Monday, October 29, 2018

Reverse sting

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

71 comments:

Tom Grauer said...

The normies, unfortunately, are gripped by the severe pedohysteria peddled by state apparatuses and sustained by the Puritan-Feminist worldview, so they may as well support the misandric conduct of the police. That they put a picture of an 18-year-old, and that they present themselves as females in their *mid* teenage years (not as prepubescents), shows that they are engaged in a fully-fledged war against -- as we have been saying all along -- NORMAL MALE SEXUALITY.

Thank you, our leader, for keeping up the good fight. And I hope you find a woman willing to procreate with you.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, she actually said she will turn 16 in March next year, which is just five months under the age of consent, and they use this to hunt a "pedophile." With an image and online history of an 18-year-old, so ONLY this little inconsistent lie is the supposed incriminating factor.

Perhaps some normies would fall for it, but not after watching my video. My advice to men who are victims of such entrapment is to do like I did and put it all out in the open. We are doing nothing wrong and we can prove that this is just a war against normal male sexuality, but only if we are willing to stand up proudly like I do.

I had to enable comment moderation now due to disruptive comments aimed at getting my blog taken down for illegal content. Sorry about that, but I need to be careful and protect my platform for free speech, so that will be in effect for now.

Tom Grauer said...

Yes, the bitterly ironic thing is that by posing as fertile-age, well-post-pubescent women (in whose profile pictures is clearly evident the possession of fully developed, adult-belonging secondary sexual characteristics, in other words - these profile images depict *legal-age women* clearly past the Age-of-Consent), the only men that the police is definitely *not* going to catch are actual real-deal pedophiles. I guess that's why they sometimes claim to seek out not pedophiles specifically, but "predators," which is simply a code-word for regular men.

(Make it a double irony, as it's the police who are the actual predators in these situations)

Eivind Berge said...

There are so many layers of irony and other absurdity in this that it makes my head spin. What struck me as most funny and sad was how they think they can get away with using such deceptive methods (which are certainly illegal in Norway) because the victimized men will never expose them anyway. When I said I was gonna make a video I was met with disbelief because they expect men to be so embarrassed by their attraction to teen girls that they will just fall flat, whether successfully entrapped or not. And the police and vigilantes have reason to think so because most men are indeed cowards who help perpetuate the fake-pedophilia demonization of our sexuality. But not this time, baby! I hope I have served as a good example which shows that we can make significant headway in the sex war just by not being cowards about our normal and even legal sexuality (as they continued to believe that I would not expose them after it was clear that they had failed to entice me into committing any crime).

The second most funny thing is their attempt to send me unsolicited child pornography on Snapchat (not really, but the law considers it such since the girl presented as under 18). That trick is so old by now that we pretty much have to consider it standard police operating procedure. No one peddles child porn like the cops and the thugs who work with them. Meanwhile I don't even watch adult porn because I practice nofap, for God's sake! And I preferably don't want to see any nudity form the women I hook up with until they go to bed with me. I never ask for it, and recommend saving the excitement of seeing a woman naked until you have sex with her, if for no other reason the sex is best that way.

john said...

haven't I spent what feels like forever warning about this? yes, yes I have.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, John, point well taken. But I didn't get fooled, did I? In fact their entire industry of playing fake girls to entrap men will evaporate if we shine a light on it. There is an archetype at work here, of the monster whose power is only held up by your belief in it.

Anonymous said...

Men hvordan kan du være sikker på at det var politi? Hvis det virkelig var politi, hvad vinder de ved at fortælle det åbent til dig? Hvis det var politi og de indså at du ikke lod dig narre, så kunne de lige så godt afbryde chatten og gå i gang med en anden i stedet for.

Eivind Berge said...

This is the organization (or perhaps just a one-old-hag operation, in which case I just got doubly catfished, but whatever) which claims to be working with the police on such stings:

https://www.trygge-barn.no/hjem/om-meg/

They call themselves Trygge Barn ("Safe Children"). An insipid-looking site, but as we have seen, these are really nasty scum-of-the-earth manhaters. Thankfully they (or she, Ellen C. Mentzoni Nilsen) are now exposed for what they are.

What they really mean by "keeping children safe" is pushing barely illegal fake girls on unsuspecting men in adult meeting places (abusing the rules of such sites) in the hope that someone will take the jailbait. Gentlemen, remember this the next time a so-called child protection charity asks you for money!

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, det var nok ikke politi. Selv om hun kalte seg "politimedarbeider," og hevdet å stå i forbindelse med ovennevnte organisasjon, så tror jeg neppe dette er autorisert av politiet. De har bare en naiv tro på at politiet skal ta anmeldelsene deres for god fisk (og noen ganger fungerer det også, dessverre).

Anonymous said...

