How my new moderation policy is working out, and thoughts on incels

As pointed out, I had to disable anonymous commenting due to disruptive and threatening comments from male feminists, perhaps an organized self-imagined "pedo hunter" group (which is also missing the mark, but a low IQ tends to go with that persuasion, so no surprises there). This has been a success as far as getting rid of the creeps, though they keep "reporting" me to deaf ears at Google and Twitter. Crucially, they are evidently not bold enough to comment now that they need a Google Account. But neither are apparently most of my legitimate commenters, which is a shame, because we used to have colorful discussions running up to hundreds of comments under most posts.

But I have to admit that this is the state of the real Men's Rights Movement, the unbroken current of pro-male-sexuality ideology which is now known as male sexualism, so I'll just focus on writing good posts instead of facilitating good discussion at this point. We don't have enough men who care that much, and seeing what hate one gets from being public, I can't blame my few followers from preferring privacy. Who wouldn't rather live their lives relatively unmolested than make personal sacrifices to be part of a futile struggle? A person who is too idealistic for his own good, that is who, which I undeniably am. Mine is a sort of compulsion to tell the truth and oppose injustice, which I have previously labeled hyperpolitical disorder because I am also truthful about the downside to so much opinionated altruism. Some of the hate I am getting now is just one step removed from a lynch mob, and it's certainly useless and stupid to argue with those no matter how right you are. At some point when society turns too hostile around you for unaccountable reasons, you just have to run for your life and realize that people can be monsters sometimes. Hyperpolitical disorder is an affective disorder where you feel too much political hate, but it does not make me stupid.

It is also disheartening that no women voice support for us despite much of my time being spent resisting the female sex offender charade here and on Twitter. Sadly, it is female nature to want to punish promiscuous women, which is what that charade is all about, with all its fake "abuse" as a phony pretext. Women are so happy to punish sexual vitality in women that it forms an integral part of feminism, and of course the hapless victims of their hateful laws don't have much courage or freedom to resist either. While women as a group benefit from sex-hostility since it drives up the cost of sex, the harm done by the female sex offender charade is so poignant and focused on individual sacrificial victims that according to my ethics, male sexualism is a moral benefit to women as well as men, even as this is a truth we are doomed to stand for alone against women and male feminists and every other kind of misogynist.

The only good news is that I am in contact with a couple of journalists who may give us some much needed publicity, but we shall see what comes of that. They are very interested in incels these days, who have become a cultural force even as the serious ideological men's rights activism that I represent has gone by the wayside. Let me therefore gather my thoughts about incels a little bit, so I am ready for such interviews.

Firstly, I am not incel, and back when I was, which was only intermittently and more than eight years ago, I used the term literally rather than to describe the peculiar baggage that it now comes with (and I don't remember if I even used the abbreviation or just said "involuntary celibacy"). In retrospect, my inceldom was not much more than you have to expect as a regular guy, and at other times I scored well above average with women. I also I did not realize the deleterious effects of porn and masturbation on a man's sex life, or I am convinced that I would have been a stud. So the number-one advice I give to incels is to practice nofap. The self-help aspect is more than enough reason, but if you are so inclined, you might also pride yourself that feminists increasingly see nofap as "misogynistic," so you are even socking it to them ideologically by refraining from the self-abuse by which they want you hampered.

There is plenty about the current incel movement to make one feel uneasy. Let's use Braincels to illustrate how they behave, so you can see for yourself if my impression is accurate. While being a male sexualist is cool and honorable and something every man ought to proudly stand for regardless of his lot in life (if he can take the hate from manginas), identifying as "incel" is a way to telegraph that you are a loser and intend to remain a loser, so it's unsurprising that they all remain anonymous. Because incels don't seem to be receptive to constructive advice. They just keep repeating that "it's over" for various reasons, usually related to their imagined bad genes.

The problem with the belief that you have "bad genes" (apart from the fact that you can't know you're a loser before you've tried your best), that supposedly make you unattractive women, is that science has failed to validate the hypothesis that females select for good genes in the first place. I learned this by following Rolf Degen on Twitter, and don't know so much about it, but I've read enough to believe him when he says that "the good genes hypothesis in general is a zombie theory that gets dragged along although it has long since been refuted." There are no detectable preference shifts in women around ovulation either according to the latest research. Somewhat shockingly because we've heard it asserted som many times, "the idea that females select males according to signs of good genes is high in popularity and low in reproducibility."

And that makes sense to me when I think about it, since every gene in an individual has successfully made it to that generation and thus demonstrated viability, and what might be most adaptive in the future is uncertain, so how could there really be a mechanism for sexually selecting "good" genes over "bad"? Apart from blind fashion and not being obviously sick (which may not be genetic either), there appears to be none, though I am still not convinced that there is absolutely nothing to the handicap principle.

So women do not appear to turn men down because you have bad genes, but at worst that you have different genes than they arbitrarily prefer. The sexy-son theory is still in effect, and evolutionary psychology is still true on the all-important point that sex is a female resource which enables females to do most of the choosing, but the sort of quality judgment that your genes are "bad" in an absolute sense is misplaced. In practice, it might not matter that much that women select based on blind fashion rather than good genes, but at least we don't need to attribute a moral or judgmental dimension to their choice that is not there. Any incel lamenting that his jawline is somehow inadequate, or he isn't tall enough, or muscular enough or some other meaningless indicator of attractiveness needs to stop it right now and assert that whatever he is equipped with is just as good. It is a neutral happenstance of evolution that his traits aren't preferred, if they aren't, which can at any time shift to the other direction and deserves no special sanctity.

