ikke.

Anonymous said...

Have you guys seen real 12 year old girls? Most of them still look underdevelop. And no 12 is tye wrost age.¹

¹ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/interrogating-claims-about-natural-sexual-behavior-more-on-deep-thinking-hebephile/

Anonymous said...

*the

Eivind Berge said...

I agree that 12 is not the most attractive age and I never said most men are hebephiles. Most men, myself included, prefer fully developed girls (as young as possible), but that doesn't make sex with a 12-year-old "rape" or "abuse" and the desire for them isn't any more depraved than lusting after 40-year-old women, for example. It is slightly deviant to be a hebephile, if that means a clear preference for pubescent girls over fully developed ones, but you need better arguments than that to criminalize it. I think most men are at least somewhat attracted to pubescent girls, and there is no reason to demonize this desire or pretend these girls are damaged by sex. I myself find 12-year-old girls about as attractive as women at the end of their reproductive lives (around 40). Not optimal, but so what? Less than peak attractiveness means just that; it doesn't mean some horrible crime. The oldest mothers also have worse health outcomes from their pregnancies; does that make sex rape?

Eivind Berge said...

Also gotta laugh at this:

"There are two main mating strategies to secure a high chance for reproductive success if you’re male: to control the fertility of a female starting early, or to find a female who already has demonstrable reproductive success – a mother. Our closest primate relatives generally choose the latter: male chimpanzees don’t salivate over adolescent female chimps, and in fact reject them as sexual partners quite frequently. Instead, male primates and other animals fight over sex with the older females who’ve already borne a kid or two."

Well, if she is a mother, then some male must have already found her attractive, right? So how can only the second male be "natural"? Did the first pregnancy occur outside of nature?

There are good reasons to prefer females slightly older than the age of menarche as an optimal strategy, but that doesn't make attraction to subfecund females pathological. Kate Clancy makes some valid points, but then she ignores some elephants in the room -- all the reproductive opportunities which actually result from hebephilic desires -- and implies more than is warranted by the evidence.

Whenever there is a reproductive opportunity, it would be very strange if men weren't evolved to want to take advantage of it, and pubescent girls do represent such an opportunity. Men are sexual opportunists, obviously, sperm being cheap -- they don't tend to bet their reproductive success on one partner age or one partner and ignore the rest.

But let's be clear about what we are talking about here, since it is kind of off-topic: "Let’s first be clear on definitions: hebephilia is the sexual preference for pubescent children. Not teenagers, but pubescent children. In industrial and post-industrial populations, that means a sexual preference for ten to twelve year olds."

I didn't really argue that the age of consent should be lower than 12, and Øygard was only accused of having sex with a 13-year-old. Hebephilia is not a big concern of mine, except to state that it doesn't deserve anywhere near the demonization it gets.

I was talking about sex with teenagers, which unlike hebephilia or pedophilia is a huge issue for the Men's Rights Movement, and Kate Clancy isn't arguing that there is anything wrong with men who are attracted to teenagers, because that is something no scientifically literate person can claim.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/8841717/

Eivind Berge said...

Drittsekkene i media omtaler det som en voldtekt selv om det var frivillig, og den nye straffeloven prøver også å innføre løgnen om at sex med noen under 14 alltid er voldtekt uavhengig av hvor frivillig det var, i stedet for «seksuell omgang med barn» som det hette før. Men vil også folket la seg lure? Er nordmenn så troskyldige at de ikke lenger vil skille mellom voldtekt og frivillig sex bare fordi feministene har vedtatt at de ikke skal det? Det gjenstår å se, og jeg har mine tvil til at så dypt forskjellige fenomener kan reduseres til ett begrep som folk så liksom skal synes er like ille. Det har man jo ikke klart i andre land. Amerikanske lovgivere har prøvd seg, men folket skiller fremdeles mellom «rape» og «statutory rape». Jeg håper og tror at nordmenn flest vil føle seg lurt når innholdet i denne nye utvidelsen av voldtektsbegrepet går opp for dem, og da vil de ta medieoppslag om «voldtekt» mindre seriøst. Det funket for dem å lyve om at det var «misbruk» og «overgrep», men nå tror jeg misbruksindustrien har strukket dysfemismene for langt.

Anonymous said...

https://www.facebook.com/Barnastrygghet2.0/videos/1811142769123912/

Eivind Berge said...

Bra forsøk på å rekruttere mannsaktivister. Kanskje det er veien å gå, siden mannsbevegelsen selv ikke klarer det med argumenter. Kanskje menn må tape alt gjennom utspekulerte løgner og uthengning før de omfavner ideologien vår offentlig. Hvis det politisk korrekte selskap er så fristende for mange menn at de må late som om de har de riktige meningene om seksualitet inntil noe slikt skjer med dem, så er det like greit, for den feigheten har jeg ikke mye sympati for.

Anonymous said...

http://vgd.no/samfunn/aktuelt/tema/1835572/tittel/barnas-trygghet-en-terrororganisasjon

Er det du som er Rettferd.?

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, men jeg ser han gjør en god innsats for mannssaken. Det er gledelig at det allerede er oppstått en motvekt og at Barnas Trygghet ikke har så mye støtte som det ser ut som på Facebook fordi de sletter kommentarer som ikke passer med mannshatet deres. Slik skal mannsbevegelsen bygges -- hat avler hat.

Anonymous said...

Barnas Trygghet

i går kl. 00:57 ·
..

Vi opplevde et veldig stort trykk rundt noen av filmene vi la ut, og vi har måtte gå noen runder med oss selv i forhold til mange etiske hensyn

Eivind Berge said...

De har kanskje oppdaget at handlemåten deres tjener mannssaken mer enn feminismen fordi den hjelper oss til å mobilisere oss :)

Det er jo en grunn til at purken og de etablerte medier vanligvis ikke driver med slik provokasjon og uthengning, vet du. Det er langt flere enn bare mannsaktivister som mener at det er uetisk å lokke menn inn i kriminalitet bare for å ta dem, så det er en oppskrift på å lage seg mange fiender. Stig Kalsnes og hans likesinnede har vist hele Norge at de er tvers igjennom råtne mennesker, noe de nå tydeligvis skammer seg over, men det er for sent: De vil aldri mer bli tatt på alvor.

Anonymous said...

Barnas Trygghet
8. februar kl. 20:26 ·

Vi møtte nok en gang arroganse fra politiet, og vi kjenner at forsøkene våre på å samarbeide med dem nærmer seg bristepunktet. De ønsker å fokusere mer på oss en på overgriperen. Feil fokus kjære politi.

Eivind Berge said...

Haha, de blir ikke tatt seriøst av politiet engang :)

Alan Yawn said...

http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2017/02/15/195277469/syrer-med-14-arig-kone-blir-ikke-straffet-i-norge

Crikey!

Eivind Berge said...

So the sex-hostile scumbags in the Norwegian police are forced to set aside their hateful laws for once. That is good news, and makes me really welcome Islamic immigration, because it dilutes the authority of the feminist state.