Internettet var et frit og solidarisk sted i sine første år, men efterhånden er det desværre blevet et paradis for svindlere og dømmesyge som nærmest får orgasme hver gang de hører om en mand der dømmes, fængsles eller skandaliseres.
Især er seksuelle tilbud fra personer der kun er få måneder under AOC yderst mistænkelige, fordi (som du selv siger) de er rettet mod den almindelige mand.
Din historie minder mig om en anekdote som jeg hørte mange år tilbage, da Danmark havde en forening for pædofile. Foreningen modtog en gang en mail fra en person der præsenterede sig som en 14-årig dreng, og som kontaktede foreningen med henblik på et venskab (også seksuelt) med en mand. Som du sikkert ved er AOC i Danmark 15 år, så man skulle forvente at vedkommende blev afvist på grund af sin unge alder, men ved du hvad foreningen svarede? "Beklager, du er alt for gammel".
Han skrev aldrig tilbage.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

A Cardinal Rule Concerning Written Laws:

If a law serves to solve a certain problem (assuming stringent and impartial enforcement) then you'll generally be okay with it, even if the law is a bit harsh, as long as it stands to improve things for you in some way.

If, on the other hand, a law seems to do little more than "exist to penalize you" while not doing anything to improve your life any, then you'll be resentful of the law as well as anyone who tries to enforce it against you.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

If those in charge put forth half the energy and effort towards regulating industry, health, professional ethics and finance that they do regulating the personal behaviors of private citizens we probably wouldn't even HAVE any issues like "climate change", corruption, unemployment, elimination/reduction of essential social services, economic disasters, social class/ethnic disparity (and the like).

Anonymous said...

Eivind, What is the minimum age you would date a girl? I mean if there was no AoC or age limit.

Eivind Berge said...

I'd say 13 to that. In a sane would, it should be perfectly acceptable for men to date 13-year-old girls. Sites like Tinder should begin letting them in at 13 and I would not really care if the girl was anywhere from 13-23, all of which I consider peak beauty. Making any distinctions between their sexual agency is an entirely spurious problem which serves to create misery and nothing else.

Eivind Berge said...

So I have the same sexual orientation as the average man, but a very different ideology. Some would say morality, or different beliefs about the nature of sexual abuse. But really, this is all politics if you cut through the crap.

Eivind Berge said...

I took the time to write a decent description on YouTube, so I thought I should post it here too:

Sting operations have always bothered me as morally repugnant, and I've long dreamt of doing a reverse sting to turn the tables. Today I finally got my chance. This video shows me trolling a Tinder profile which purports to be police entrappers of men, in order to expose their hateful and illegal methods. However, I suspect they may just be vigilantes since they are so amateurish. Either way, this is comedy gold (especially towards the end when I reveal that I am a men's rights activist and they nervously start backtracking) and a lesson in misandry. There is no audio here; please see my blog for commentary and discussion.

Basically, these scumbags take it upon themselves to have men "removed from society" (as they put it) just for normal male sexual attraction, to a girl who isn't even underage, but lies about being younger after you start talking to her. And then changes her age back up to legal to keep my attention when I say no, switches back to 15 when I say I will come to see her, and then begs "Don't you want me?" when I finally say no, after which they still have the nerve to claim that I will get into trouble. Feminism doesn't get any more malicious than this, folks, and unfortunately they have the hateful sex laws to back them up, which is the real problem here (not with these methods though, which is still illegal entrapment in Norway).

Anonymous said...

All these "children's rights" organisations like Unicef (and the one that tried to catch you) are dangerous sociopathic groups that don't give a shit about children dying of hunger and disease:

https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/inside-unicefs-bizarre-2018-masquerade-ball/

In the end it's funny because they accuse Unicef (especially women, I didn't expect it...) of "sexualizing children", pay attention to the photo of those garbage with legs called women with banners and shouting that Unicef "sexualizes children". They are in a war with men and now women also kill each other. What a waste of eggs and sperm, women do not deserve rights.

Anonymous said...

Why do you have a confederate flag in your house?

Eivind Berge said...

Because I used to live in the South and love it. Seven years in Tennessee. Feel more at home there than here. Norwegian by birth, Southerner by the grace of God.

Eivind Berge said...

My moderation policy is working out well. I have been blocking sabotage and also inane comments that are nothing but cut and paste of politically correct drivel against men dating teen girls, like we have been seeing in previous threads. The NPC meme is spot on, because these people are literally so mindless that a bot can do their thinking. They can't even use their own words, or think of a single new argument.

Thankfully we don't have to put up with that on my blog anymore. Debate is welcome, but please but some effort into it.

Anonymous said...

Kikker på bildene dine ute på nettet, og ser hvordan politiet tolket harlem renaissance til å bli resistance. Faen politiet er så jævlig dum. Hvor mange i politiet tror du kjenner til en poet som langston hughes? Det kan kanskje høres noe "uppish" ut å henge seg opp i det, men slik ignoranse er mer alvorlig enn man skulle tro. Politiet og deres gebet er gitt en enorm makt til å skalte og valte med befolkningen. De tolker lovverket ut fra sitt eget moralske kompass og dømmer deretter. Blir så jævlig forbanna når jeg leser en sak om ei som ble tatt med en samekniv i bilen sin. Først ble saken henlagt på bevisets stilling, men hun klagde, og så gikk det til påtale i stedet for å forandre henleggelseskoden. Hun ble dømt og ikke gitt noen ankemulighet. Jeg hater de drittsekkene så inni helvete. Er sikker på at samfunnet hadde vært bedre uten politi.

Anonymous said...