The incel view of "Chads and Stacys" as the enemy is also problematic to say the least. Male sexualists recognize that our real enemy is the sex laws and their enforcement, or legislators and police if you will, not sexually successful people. We don't have anything against Chads and Stacys and aspire to be them and date them. Frankly, male sexualists fall more into the Chad and Stacy category already, so if anything, we should fear the incels if we can't help them. Particularly those of us who have adopted nofap are floating on a cloud of euphoria that sexual opportunity is real and there for the taking. We have no use for needless negativity, and to the extent that we are activists, that is directed at against unequivocal evil such as the feminist sex laws which construct fake abuse and the people who support them.

A little chest-thumping

It has been a pet peeve of the Men's Movement to resist not just hateful laws, but also words which make our normal sexuality sound deviant. Our party line has been that words like "ephebophile" and "hebephile" and to some extent "MAP" have no place in our lexicon because, while they can't be used to diagnose anyone as pathological, they carry the suggestion that most men are not attracted to adolescents, which couldn't be more wrong. Our counterpropaganda has so far consisted of trying to avoid those words and just saying something along the lines of "normal male sexuality" instead. However, I found this approach unsatisfying, which is why I coined "agywophilia." There are good reasons why "AGYW" already exists as an acronym for "Adolescent Girls and Young Women" in scientific articles, as these females are studied together because they naturally go together in many ways including sexual attraction. So why not tap into this usage?

I believe the average heterosexual* man is an agywophile rather than a teleiophile, which is another unsatisfying word because it fails to reflect reality. "Teleiophilia" implies an artificial boundary that simply does not exist. We don't discriminate between teenage girls and young women except where the age of consent forces us to, or because the man is so socially cowed by the current abuse hysteria that he thinks any attraction to "minors" is wrong. Do you think all the barely-legal porn videos where they check the girl's ID on camera contain that step because male attraction begins at 18, and without it the viewer couldn't be sure that he is attracted? Of course not. It is only there to avoid running afoul of the hateful feminist sex laws that have bizarrely punitive consequences due to the neglection of a practically and morally irrelevant distinction.

Now I need to repeat that I don't recommend watching porn! Go out there and meet real women instead, which has the added advantage that you can usually pursue girls a few years younger than 18 too, depending on where you live. Agywophilia is not only healthy and normal, but often legal as well, albeit obviously not as legal as it should be.

I am not usually one to plug neologisms, but in this case it actually feels useful, and judging by the response, is remarkably effective. Because this is my most engaging tweet ever. Out of 8663 impressions, 29% of viewers made some kind of engagement, and an incredible 12% clicked through on the link! (For comparison, I am used to more like 1% when I share a link, so this is a full order of magnitude above par.)

Haters point out that I was "ratioed," meaning most of the response is negative, and that is true. But my purpose is not to be "liked," but to propagandize for normal male sexuality. Even a hateful reaction achieves this purpose as long as people become aware that there is serious political opposition to their beliefs and values, which of course is the reason for such a strong emotional reaction.

Having 1000 people read a proposed lexicographical entry is not a world-changing event. But it is a step in the right direction, and in the same way that a butterfly's flutter is said to have enormous potential, who knows what can happen down the line. Let me therefore end 2018 on a positive note, that the male sexualist movement has done some measurable good against the hurricane of hate which currently persecutes our sexuality.

---
*If homosexual men want an equivalent word, it would be "abymophilia" -- primary attraction to adolescent boys and young men. Even women could use this, though it is much less descriptive of them. People who use words like "teleiophilia" are promoting a strictly gynocentric agenda (and not even that when you count the female sex offender charade), which of course is the reason for having a Men's Movement such as ours present a more inclusive and reasonable alternative.

Female sex offenders: the devil's advocate post

My pet peeve is fake sexual abuse. I am more upset by false legal definitions than factually false claims, because the system at least in theory contains mechanisms to correct the latter. What upsets me most is when the law is most perverse, and the law is nowhere more perverse than in its insistence that women are equally culpable for sex crimes against victims. What I call the female sex offender charade is therefore my pet peeve within my pet peeve of fake sexual abuse.

But let's make this a little more interesting than the usual arguing with idiots whose intellectual ability is limited to asserting that the sexes are equal. Suppose you wanted to argue that women can be sex offenders -- how would you go about it if you weren't just an idiot or catering to idiots? In reality, it is sufficient to use an idiotic justification such as the lie that the sexes are equal, or no justification at all, because the public will go along with it just like they will with any old witch-hunt (I have explored such reasons here). As an intellectual exercise, however, I thought I might be fun to speculate how a halfway rational person would justify punishing women for sex crimes under the "abuse" paradigm. If you take the view that sex is inherently immoral or sinful, you don't run into such problems, but that's not how our laws work anymore, as I've noted previously. Thanks to feminist victimology, the law now needs to contain a rationale grounded in "abuse" rather than the will of God, crimes "against nature" or similar.

The position I would argue if I wanted to advance this view to a rational audience is that women can sexually abuse, but not sexually exploit boys, and here is why.

First we need to define sexual abuse. Upon years of reflection, it is clear to me that real sexual abuse must do at least one of the following: reduce the victim's reproductive fitness or be an aversive experience (there is also an element of sexual exploitation, but more on that later). Female-perpetrated "sexual abuse" as currently defined most often does spectacularly the opposite on both counts, but since this is my devil's advocate post, I will give serious consideration to the fringe cases. I have previously argued that female sexual coercion can indeed be an aversive experience, but not aversive enough, on average, compared to other violence to merit inclusion in the sex laws (for example, see this debate). The sex laws are all based on the idea that sex is an aggravating factor beyond other violence or exploitation, and thus meriting harsher punishments, which is absurd when applied to women. It has always been my position that for the purposes of severity, female violence can only incidentally be sexualized, not aggravated by any sexual aspect, and should therefore be prosecuted (if at all) as simple assault rather than rape, or whatever other nonsexual crimes the violence merits. But let's say you wanted to argue that I am wrong. How would you go about it?

Firstly, the feminists would need to make a concession to truth. Absent aversive experiences or physical damage, reasonable men know that female sexuality is harmless. We feel zero sympathy -- and often a great deal of envy -- towards supposed victims to female sexuality per se, so constructed by the mere fact of having had sex with a woman. In other words, women cannot sexually exploit boys or men. Sexual exploitation is the ingredient in what is currently claimed to be "abuse" that is so horribly out of place when applied to female offenders.

The rationale I would use for arguing that female sexual coercion nonetheless can raise to the level of sexual abuse is that aversive and/or sexual fitness-reducing experiences can harm males sexually even if they don't constitute sexual exploitation, just like cutting off a man's penis or testicles will demolish his sex life without being sexual exploitation per se. It is plausible that female sexual coercion can degrade a man's sex life because he will be afraid of women or whatever. These acts are still not sexual abuse in my actual opinion, but since I am playing devil's advocate here I am making the leap of equating violence with a negative impact on your sexuality with sexual abuse. This is the only tenable way to argue that women can be sex offenders to intelligent people who do not buy absurdities like the denial of sex differences or the pretense that women can sexually exploit boys.

Let us look at some examples. Father-daughter incest can be argued to be abusive on the fitness-reducing criterion because it would tend to lead to offspring with lesser fitness than the girls would get from other mates. Mother-son incest cannot be argued to do the same since sperm is so cheap, or at the very most spectacularly less so, so it's not in the same ballpark on that criterion. It could, however, be aversive, so let's for now grant that women can sometimes sexually abuse boys.

This view requires a strict distinction between sexual abuse and exploitation which is not currently employed. Unfortunately, any sex crime can be called "abuse" as it is, and this needs to change. In order to qualify as abuse by my proffered definition, the experience needs to be either aversive at the time it is going on or physically damaging. "Iatrogenically" induced harm, as from "therapists" brainwashing a boy to feel that he is a victim, does not count. Crimes constructed solely by age of consent or "abuse of position" therefore do not count. These crimes can at most be exploitation and only apply to male offenders. One consequence of this view is that statutory rape or abuse of females (and boys by men) would be downgraded to crimes of exploitation rather than abuse. Society is currently not going to accept this, but it is the truth. The rationale for having crimes of sexual exploitation is to protect the value of a child's sexuality from being given away too readily, just like children are not trusted with managing a lot of money even if they own it. This rationale makes sense for girls and for male homosexuality (up to a point, say 13 years old, when self-determination becomes more important), but is utter nonsense when it comes to boys versus women because the boys don't lose any value by having sex with women. On the contrary, all reasonable humans understand that they are lucky rather than victims as far as exploitation goes.

Crimes of sexual abuse, as distinct from exploitation, can thus arguably be perpetrated by women because the argument does not impute any harm from the giving up of sex itself, but from an aversive experience or a negative impact on sexual fitness. This is not what I actually believe. I believe the sexual aspect plays such a minor role in women's violence that it should be ignored altogether. Women cannot rape because rape is an aggravated form of assault, and there is no sufficient aggravation from sex with a woman over what the violence would otherwise constitute. But if proponents of the idea that women can be sex offenders and subject to some of the same sex laws as men wanted to argue their case without seeming like drooling retards to sensible people like me, this is how they would do it: remove all the exploitation nonsense and keep the rest. Then we could at least take them seriously, which is impossible today. You need to make this concession to truth before we can speak as equals! And now I've met you halfway, so how about doing the same?

We still cannot argue that women deserve the same punishment, because crimes of sexual abuse subsume exploitation, and that element would be absent. When a woman is raped, she is also sexually exploited, but we don't punish this aspect separately or think of it independently because it is so embedded in the concept of rape (which is the main reason why it's silly to use the word gender-neutrally). The trauma of real rape is also largely due to the exploitation rather than violence, which is the evolutionary reason why rape is such a big deal in the first place even if the victim doesn't consciously know it. If women are going to be charged with "rape," however, we must tease out the difference and subtract the culpability for exploitation because women aren't capable of that. Female sexual coercion can be harmful due to the aversive experience of the violence itself, and even damage men in sexual ways down the line, but it cannot reasonably constitute harm due to the male having been sexually exploited, since there is nothing to exploit in any meaningful sense. Any jurisprudence of female sex offenses which fails to take this into account -- like the present feminist one -- is flagrantly misogynistic and wrong on so many levels.