Sakset fra vg om bergenspolitiet:
Preget av ukultur
– Hele organisasjonen preges av ukultur og en vanvittig kunnskapsmangel. Konfliktnivået var i perioder så høyt at det var ren krig på huset. Alle satt på hver sin «tue», og noen møter var helt uvirkelige å være med på, sier han.

Og "han" (engedal) er helse-, miljø- og sikkerhetsrådgiver i daværende Hordaland politidistrikt i april 2012, så han burde vite hva han snakker om. Det burde vært en lov om at du aldri burde bli siktet av noen som er dummere og mer kunnskapsløs enn deg selv!

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, det er mye som er galt med norsk politi og rettsvesen, med bergenspolitiet i særklasse da. Det aller mest deprimerende er at juryen nå er borte, så det er bare en fasade at vi dømmes av likemenn lenger. Sånn jeg ser det er ikke Norge lenger en rettsstat. Det eneste som er verre enn urimelige lover og vilkårlig politimakt er at vi heller ikke kan appellere til sunn folkelig fornuft i siste instans. Nå er dumheten og ondskapen satt i system hele veien. Og det er ikke håp om at folket vil kreve makten tilbake heller med det første, da juryen forsvant uten så mye som en liten gatedemonstrasjon etter det jeg har registrert.

Anonymous said...

Men meddommere har man fortsatt? Det er et uomtvistelig rettsprinsipp at man skal "dømmes av sine likemenn", derfor må avskaffelsen av juryen være rettsstridig, slik jeg ser det. Og forresten, "likemenn" diskvalifiserer politiinstansen og dens like. De er rett og slett for undermennesker å regne.

Fikk forresten et brev fra statsadvokaten i går, at de støtter politiet i den satanskapen de begikk mot meg. Og hvem sin underskrift stod der? Rudolf "er rød på nesen" Christoffersen. Han liker vi godt.

Eivind Berge said...

Vi har meddommere og riktignok fremdeles i flertall slik at de i teorien kan blokkere fagdommerne, men de får ikke komme til en beslutning i fred, og hovedproblemet er at beslutningen om å dømme eller frifinne må begrunnes. Dermed har vi i prinsippet forbudt jurynullifikasjon, siden en begrunnelse om at *loven* er feil ikke vil bli godtatt. Da er selve grunnprinsippet i en rettsstat borte. Vi har ikke lenger det forsvaret mot tyranniske lover at folket kan nekte å dømme etter dem. Det er som du sikkert vet det faktum at de feministiske voldtektsreformene nettopp ble utsatt for jurynullifikasjon som førte til at juryen ble avskaffet. For statsfeminismen kunne ikke akseptere at folket nektet å dømme menn etter deres korrupte definisjon på voldtekt.

Eivind Berge said...

En ekte jury kommer frem til en beslutning på egen hånd, uten begrunnelse, og slik var det før. Det er essensielt at vi ikke må avkreve noen begrunnelse av juryen! For da blir den folkelige rettsfølelsen utsatt for press om i stedet å følge loven der de er i konflikt. Såklart kan dette slå motsatt vei også, og føre til domfellelse uten grunnlag i loven, men da er det fagdommernes oppgave å sette til side dommen. Jeg mener fagdommerne bør kunne sette til side en fellende dom fra juryen, men ikke en frifinnelse, slik at vi beskyttes mot dobbel jeopardy slik som i USA. Men for alt i verden må vi ha en uavhengig jury, og det har vi ikke nå.

holocaust21 said...

Now that's why I've never used a dating site.

It's good you captured that, but I think it would get more traction if you translated it into English. You never know, the narrative of a poor innocent man being ruthlessly entrapped for paedophilia by a jealous old hag might capture the imagination of "mainstream dissidents" i.e. MRA, MGTOW, Red Pill etc. Maybe you or someone else should post it on Reddit (I got banned from Reddit) and then who knows, it might go viral? But I think posting an English translation on Reddit would be better because no one speaks Norwegian. I mean if Norway was properly Noxited (is that a word? Well it is now) and borders were locked down like under the Iron Curtain then you could spread your Norwegian version to all of Norway and end feminism. But as Norway isn't Noxited, even if you spread it to all of Norway some big fat paedohysterical Americans will just land in Norway and pressurise everyone into paedohysteria again. It's all about whoever has the biggest loudspeaker, and unfortunately that requires English.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, I am trying to think of ways to make it go viral. 324 views so far is not too bad, but I feel there is much more potential in this. Even if it would only be shared by Norwegians it could get quite big. I tried to post it in the biggest Norwegian men's group on Facebook (Mannegruppa Ottar) with 65,000 members, but the moderators rejected it. Pedohysteria is everywhere, but I do feel that the average man would be sympathetic and I intend to find out.

If everyone who would have wanted to meet this girl were to be removed from society, there wouldn't be many men left and it should be obvious to them that instead we need to remove feminism and their hateful sex laws. We really need to shatter this old hag's delusion that she is preying on deviant male sexuality here, and I am so close to doing so very publicly, just missing that virality.

Anonymous said...

Måske skulle du have spurgt smukke Viktoria om det (i stedet for at "fjerne mænd fra samfundet") ikke ville være lettere at "fjerne 15-årige der giver sig selv for at være 18-årige på en datingsite der kun er beregnet til brugere over 18 år"?