You cannot exploit something which consensus reality holds as worthless, just like you cannot steal from a pauper who owns nothing. You can abuse him, however, and interfere with his ability to earn a living later. Sex is a female resource, which means that men are sexual paupers who at most can be abused. To claim that males can be sexually exploited is to lie about their sexual value. In my view, women cannot sexually abuse them either by virtue of giving them sex, but abuse can incidentally be sexualized, which in practice is irrelevant to the severity of the crime. I am letting this distinction slide in this post and will instead equate sexualized abuse with sexual abuse. Few people understand this distinction anyway even when I explain it, but everyone ought to be able to understand the difference between exploitation and abuse, which is the truly significant distinction.

The consequence of this view is to dismiss most supposed female sexual abuse as nonsense or trifles anyway, just like I have been arguing all along. All the crimes created by age of consent laws or "abuse of position" are automatically invalidated by this view, as is most female-perpetrated incest. It is absurd to claim that a woman is a sexual abuser just because she is a teacher, for example, because that claim rests on the insane notion that boys can be sexually exploited by women, that they are somehow worse off by the fact of having sex itself independently of whether it is a traumatic experience or lowers their sexual fitness.

What remains are the cases where women cause genuinely aversive experiences or adverse consequences of a sexual nature. These are so few that I can't recall any actual credible cases, but this is an academic exercise anyway. The female sex offender charade is the most profoundly disturbing travesty going on in the world today, in my view. By implementing a clear distinction between sexual abuse and exploitation, and declaring that women can commit abuse but not exploitation, most of the injustice of the female sex offender charade could be removed. This would be a compromise that I could live with. I know none of this will register to the true believers in feminist sex-hostility, but if you are a reasonable person reading this, please take note and try to promote my vision.

Time to cut off anonymous cowards?

Male sexualism is but a feeble flicker of opposition to a sex-hostile feminist society with all the laws on their side. The Norwegian government paid a little attention to me back in 2012, but aside from their hurt prestige from losing that case so soundly -- they fought my compensation claim for false prosecution all the way to the Supreme Court, which turned down their appeal and finally decided the case in my favor in 2017 -- they have not bothered pursuing or investigating me or my followers since, at least not overtly. Because they must know that we don't pose a threat, neither politically nor criminally, so it would only embarrass them further to pretend that we do. All I and a handful of other like-minded men do is to state our opinions and rant a little without any effect on actual politics.

But nonetheless, the hate directed against my blog is at an all-time high. I mentioned a couple months ago that I am under attack, which continues in full force. I see it in the logs of Google moderators dealing with reports of pretty much everything I or my commenters write. And I see it in regular hateful comments that I now block in moderation, such as this one I received a few days ago:

You are a traitor to your people on so many levels. After leading many people to echo your discontent with the Norwegian government, you turned your back on them to promote, of all things, *pedophilia*. It’s almost like you’re making caricature of a treacherous scumbag and superimposing it on your own portrait. It makes no sense at all. You need the kind of help I think only a bullet can give you at this point.

So there you see the creepy mix of hate and delusion that I am dealing with. Although I disagree with various aspects of how pedophilia is handled, I don't "promote" it. What I do promote is normal male sexuality, although it is possible that this person is too dense to tell the difference. Thankfully, Google is not that stupid, and to their credit have trashed every single report from the anonymous cowards. Hi, Google mods, I know you will be reading this too... so thanks for doing the right thing and keep up the good work!

I don't object so strongly to the "traitor" label, since I have used the term "Quisling" myself and even invented Quisling therapy (inspired by Wittgenstein therapy, by the way), but I was certainly never beholden to this person and whoever he is referring to as having echoed my discontent, who don't seem to have a clue that I have been consistent in my sexual ideology from the beginning. Only some words have changed, such as the introduction "male sexualism," "blue knight" (thanks to Tom Grauer) and my own coinage "agywophilia," but the message is the same. Nor was I morally obliged to go along with the corruption of the justice system that has taken place in my lifetime and been accepted by most people without question. From my perspective, it is the Norwegian state and most of the people who have betrayed fundamental principles of justice that we used to hold dear, with all the hateful sex laws and last but most importantly the abolition of the jury -- and against those reforms I am rightly described as a Quisling. It is as if the Nazis should have invaded Norway and been welcomed by everyone except Quisling -- that is the sort of Quisling I am!

Now I want to take the time to say that I don't suspect Gally anymore, and I apologize for implicating him so strongly in the past. We have our disagreements and bad name-calling, but I don't think he is behind the anonymous hate. There is a world of difference between calling someone autistic or learning-impaired and saying they need a bullet. At this point I have no clue who is behind, because they go to great lengths to cover their tracks. But I do know that other male sexualists are also targeted, so at least a somewhat organized effort seems likely, rather than the work of one determined stalker. Tom Grauer was driven to delete his first and best blog and now also deleted his latest effort, which at the end gave the impression that he has gone insane as well (or been driven..?).

Whoever it is, I doubt they would be so tough if they couldn't hide behind anonymous proxies and usernames. It is truly pathetic to be so cowardly that you have to use underhanded methods to advance a position that is just political correctness anyway (and why bother?). Unless, of course, they realize that their position doesn't really represent society, but a monstrous sort of sex-hostility that doesn't even tolerate a dissenting opinion being expressed anywhere without sending criminal threats, while my kind of speech is in fact protected by society.

So now my question is, should I only allow comments from logged-in users? The thing is that I do not want to provide a channel for anonymous death threats against myself. Not with enemies like these, who are determined to harass me in any way they can. If anyone wants to make such threats, they should be more traceable. This is a weighty argument, but there is also a downside, because most of my legitimate commenters also prefer anonymity.