Eivind Berge said...

Nå prøver jeg å bleste om videoen ved hjelp av en meningsmåling i følgende tweet, og ber om hjelp til retweets:

https://twitter.com/EivindBerge/status/1057971860447604736

Jeg prøver ny meningsmåling over 7 dager. Se videoen: https://youtu.be/Sq3k8hdcz1Y og belys hvor mange menn feministene vil "fjerne fra samfunnet" med sine hatefulle sexlover. Hadde du blitt fristet av denne provokatøren? Svar bare hvis du er i målgruppen heteroseksuelle menn.

o ja
o nei

Kan gjerne svare på det her på bloggen også.

How many of you would be tempted?

Eivind Berge said...

The Twitter campaign is not working. Only one vote so far and zero retweets. I have 1468 followers, few of which are Norwegian and none of which appear to be interested in men's rights activism.

This cartoon...

https://xkcd.com/1095/

...sadly reflects the truth. Subcultures, including political movements, are nested fractally and there is no bottom. Even our tiny male sexualist movement is like that. You would think that a fight against oppressed sexuality could foster enough unity to get a movement going, but that's not happening. Instead we have, at best, various factions fighting their own micro-wars, like Gally's ridiculous obsession with side issues like the media being mean to him while pleading guilty to the sex charges, the NOMAPs wanting acceptance for their mentality but not their acts, the falsely accused fighting against false accusations while ignoring the laws that enable them, etc. Only I and a handful other male sexualists are trying to unify us all under one umbrella, but no one is interested. The saying that we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately would seem to apply here, but sadly so does another saying: vox clamantis in deserto.

Leonardo Cornejo said...

These so called "sting operations" are literally just a concerted effort of the government to create crime where there was none.

Eivind Berge said...

That is absolutely right, and they are not traditionally used in Norway either. The police here have been quite limited in their freedom to use stings. But feminist sex hysteria is so strong that it is starting to override that. We are dealing with monsters who literally believe that anything goes as long as they can identify what they consider a sex criminal.

In this case I was tempted with something impossible -- fucking an underage girl who isn't underage -- and yet these scumbags believe it should be sufficient to remove men from society. That character is so ugly that I want to remove all such people from my life, but the terrifying reality is that this mindset is so common that you would be completely isolated. I am already removed from society, mentally, by not sharing their antisex beliefs and values, so in a sense they have achieved their goal.

Another perhaps more to the point way to look at it is that the imaginary crime is just a way to identify a certain kind of person, but then why bother with the sting? Well, only because we don't yet have the brain scanning technology to identify people who hypothetically would commit crimes under given conditions (which they may never get to experience anyway; in this case probably won't). The sting is merely a shortcut to that kind of test. Philosophically you have to believe that such a test should be sufficient for criminal culpability, if you support sting operations. And that is what I call a moral depravity much worse than any of the tendencies they are seeking to punish people for. On top of this, the only quality tested for in this particular operation is normal, harmless male sexuality, so the people behind it are utterly, unambiguously evil.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think there is a person alive who would not be vulnerable to some kind of sting. I'd wager that everyone would do something criminal if they thought they could get away with it, which a sting is essentially the deception that you can. Underage girls may not be your thing, but then maybe you like boys, you could use some drugs, or you could be tempted to steal something you've always wanted if it were placed in just the right location, or to cheat on your taxes if your accountant (working with the police in a sting) claimed he had a surefire way to help you, or even kill someone you really hated. With a sting operation tailored to everyone's unique vulnerabilities, we could no doubt incriminate the entire population. That ought to tell you there is something seriously wrong with the method, or alternatively that humans are not fit to live free, in which case you would still have to admit that the cure is worse than the disease.

john said...

well, I'm always interested, but can't do much especially as I can't go back on twitter.

I've got a lifetime ban thanks to ONE bitch on there.it still amazes me but that's how it is.if you're not 'grandfathered' in on Twitter, forget about opening a new account.they have rolled out yet another pile of new ways to complain.

I've mentioned before that I've tried several times to actually contact other mras but no luck.they must be terrified I guess.

john said...

oh no doubt.the cops here set up people, usually poor, black constantly.they even used to have a show: 'bait car', leaving a running car in the ghetto usually, and of course people got in it,it was stopped remotely and off to jail for "grand theft" goes the "perp".

then, in New Orleans(of course) they used an expensive "bait bicycle" no lock on it, 20 cops watching it with binoculars.

"brilliant" isn't it?
gotta keep those jails and prisons super over crowded!

john said...

so, a Alexander barter of jauquin texas posted an ad online stating he wanted to 'murder, cannibalize a child'.not too smart.

of course the cops were thrilled to help him in his quest to find a victim, and he's now charged with felony EVERYTHING.attempted murder? solicitation of a minor? o.k this guy might be sick, even insane but he did NOTHING to anyone.

this guys 21 and they're talking life in prison, but no victim.whatever.

Eivind Berge said...

Wow, that is bizarre. I see it is indeed a real case:

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2171017/texas-man-alexander-barter-arrested-seeking-young

Just a fantasy taken too seriously by a police state eager to turn everything into a crime. I doubt anybody would have provided him with a girl to cannibalize anyway, and in any case there shouldn't be a crime until somebody does.

Anonymous said...

You should never have tried to date that fake girl for two reasons:

1. She's pretty ugly, come on man, I know everyone has their likes and preferences, but she's objectively ugly.
2. She has in her profile a manifestation with faggot flags, nobody in their right mind would want something with a defender of mentally disturbed and sexual deviant people, or even worse, that she herself is one of those freaks, a "bisexual" as a devianted woman is now called.

Eivind Berge said...

No, she isn't ugly. She has small breasts (which must be why they used her) while I do prefer bigger and not quite so skinny girls, but she is still plenty cute and it's not like I am going to be picky about 18-year-old girls. Bisexuality in women is also just normal. Most girls I've dated have been bisexual to some degree (or at least said they were) and I've never had a problem with that.

Anonymous said...

About the Texas man.Eivind Berge's response to psychopaths and sociopaths who seek to rape, kill, cannibalize (separately or together):

Letting him commit the crime, killing, torturing or raping someone, or planting a bomb, I suppose.

And then if that happens, put him in jail.

Eivind Berge does not know a thing called "prevention", which serves to maintain a safe society of insane and criminals who seek to harm others and who must be stopped BEFORE they commit the crime and before it's too late to their victims.

Eivind Berge said...

It is true that what this Texas man did was a great deal more disturbing and worrisome than, say, swiping 18-year-olds on Tinder. I agree that some kind of reaction would have been appropriate, but not those charges. For example, he could have been put under surveillance to see if he would try it or get over it (which would be more humane and cost less than life in prison!). Anyway, this man seems to be mentally disturbed more than anything, suffering from compulsions. It is unique that he thanked the cops after he got arrested and prevented from committing the crimes. I am against psychiatric coercion, but if there is ever a case for it, this would be it, rather than jail. And then he should be released as soon as he got better. Perhaps it would even be enough to offer him voluntary psychiatric treatment.

So basically I agree that those who telegraph an intent to commit really evil crimes should be watched and subject to some kind of prevention, but it should be the minimum required and not punish as if they already had done it.

Gally said...

Hey.

Good luck with your 'investment': https://e24.no/energi/bitcoin/skattedirektoratet-kryptofritak-kan-fjernes/24482451

Eivind Berge said...

Oh hey, Gally, nice to see you again... That news has no effect on my business, because I never claimed such a discount in the first place even when I was mining as much as I could. I always paid the standard residential rate. Nowadays I only mine enough to heat my apartment and the cost of electricity is even less of an issue.

john said...

incredible isn't it? I'm in the no victim=no crime camp.imagine doing life for a thought crime.

john said...

locking up anyone before they MIGHT commit a crime!? you're going to have to build 100s more prisons.but since that's just "great" for this economy, what's the problem huh?

anyway, the u.s has MUCH bigger problems, we're being invaded by a rag tag homeless, shoeless, starving, exhausted army bringing smallpox and leprosy!.grab your muskets and get thee to thine border, good patriot!

Anonymous said...

The so-called MAP movement is just a group of wannabe feminists with no courage or strength to point out their enemies:

Tom O'Carroll makes a post where he talks about joining the "sensible and moderate" feminists to give better mental treatment to sex offenders! almost apologizing for existing!

But that's not all. You just have to go to the comments of MAPs and read things like this:

"In particular, disapproval of childhood sexual experimentation and play is associated with the exact same authoritarian and patriarchal traditions that feminism seeks to unseat."

"On the other hand, an authoritarian and patriarchal system still dominates western culture and, within that system, women and children are vulnerable to sexual victimization by males and male power."

"So I believe the origin and maintenance of the taboo against adult/child sexual activity is partly a patriarchal strategy to maintain control of sexuality and partly a strategy by women to protect themselves and their children from sexual exploitation."

These MAPs even support Hate Speech laws!

"Publication of this kind of language should not be tolerated and we need to prevent it by invoking the law as it stands."
Tom O'Carroll agree with him!

LOL MAPS THE NEW FEMINIST ALLIES!

Eivind Berge said...

I see you are referring to this post:

https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2018/10/29/at-the-barbican-bums-and-barbarism/

There are some bad apples among his commenters, but I still think Tom is a good guy. In this post he speaks out against the nightmarish "treatment" of jailed sex offenders, which requires that they be (or pretend to be, I hope) ideologically reformed before they can be released. This system is badly in need of change, even if one has to "cooperate" with feminists to do so.

His conclusion is very sensible:

"Far better, I said, would be to have programmes that respect the individuality of the inmates concerned, giving participants the opportunity to discuss their beliefs freely, and any evidence they know of that supports them. Resistance to the prescribed ideology should not on its own be taken to indicate that an inmate is still dangerous when a fair and intelligent evaluation of their expressed views would suggest the opposite."

If we can't change the sex laws, can we at least allow dissenting opinions and not keep people locked up for their ideology? I know this is not the extent of neither his or my activism, but it is a good argument no matter what.