So what do you say, all of you who have contributed constructively to the comment section over the years? Will it kill all interesting discussion if I make you log in and sign your messages by a Google account or similar? I will at least leave it open (with only pre-moderation turned on) for a little while longer to hear your responses. But if I have to tighten it up, I have to, for my health and safety.

Is nofap misogynistic?

Regular readers of my blog already know that that I promote not masturbating -- so-called "nofap" -- as an important rule of life for boys and men and an essential ingredient in the male sexualist ideology. Nofap is much bigger than male sexualism, however; so much so that the mainstream has noticed and started calling it misogynistic: "What may appear to be just another weird and bizarre internet challenge is underpinned by extreme misogyny and threats of violence," says Sarah Manavis writing for the New Statesman.

So, is nofap really misogynistic? Well, the short answer is no, but there is a catch, because nofap is not done in the interests of women, either. Nofap promotes male sexual health, and anything which exclusively promotes male sexual health will not be aligned with women's interests to the extent that male and female sexuality do not have the same goals or optimal strategies. And that extent is huge! All of evolutionary psychology is basically an exposition of this difference, but that is a subject for another day.

Nofap is male empowerment of the hands-on (or rather, hands-off!) self-help variety, which is arguably more powerful than changing laws and makes women nervous for good reasons. For one thing, they will lose their ability to exploit us through pornography and other "sex work" which does not actually involve putting out. It should also make the state nervous because if men follow my advice and never look at porn, the cops will lose one of their most insidious weapons against male sexuality as child porn and other obscenity laws are rendered irrelevant. And that does not even begin to address the increased sexual attention that females will receive in real life (including underage), some of it welcome but much of it not.

This brings me to an important ethical point. The fact that pornography and masturbation lead to less sexual violence is not an ethical argument for these pathologies. Just like no sane physician would recommend that men walk around with broken arms instead of having fractures properly treated on the pretext that men can't so easily use a broken arm for violence, we must never argue that porn or masturbation is "good" because it leads to less rape or sexual harassment. Fapping means walking around with a continuously broken libido and erectile function as well as being socially inhibited and cowardly around women. The fapping man is a cripple compared to the sexually healthy man, so naturally he would be a less effective rapist as well, both statutory and real. But none of this matters because ethics dictate that personal health must be promoted first and foremost. Restore a healthy libido first, and then figure out what to do with it.

The male sexualist ideology does prescribe ethical sexual behavior that does not unduly harm women, even for sexually healthy and very horny young men who practice nofap. For one thing, prostitution would be a legal alternative to rape, and prohibitions on underage sex would be vastly reduced, making it realistic to practice nofap and not commit crimes at least for all agywophiles. (I'll leave it to our splinter groups headed by Nathan Larson et al. to decide what to do with the pedophiles. It is conceivable that they might still want to opt for masturbation, but I can't bring myself to personally recommend it even to them.)

Thus it turns out that in the middle of all our despair of male sexualism going nowhere, a sizable group of men have already adopted one of our core tenets. As a male sexualist, I salute the NoFap subreddit with 381,774 subscribers. And I salute the website Your Brain on Porn for bringing us the science of porn addiction. Its owner Gary Wilson must be one hell of a "misogynist" for his tireless devotion to explicating the mechanisms by which porn use is harmful to male sexuality.

Welcome aboard, gentlemen. Men's rights activism begins with our bodies, and our minds and ideology will surely follow.

The male sexualist color and flag

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

Why pink?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

I am under attack by a criminal harasser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The female sex offender charade once again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6149975/School-staff-member-25-sex-schoolboys-took-enthusiasm-excitement.html

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

What is male sexualism?

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

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

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

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

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

Let's make a male sexualist manifesto

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

How to not be incel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gally's verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quisling therapy for hyperpolitical disorder

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

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

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

Diagnosis: hyperpolitical disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest post by Gally: "Declaration of Existence"

What follows is a guest post by a man who has recently joined the Men's Rights Movement after a run-in with one of the laws we fight to abolish because it constitutes an evil criminalization of male sexuality. His experience also highlights the importance of the emerging alliance between the MRA and MAP communities. We are in this together, because while most men are not primarily attracted to minors, most men are certainly attracted to minors to some extent well under the age of consent, down to and including what is sometimes called hebephilia. And it is just common human decency to oppose bad laws and persecution of pedophiles just for existing. Or should be. 

My name is Gally.

I take this online handle in homage of "the greatest warrior who has ever lived," "Battle Angel Alita" (Yoko von der Rasierklinge), whose story of epic struggles with coming to terms with her past, understanding herself, and accepting what she is and also what she is not, has provided me with more inspiration than any other story I have ever read, real or fictional. It is a great manga, better even than Evangelion in my opinion, and for those interested you can find it here: https://www.mangareader.net/battle-angel-alita-last-order.

As such, I have a few reflections that I would like to share with you. First a disclaimer though: I am a minor-attracted person and most would consider me a pedophile. Although that is technically inaccurate; pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children and I am attracted to pubescent minors, so the more precise term would be "hebephile," but in lieu of distinguishing the term "Minor Attracted Person" (MAP) is recommended.

So, if this upsets or triggers you, you are welcome to not read any further, but I would respectfully request that if you chose to comment, you do so after having read through what I have to say.
I would like to add though, that MAPs basically either think that contact with minors is okay or they don't think contact with minors is okay, and I'm mostly in the latter camp as I have found that personally it's hard for me to hide that I like somebody, and therefore I advice other MAPs to also not get too socially involved with minors that they find themselves having an attraction to, given that it might lead to contact that is too intimate and/or age-inappropriate.