I also see him arguing with that commenter you quoted and soundly demolishing his position that sexual abuse is common and caused by the patriarchy (false DEFINITIONS of sexual abuse is what's common, as I also keep saying). Tom O'Carroll is one of us, an honorary male sexualist even if he does not use that label. There is absolutely no comparison between him and a NOMAP.

Eivind Berge said...

I see that Tom O'Carroll does indeed support the hate speech laws, but come on, he's British! Cut him some slack, because they don't even know what freedom of speech is.

And the intent is good, even if I don't agree with the method. It looks better in context:

Commenter Sean: "So I think the most productive avenue is to use existing human rights frameworks and directly engage with human rights organizations, using emerging professional literature on paedophilia for support. There need to be, for example, legal consequences for media outlets that use ‘paedophilia’ as a synonym for sexual crimes against children, or deploy constructions like ‘murders, rapists and paedophiles’, alluding to a spectre of society’s most despised and dangerous members. Publication of this kind of language should not be tolerated and we need to prevent it by invoking the law as it stands."

Tom O'Carroll: "I couldn’t agree more. In the UK it’s a matter of finding the right case to pursue with the right backing, including funding. You have usefully outlined both the potential and the problems."

I think this is hopelessly naive, and very dangerous because laws against speech, if you support such a thing, can just as easily go in the opposite direction and prohibit our dissenting sexual ideology, but there is also a chance of some satisfying outcomes against our enemies.

Hell yeah, we already have one!

https://jonathanturley.org/2018/10/26/european-court-upholds-prosecution-of-woman-for-comparing-muhammads-marriage-to-a-six-year-old-girl-to-pedophilia/

Tal Hartsfeld said...

I often think of those in authority as being little more than "collective Godparents".

They see the general public as tantamount to being children in need of their guardianship and direction.
And, much like real-life parents, "direction" is short-hand for molding their "offspring" in the ways they see as "proper". As well as it being their appointed duty to protect their "offspring" from the dangers of the world.

You know of parents who are very controlling----like, for example, if they feel animosity towards a certain couple in the neighborhood, they'll not only refuse to associate with them, they'll also forbid their kids from hanging out or playing with that couple's kids as well.
And, also, there's forbidding their kids from hanging around kids from a certain side of town.

In a manner of speaking one could view someone with a criminal record, especially anyone on the likes of a "sex offender" registry (among others), as being among the "bad kids" their "offspring" are not allowed to hang around or associate with, the "bad influences".
This could be but one reason they have the likes of "sex offender" registries, the "ones with the bad reputation" the gossips like to talk disparagingly about and look down upon to make themselves feel better about their place in life.

Those on the "sex offender" registry are also the "bad siblings" who are constantly being punished by "mom" and "dad", and also constantly being blamed for anything that gets damaged or turns up missing, and the like.

It's all just a part of this "Godparent" complex the government and authorities seem to have toward the average plebeian, the notion that the commoners are somehow collectively inferior and that they need the guidance and support of the more worldly and more enlightened to keep from going astray
...or at least that's how it appears to me to be the case.

john said...

that's also the way I see it.im not on a sex offender registry/list, but these fucks are STILL terrified of me. my neighbors are petrified.

but if a caravan of homeless, 900 miles from the border can frighten a country to shaking in their boots,maybe it's not me.just the standard "stranger danger" every man a possible "abducter" "pedo" etc.

I'll say this about living here now, it sucks.fun has basically been outlawed.some kid dressed as the 'terminator'for halloween at ucf, and 50 cops showed up of COURSE. he was handcuffed, detained but miraculously! not facing any charges!

Eivind Berge said...

Well, we can still have fun on Tinder. Women can't claim to be harassed when you hit on them after willingly matching with us. Why don't you try it, John? I bet you could get some matches too, and I don't mean fakes. I just turned down a 19-year-old girl who wanted to meet me because she doesn't want to have children and that's what I am looking for now. I have finally learned to discriminate against women who use birth control. That was a slow lesson to learn, but now I finally have my priorities straight. In order to procreate you need to have uncontracepted sex. It is so simple, and yet so difficult because women are pulling an evolutionarily novel fraud on us with all this birth control going on, which we haven't evolved to find less attractive yet. So it takes a conscious decision to discriminate against otherwise very hot and willing women because they are blocking our reproductive efforts. The best advice I can give to younger men, after nofap, is have sex without contraception. I have waited 20 years longer than I should with getting serious about that but it is hopefully not too late.

Eivind Berge said...

It appears that somebody is currently reporting every post and comment on my blog to Google admins in the hope that something will stick. They dismiss all the complaints, like they have done with every single one in the history of this blog. Nonetheless, I am going to tighten up my moderation policy some more out of an abundance of caution. From now on, I will not tolerate any homophobia or anything else which can be construed as hate speech against a protected group. Please refrain from using such language as for example "faggot flag" (which I inadvertently let slip above) in your comments, or I will have to block them. I should have blocked that regardless because I have nothing against gays and they can also be male sexualists -- indeed I just praised Tom O'Carroll for being a fine specimen of such.

Who is doing this is not so important. Since Gally made an appearance with another spiteful comment yesterday, I know he is still reading, but I am not going to point fingers without evidence. The important thing is to be sure we keep it all clean so nothing can happen, no matter how much they report. I am very serious and will enforce it.

Jack said...

Before having children, read David Benatar's book "The Human Predicament". It is better never to have been born.

Eivind Berge said...

The attack is relentless but still failing. If my blog does go down though, we will rendezvous at the other male sexualist blogs and regroup. All my content is backed up and will be published on a new platform if necessary. Male sexualism shall persevere.

Eivind Berge said...

Sorry, Jack, I don't agree with antinatalism and don't feel like reading something so negative.

Anonymous said...

Ignore the hard anti-natalism, they are creation of people who want to extinguish humanity or human races for various reasons, deep ecology, destroy the white and Japanese race etc. and replace them with submissive races without identity , kalergi plan etc.. But it is also true, and we have to keep it in mind it is highly immoral to have children when there are thousands of children without parents, when there are already millions of humans on earth destroying resources, annihilating thousands of other animal species, I do not say that a white person does not need to have children, we are the first to have children to ensure genetic diversity, but being able to adopt a child, why not do it? First you would be giving an opportunity to a child who probably never had it, all children have the right to have parents and although I speak of the white race nothing prevents you from adopting a Chinese girl or similar, because I have known chinese people and even a precious chinese little girl and they are very intelligent people like us, to be race realistic is not to be racist in the negative sense, or you can adopt a Norwegian child too.

The issue here: capable humans are moral agents. Our behaviors must be based on ethics which in turn are based on reason. They are not based on nature, that is a naturalistic fallacy. That is transmitting one's DNA is a biological fact not a moral imposition. That something can be done is not equivalent to what we should be doing.

That someone has your DNA will not change anything, is an impulse that makes you believe in your immortality through genes but in reality you cease to exist as everyone else, what is transmitted is the legacy of the people you have cared for, educated, etc.. That's the truth, no matter what they say.

Also an advantage that has is that you don't need a woman (most are disgusting beings as we see every day) to be a father that way, as long as you are allowed to adopt alone, of course, so you need to have to look around about this.

Eivind Berge said...

I let that comment through, but only to illustrate another rule: no racism! I don't believe in it, and it has nothing to do with male sexualism. I am guessing this is more trolling to attempt to give this blog a racist slant now that all else failed. For your info, the closest I've come to be a father yet was when I was a sperm donor to a Nigerian woman doing IVF last year, for which I traveled all the way to Abuja, Nigeria. It sadly failed (but not because of me -- my sperm count is 60 million and we did make an embryo), but anyway, it goes to show that I care nothing about race. I don't want to adopt either and while it is of course true that we are mortal and don't really live on in our children, it is still meaningful to have them.

Anonymous said...

That comment was real, I was only exposing you a reality, and as you will see I myself have denied racism and support even to adopt oriental children (although you must be short-sighted not to see that there is a white genocide), but as you think as you want, you do not think through ethics and therefore reason, but through your needs and feelings, so there is nothing to do, you are really more moral than the average people but deep down you are as irrational as the rest, and I rely only on ethics and therefore reason. May you do well with your unethics and one less in your movement, I prefer to give my energies with rational people.

Eivind Berge said...

Very well. We don't need racists in the male sexualist movement anyway. I find the subject of race boring and without bearing on the important things in life. You know what I felt when I went to Nigeria and met the family etc? Kinship. Race does not determine if you are one of them or us, and those who think it is that important have understood nothing. Also I saw that they are probably no less intelligent, just adapted to a different environment.

Eivind Berge said...

A word to whoever has been targeting me, with mass reporting and threats of sending the police etc. My lawyer already knows who the prime suspect is, so if you try anything that actually involves or should involve the police, like false accusations or whatever, you WILL be investigated immediately and won't get away with it. Your tactics aren't working and now is the time to STOP rather than escalate it. I hope you see that.

holocaust21 said...

The thing with adoption is I also don't get why are all these people adopting their children? It seems bizarre to want to do that. I think sometimes they don't want to adopt their children either, instead it is the child protection/social services or whatever they call them in your respective country who kidnaps children from their families and forcefully adopts them. I'm not sure there's even any rule of law to it, the only semblance of rule of law is that if they try to kidnap your kids you can inform them that you'll then hack their arm off with a machete. As they're often low-level timid SJWs they might back down. *Might*.

Anyway, back to the race question. While I think a lot of the alt-right "white supremacy" stuff seems a bit silly I think the previous poster has made valid points that there is an effective White Genocide going on. Though it's not other races that are responsible, it's white women and cucked white men who are responsible. Birth rates amongst whites are plummeting but this is mainly because white countries are at the most advanced stages of the feminist disease. Other countries don't have such advanced feminism, so their birth rates are still higher though perhaps falling too. Non-whites in white countries have higher birth rates because they have been less indoctrinated by feminist ideology and due to PC are somewhat more protected from it. Like in Britain they was a bunch of youngish Muslim chaps who were all locked up and had their lives destroyed for merely banging some cute 15 year old chicks because they hadn't been as indoctrinated in the idea that banging 15 year old chicks is "evil".