So please consider that people can be and act sensibly and responsibly -- in fact, most people do act responsibly and considerately regardless of sexual orientation, kinks, or mere fantasies, fetishes, or paraphilias.

That aside, in a related issue it has been said that we are what we do, but I would argue that we are also information.

The DNA in all the cells in our body (only ten percent of which are actually human; 90% of "our" cells are bacteria without which we would be unable to digest carbohydrate-based food such as proteins, but only fat and sugar), if unraveled to a string, would reach to Pluto and back. Eleven times. The DNA of all human beings currently alive on our planet Earth could encircle the Milky Way (which is 130,000 light-years in diameter) 20 times over. The combinations of any one pairing of a sperm cell and an egg holds the potential of randomly mixing 43 chromosomes -- one half from the sperm, the other half from the egg -- in two to the power of 43 different ways (2^43).

The number of humans who have ever lived on our planet is thought to be only about 20 billion (counting from the last 10 million years of Homo sapiens thought to be a genetically distinct species), meaning that just by chromosomal pairing alone, only 1/3500-part of what we as a species, what humans are, has ever surfaced from the vast sea of potential humans that can be brought into existence.

The real number may be incalculable, considering that recent research has revealed that our DNA is actually not static, set from birth to death, but changes according to our environment -- and possibly even according to our experiences, influenced by brain chemistry -- our mood, whether we are happy or depressed, at peace or subjected to violence, if we experience freedom or oppression.

What was once thought to be mostly "junk DNA" may not be so after all, but like medical conditions such as heart disease, does not always manifest itself at all times but could be triggered by unknown, hitherto unpredictable and unimaginable combinations of events.

No longitudinal studies have been carried out on this as of yet, but as DNA sequencing becomes exponentially cheaper, we might discover connections between the environment and our evolutionary process that could be as shocking to science as the theory of evolution once was.

To quote a clip from the computer game Alpha Centauri (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Secret Project: The Human Genome Project):

"To map the very stuff of life; to look into the genetic mirror and watch a million generations march past. That, friends, is both our curse and our proudest achievement. For it is in reaching to our beginnings that we begin to learn who we truly are."

Genetic analysis (comparison of actual mutations to known rate of mutation of male and female chromosomes) has already revealed that throughout human history, only half of males have succeeded in reproducing, whilst almost all females have. Which, one could argue, means that evolution -- and thus, progress -- is almost exclusively a male endeavor. Which also explains why males have more variation -- there are more male geniuses than female geniuses, and more males who never find a mating partner (1/3 of all men in Norway) than females who never find a mating partner (1/6 of all females in Norway).

We are information above all, and there is nothing that is more Holy of Holies than Knowledge, for only knowledge can bring understanding, and only understanding can create with intent -- with a goal in mind. Be that evil, to gain power over the weak, or good, to bestow powers upon them.
To quote the science-fiction author Peter Watts:

Evolution has no foresight. Complex machinery develops its own agendas. Brains — cheat. Feedback loops evolve to promote stable heartbeats and then stumble upon the temptation of rhythm and music. The rush evoked by fractal imagery, the algorithms used for habitat selection, metastasize into art. Thrills that once had to be earned in increments of fitness can now be had from pointless introspection. Aesthetics rise unbidden from a trillion dopamine receptors, and the system moves beyond modeling the organism. It begins to model the very process of modeling. It consumes evermore computational resources, bogs itself down with endless recursion and irrelevant simulations. Like the parasitic DNA that accretes in every natural genome, it persists and proliferates and produces nothing but itself. Metaprocesses bloom like cancer, and awaken, and call themselves I.

Our interactions shape others, as theirs in turn also shape us.

Our identities, therefore, are in constant flux, as noted by many religions -- from the Bible's "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another" to Buddhism's reflections on the transitory nature of man, to the Native American story of the struggle between the "good" wolf and the "bad" wolf that lives inside of our hearts, and how feeding the "good wolf" that is cultivating constructive and positive habits and behavior is recommended if you want him to win the struggle with the "bad wolf."

My point being, behavior is changeable, we are creatures of habit, we can change and we can improve ourselves and the lives of others and even the course of history by our participation in it.

We can learn from our mistakes, and for many this is the primary way of learning -- trying, failing, and improving -- but we cannot learn from mistakes that we are not able to make -- or that we are not allowed to make, as we fear an ever-watching, ominous presence of mass surveillance by people whose only intentions is to punish and harm us.

We can do good towards one another. But only if we understand the difference between good and bad. And we can seek peaceful, ethical solutions to problems that in the past may have seemed almost intractable, impossible to solve. We can think; not just feel. We can understand -- or at least accept -- reality as it is, not just condemn others, and by doing so, through proxy curse our common humanity. We can be generous; not just selfish. We can seek what is best for others, not just what we desire.
And we can have progress. Real, tangible, measurable progress, social growth, care for the weak and the confused and even for those with little self-control or ability to reflect upon consequences.

One of the oldest recorded stories is that of the "Fall from Grace," or as it is also called, the "Original Sin." Woman rebelled against a meaningless command by a dictatorial authority, allied with Man, and in the story it is said that God himself admitted that now they had both "become like God, knowing good and evil" -- by gaining experience-based knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil, through rejection of a meaningless "evil" as the eating of a piece of fruit from a particular tree was.

The price paid was to be cast out, and living a life of hardships and struggles.

A high price, that not many are willing to pay, but instead bend their knee and accept commandments to not think for oneself, but obey unquestioningly, even to meaningless absurdities.

Right now the world is in a dire state.

The level of freedom and independence of the press has never been lower, at the same time as we are manipulated by fake news, politically controlled propaganda, and an almost insane denial of the truth and a blatantly open disregard for empirically provable, reproducible, peer-reviewable scientific facts. Surveillance equipment is exported from western nations to repressive regimes all over the world, and Human Rights that were introduced after the second world war are being gradually rolled back for carefully selected minorities.

The ones whom it is easy to portray as evil.

As sick.

As disgusting.

As dangerous.

As abominations that are inhuman and must be purged, or locked away for as long as possible, as a way to frighten others not to commit similar crimes, rather than be offered any meaningful preventative therapy or harmless outlets.

People like me, whose crime is being different in that I am more attracted to teenagers than to women my own age, and whose rights to the liberal progress that other minorities have enjoyed to the betterment of society in general (such as homosexuals and transgenders), are being denied.

Many who experience such a degree of hatred, kill themselves -- especially young pedophiles, who would rather die than ever risk harming a child.

Others suffer through recurring depression, a feeling of alienation from society, despair and fear, and engage in substance abuse.

And then there are those whom the authorities succeed in convincing that they are evil, not in control of themselves, sick and destined to commit crimes sooner or later, and who chose to do so, fulfilling the only role that society prescribes for them.

They -- we minor-attracted people -- are being used as a spearhead to drive through changes in our societies that makes the rule of law become less based on objective and established principles, but more on subjective abuses of power. The argument being, exceptions must be made to the way the law is practiced, and one must punish harder because the current harsh punishment is clearly not working and therefore, the "logic" goes, it isn't harsh enough, because of course punishment -- in the eyes of those who see punishment as preferable -- is the only thing that helps.

They say that "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and also that "if you truly believe you can compensate for incompetence by increasing your efforts, there is no end to what you cannot do."

In the same vein, "Military Idiocy" is defined as "It didn't work, so we need to do more of it," and "Police Idiocy" isn't much different: "It doesn't work, so we need to continue doing it."

So with their incompetence the only solutions they understand are punitive, violent, cruel and sociopathically sadistic, and as a result they are in the process of causing changes that make governance of the people be more about control under the threat of punishment, than about preventative measures through guidance, acceptance, and inclusiveness. Changes that alienate us from each other, that make us wary of speaking our minds, thinking our independent thoughts and questioning others', and make us fear expressing ourselves in ways that we are uncertain could be used against us at some point in time.

Changes that are even measurable in how far from home children have been allowed to roam, as documented at http://freerangekids.com/. "Stranger danger" is a divisive tactic that splits local communities, and Divide & Conquer is the oldest strategy in the book. Make people fear their neighbors, and they will never be able to cooperate sufficiently to protest against exploitation.

In addition, surveillance makes everybody who is not rich enough to not have to work or obtain an education and build a career in cooperation with others too concerned with their employer's reputation and angsty about making mistakes, which makes it harder for the 99% of the population who are not born rich to ever learn from their mistakes and understand elementary facts of life such as that we cannot just eat cake if we do not have bread, and thus gain life experiences that makes us compassionate of others, tolerant, forgiving, and wise.

In comparison, the one percent who are born filthy rich can write books like Chicks O'hoi where they describe how they have an entire suitcase full of sex toys and love having their asshole rimmed and how their jaw is almost cramped from sucking dick for so long. The author of that book is anonymous, by the way, but let's just say I have a very strong suspicion I believe I know who she is. And if she is reading this: stylometric analysis revealed that J.K. Rowling was the author of a book she didn't want people to know she wrote, and your entire Instagram-account has been downloaded and I have no problems finding the programs that can do such an analysis.

The ignorance of the rich -- and their self-satisfaction from being "better" than others through having more money -- has always been a great comfort for the state, since if they really understood how others suffered from hardships that they themselves have never experienced, they could have made meaningful change towards and actually contributed to the betterment of society.

For the other 99% who are not as docile and indolent due to being spoilt rotten, surveillance is in effect a way for governments to be dumbing down the people, make them fearful and obedient, and above all: not protest against injustices and abuses of power. Lest our own lives comes under scrutiny, and every word we have ever written is combed through and analyzed, taken out of context or misrepresented, and used against us.

The plan is well underway to turn human beings back from free citizens with rights, to serfs who are under the control of whatever local official is effectively lording his power to define what "law" means and whom it applies to, under his personal jurisdiction.

The police and the military welcome this return to serfdom, as it caters to their psychopathic delusions of grandeur and dreams of powers over even the thoughts and feelings of others.

I recently had the pleasure of attending such a display of police psychopathy, as I was accused of downloading child pornography, what the police wants to define as "documentation of sexual abuse against children," while including cartoons, written stories, and defines "children" to include those over the legal age of consent.

One thing even the police managed to testify truthfully was that the vast, vast majority of the material in my possession involved teenagers posing in the nude. Pictures produced by a professional photo model studio, with the parents' consent, as documented at https://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn.

In other words, at the very lowest level of what the law considers child pornography, and in my personal opinion very comparable to mere nudism -- which is not now, nor ever can, be made illegal.

Unless, of course, we adopt standards for morals that are applied in countries which have been the most reluctant to adopt human rights, to the point of actively working against their acceptance in their particular region of the world -- where workers are exploited as slaves and people in practice have no rights or protection under the law.