What I still don't get with the alt-right is why are they all so obsessed by race? I am never clear if their obsession with race is really just a substitute for their real hatred of feminism which they are often less able to admit. I get the feeling that White Supremacy is considered more PC than being Anti-Feminist so a lot of people will say they're a White Supremacist if they are too afraid to admit to being an Anti-Feminist. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe the world is just full of total idiots who actually think White Supremacy is the way to go.

One more thing (oops too many points in one post) I think eventually Google will take down your blog, so then the question is do we go on the darkweb? It's less exposure (less traffic on darkweb), so I don't know if it is worth it. Though it feels like we are a small movement anyway and no one really cares. I am not sure why everyone else is so into White Supremacy and shit rather than eradicating Feminist Rape Laws. It's really odd. I just don't get it.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't want to adopt for several reasons, genetics being far from the only one. Firstly I want the experience of conceiving with a woman, which is such a beautiful thing in itself, as is pregnancy and birth. As trying to conceive (or finding a woman who wants to) is the stage I am at, that is what I am focusing on now, not even thinking about parenting, which comes later. Secondly I want a woman who is motivated to be a mother and do much of the parenting. Adopting as a single dad is absurd, and I am not about to establish a relationship with a woman who isn't fertile and wanting to have children at this point.

You make a good point about white supremacism as a substitute for antifeminism, being more PC to express. I have gotten that impression as well to some extent. Joining them is not the solution though.

Perhaps Google will eventually take down my blog, but the recent attack strengthens my belief that we are safe for now. I see from the logs that admins spent hours reading tens of reports in the last few days, and trashed them all. No need to consider going on the darkweb just yet. Google appears to be showing some spine against the blue knights, and kudos for that.

john said...

so, some guy walked into a yoga club in Tallahassee and shot two women before turning the gun on himself.im surprised this doesn't happen daily with radical feminisms war on men.gotta expect SOME blowback ladies!

in other news, the kavanaugh accuser now admits it was a 'ploy' to get 'attention'.how about she goes to prison then for her attention needs?

john said...

yes, as I've often said down the years, Americans largest and ONLY threats are internal. feminists,this lousy police state, NOT broke, powerless Mexicans or blacks.I'm quickly called a misogynist for bringing that up though as well as a "traitor".oh well, Trump is certainly NOT helping.he's reminding me of Julius Striecher, the well known Nazi jew baiter.great company to have.

Eivind Berge said...

It seems there is a shooting almost daily in the USA now. Lots of senseless violence, but no organized men's movement. American men have got their priorities backwards. Violence should be a last resort, not first before you can even articulate an ideology. Well, some of the shooters do make some angry rants online first, but they are oddly disconnected from an identifiable movement, most of them. This is not the way to bring about positive change. Instead it only results in chaos.

I am trying to provide an ideology for men to organize non-violently. There is so much we can do just by refusing to be shamed for our sexuality. As my Tinder video shows, this simple act of defiance has the feminists stumped in their tracks. What they thought would be easy prey to fill the prisons ends in humiliation for them and affirmation of healthy male sexuality. Holocaust21 on his blog called my recording a reverse sting of attempted sexual entrapment a world-first move, and I think it may well be. A single instance of this type of activism is worth more than all the American shootings combined. Plus you get to live to fight another day too. I wish your gun nuts would realize that there is a better way and join the male sexualist movement.

john said...

yes, they would all need to grow brains first.the gun nuts,most of them right wingers are some real racist idiots.they still hate on Obama all the time for everything and anything.

obama sounds like a genius compared to Trump but they only hate him for his skin color not for what they should--a feminist who also happens to be a war criminal in the presidential tradition.

they can not be reasoned with Lord knows I've tried.the quickest to call me sexist, misogynist are the "men"!

I don't say anything online that Peterson doesn't. im not saying shoot up any place.when I point out the vast majority of these shooters was raised by a single mother or that teaching 5 year old boys they're full of toxic masculinity is going to end BADLY,It's not received well!

maybe one day they'll finally figure out the black man isn't their enemy, and connect the dots,but that shits been going on for centuries so I kinda doubt it.

at least some progress has been made thanks to the kavanaugh situation but even there they blame "dems" when the root cause of that is feminism.what can you do.

Anonymous said...

Nathan Larson is indeed a racist white supremacist:
https://nathanlarson3141.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/whenever-theres-an-ill-behaved-woman-or-non-white-around-its-usually-because-some-white-man-allowed-it/

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Nathan Larson has a lot of sensible view on the sex laws and libertarian politics, but when it comes to race he is hopeless. But maybe that's what it takes to gain influence in American politics right now? He is running for office, so he needs to take that into account. Maybe this is what right-wing voters want to hear? That doesn't really excuse it, but politics (as opposed to the moral theorizing that I do) is a pragmatic business where you have to make compromises all the time.

Larson is at his best when he talks about the rape laws and how he himself is a victim of female supremacism. This is excellent:

https://nathanlarson3141.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/my-letter-to-the-local-sheriff/

Joska Pista said...

Eivind, did you report that sting that tried to entrap you? If this kind of entrapment is illegal in Norway, as it should be, then there has to be some kind of reprisal against it.

Eivind Berge said...

It is certainly illegal in the sense that it is not a legal police method that would hold up in court to get anyone convicted. I doubt there would be reprisals though, so not much point in reporting.