In the Western world, we have enjoyed human rights because we have been needed as workers in industry and production of commercial goods, and our labor and creativity has caused an economic growth of 3-4% annually since public education was instituted in Great Britain in 1876.

This is changing with the coming of the second machine age, where human cognitive labor is gradually being replaced by machines.

We are becoming less needed, and people without jobs are said to "have the Devil's idle hands," as they have time to think about the crimes, incompetence, and illegitimacy of those in power.

And question why we allow them to rule over us in all things, instead of being allowed to make decisions for ourselves.

Why some small group of people decide that our country (Norway) should support a war halfway across the world, why we should be subjected to decisions made by other countries (The EU, which we are not a part of but still subjected to), why our resources should be exploited at our loss (our country's hydropower generation exported at European market price), why we should invest in activities with no certain profitability (opening up of polar-circle oil fields) that contribute to environmental degradation (at least for the fisheries there and in turn the local communities).

It is easy to make people obey other, incompetent people in power, and accept their illegitimate rule.
Just tell them you are the only ones who can protect them from monsters.

Find some "useful Jews" that you can pretend are the monsters.

Pick out the worst of those who commit crimes, and relentlessly proclaim that they are representative of all of them, then crank up the propaganda and claim that you are now finding it to be even worse than what the public has been told in the past.

Describe the hideous crimes of the extremely few in as graphic, gory, and tabloid detail as possible. Do not encourage reflection by mentioning numbers such as how many percent of men are attracted to pubescent teenagers, and yet never do any harm.

Fuel the outrage and ride the waves of the moral panic. When people panic, they lose the ability to carefully think things through in a calm and rational manner.

And people will obey.

Because you will have convinced them that you are their Savior.

While in reality, behind the scenes a surveillance apparatus is being created that will put an end to social growth, destroy the middle class, and end human progress as we have known it.

A totalitarian police state is emerging, ruled by psychopaths and the most infantile, ignorant, incompetent, imbecilic, inept, insular, and spoilt rotten selfish rich people, positioning themselves to return society to a state of aristocracy and serfs, and we are letting it happen because in reality, we don't really care about the rights of others as long as we can have shiny things to play with.

How blind we have become. And how childish.

I am Gally.

I am a panzerkunstler.

I was born on the 6th of March, 2017, as that was when I decided to set my foot upon this battlefield. I did that with the full knowledge and acceptance that nobody voluntarily goes to war, expecting a long, prosperous, or happy life.

I still chose.

It has now been a year; I have met the Enemy, and He has taught me much.

I have risen from a mere "Lehrling" to now just recently, becoming a "Krieger" (http://battleangel.wikia.com/wiki/Panzer_Kunst).

I am now officially at war.

I do not expect my life to be a happy one.

Or long.

But I decided of my own free will, to join this battle, after hearing a story.

You can find it yourself, if you go look for it.

At the time, I used the handle "LytaHall" on quora.com.

The story was told to me by a retired police investigator, who for twenty years had specialized in cases involving the sexual abuse of children.

He told me of a man who had lured a ten-year-old girl from the neighborhood into his bedroom, where apparently he had made inappropriate advances that had been rejected, and due to the harsh punishments -- this was in the US -- he killed the girl out of desperation that she would tell on him.

I have never in my life experienced anything like what I experienced when I realized what an ABYSS of helplessness and powerlessness I was standing in front. There was nothing I could do, or say, that would change that innocent child's death, the investigator was retired and was only interested in idle conversation, the police are not in themselves drivers for policy or social changes, and if the development of the kind of harsh punishments for such crimes reach Norway, motivated by political posturing and moralistic-based virtue signaling, instead of us looking to nations such as Germany with their successful "Dunkelfeld" program, then that is going to happen in Norway too.

I can change that.

I can read books, I can argue the case for offering free mental health care and harmless outlets before somebody commits a crime, rather than merely waiting for them to do something wrong and then punish them afterwards.

And I am willing to do so.

Even at the cost of my own happiness and health.

Because I wish to do good.

I wish to help make this world a better place, and I am smart and knowledgeable enough to make a difference.

My enemy has taught me much.

I am still learning.

But although I may make mistakes, the true sign of a warrior is not to never suffer defeat, and not to never strike a blow that misses, but to keep on fighting, and to get up again after being defeated.
And to grow stronger.

I am Gally.

I am a panzerkunstler, klasse Krieger.

And I shall now use what I have left of my life to try my very best to prevent the kind of abominable, perverted criminal "justice" system that they have in America (Filling Up Prisons Without Fighting Crime: Mark Kleiman on America's Criminal Justice System), from reaching Norway.

Because looking at the numbers, in the US 13 times more children are killed than in Germany (http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1658-5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html), and part of that is undoubtedly that "two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

To quote parts of the philosophy of panzerkunst:

Panzer Kunst also provides a definite tactical advantage, since it gives its user the ability to analyze an opponent's fighting style and to retaliate accordingly. Therefore, a Künstler will rarely be defeated in a second combat with a given enemy. Künstlers also seem to have been imbued with a sense of fanaticism and willingness to sacrifice themselves if necessary to carry out a mission.

I am Gally.

And I am now (and until my death) at WAR.

Defiance. Because my Conscience does not allow me to stand idly by, as People in Power hurts others for their Personal Careers (Two Steps From Hell - Freedom Fighters).