Monday, June 15, 2020

The implications of false pretenses behind persecutions

Just because somebody is in a position to persecute doesn’t give them any special entitlement to the truth. There is no reason why persecutions can't be based on nonsensical theories. I mean not just exaggerated entitlement or factually false accusations, but complete gobbledygook. I think most readers will agree that the witch-hunts we know from history were in this category, including the Satanic Panic of the 1980s which is still somewhat ongoing. The other types of persecution occur because one group decides to grab unreasonable benefits for itself, including reckless disregard for your rights or well-being (think American cops killing black men) or draconian punishments for trivial offenses operating under the principle that might is right -- or there can be a mixture of selfish interests and gibberish justifications. These give rise to logically comprehensible movements in opposition such as Male Sexualism or Black Lives Matter. But if you find yourself a victim of persecution based on complete gibberish, what do you do? I know this isn’t an exercise of the intellect if you are actually accused, in which case your best bet is to find a good lawyer who will work within the limitations of his profession to exploit any loopholes in the system that he and you can get away with. But a blog post isn’t subject to any such limitations and I am free to give idealistic answers.

I don’t have a pat answer to how to end persecution based on gibberish pretenses (except maybe “defund the police” would go a long way there too -- thanks to BLM for that push), but I know one thing you shouldn’t do, at least not ideally. And that is to identify with the thing persecuted as if it were real or legitimately classified. Persecuted “witches” who formed witches’ organizations and fought to have witchcraft accepted would not be putting on a sound defense, in my view. Even though that approach might have worked for some, it came at a cost of forming an identity that reasonable, educated people probably don’t want. I don't mean to knock those who want to identify as witches, but at least it should be obvious that it is not for everyone.

I have arrived at this analogy because I feel this is what The Antifeminist will have us do regarding pornography offenses, like the absurd crime of possessing pictures of 17-year-old girls. I agree those constitute persecution which we should oppose, but we must also consider the implications of the lack of any sexual benefit to the man -- lack of benefit which I have exposed at length in my series of posts on nofap. A sexualist movement cannot treat persecution for empty or downright self-harming offenses the same as persecution for our healthy and valuable sexuality. There has to be implications for our activism when something isn't sexually beneficial, hence my views on pornography and male masturbation. If men are going to get persecuted for our sexuality, we better damned well derive some sexual value before we concede that we are, in fact, being persecuted for our sexuality, and fapping doesn’t fit that bill. Any persecution which falsely claims to crack down on sexual exploitation when there is none to our benefit better be called out on that falsehood! As I hope the historical witch-hunts illustrate, there is such a thing as persecution under egregiously false pretenses, which should be dealt with differently than persecution of our healthy and self-identified nature. Persecutory accusations can be false, unreasonable or gibberish, and it is the latter I am concerned with here.

Perhaps an analogy to so-called hate crimes can make it clearer. Whether you agree with hate crime legislation or not (which I probably don’t), at least you can see the point why people think the systematic hate against a group makes such crimes worse. And just like there are hate crimes, there are also hate laws when hateful people get to make the laws, like feminists do now. For example the age of consent is a hate law against men. When crept up way past puberty it targets our normal, healthy sexuality in a way that actually and systematically hurts us. Contrast this to the pornography laws. They may claim the purpose is to criminalize the sexual exploitation of girls and women, but in actual fact they do no such thing because the true victims of pornography are men: the male viewers who often incur impotence and other dysfunctions as well as the inevitable opportunity cost that it displaces sex or at least some sexual drive and pursuit. We are no slaves to politically correct dogma, but able to think for ourselves and realize that the pornography laws are random acts of evil rather than hate laws against our sexuality, paralleling witch-hunts rather than, say, anti-Semitism or racism. And to the extent that the pornography laws have any systemic effect at all, they help promote male sexuality rather than hurt it since they help men not masturbate and have sex instead (talking about deterrence rather than incarceration here, since being in jail obviously doesn’t help). Once again, being in a position to persecute does not confer any entitlement to truth, and while we can’t do anything about their violence for now, at least we don’t have to buy into their bullshit concepts!

From an activist standpoint, hate laws are a very different beast than random acts of evil, and do not deserve to be treated the same way in our manifesto-writing. It does a disservice to the fight against true oppression of our sexuality to conflate it with evils that are not in that category -- and please note this does not mean I dispute that they are evils! The persecution can be of the worst order, but just because an oppressor claims a sort of persecution is for a specified purpose does not make that true. Oppressors can write elegant treatises, even put them into Latin like the Malleus Maleficarum, and it is still nonsense. The feminists can rave all day long about how men need to be locked up because images in their possession “exploit women and children,” but that doesn’t make it true, and men of integrity do not go along with that charade any more than we go along with the female sex offender charade -- which also constitutes persecution under false pretenses. Likewise the right-wingers can blather along with feminist theories of “abuse” as a new-found outlet for what they used to call “sin,” and that makes neither the victimology nor their original position true or compelling (though I will give them that that the old conservative moralism was slightly less bad than feminism).

If we were to assume The Antifeminist’s position of outrage that that the “child/revenge/upskirting” etc. porn laws go against our sexuality, we would in an important sense be no better than our oppressors. You would have two sides of superstition pitted up against each other, both of whom are delusional because it is impossible for girls to be exploited via remote consumption of pornography and impossible for men to sexually benefit from the same. Both these superstitions necessarily go together, or at least the former necessitates the latter, because you can’t have “exploitation” without somebody doing the exploitation and benefiting from it in some way. Since I as a nofapper understand that porn actually hurts the male viewer’s sexuality, in a way diametrically opposite, no less, to what the feminists claim, so that he becomes less effective at exploiting females if he thinks porn and masturbation are good things, we must reject the entire conceptual framework behind the law. The only exceptions are if the law is applied against what might otherwise be called grooming, conspiracy or solicitation, in which case it is a bona fide male sexualist casus belli, of course. It is the core tenet of male sexualism that the feminist theories of abuse are not so much accusations as a redefinition of our sexuality to abuse, but of course we can’t acknowledge the inclusion of something that isn’t sex or aimed to get sex as even an attempt at that: it then becomes pure gibberish.

The Antifeminist has long been a beacon of reason against words like “ephebophile” and “hebephile.” We reject these labels because they merely refer to normal male sexuality: you would be hard pressed to find a “teleiophile” man who isn't also an ephebophile and (at least to some extent) a hebephile. The Antifeminist correctly understands that hunting ephebophiles is (almost; see below) as nonsensical as hunting witches, because the “ephebophiles” are just normal men just like the “witches” were normal women. We are male sexualists aka normal men, not “MAPs” or whatever: we don't buy into the categories of our oppressors, or their useful idiots on the other side for that matter.

After that stroke of insight, how come he fails to see that “child pornography” is not a valid category? It matters not one whit to our sexuality if the actresses are underage: pornography is harmful all the same when combined with masturbation, harmful to men only. We therefore don’t care about child pornography, except to recommend that men stay away from it along with other porn.

But we do care when people are persecuted, for whatever bad reasons including pure gibberish and superstitions like the delusion that porn exploits females and benefits men. How to oppose such harmful human stupidity is an important question that I can’t solve here and now, but I do hope I have pointed out one pitfall to avoid. In theory, enlightenment should help since the core problem is misguidedness rather than evil, but sadly it seems we make up new superstitions at about the same rate as the old ones are cleared up. We went from sacrificing virgins for a better harvest to sacrificing virgins like Gally for equally absurd reasons, and that’s just the way it goes. Our attitude to such laws should be one of bemused horror like I tried to convey in my interview with Maxwell’s demon, horror that humanity can be so delusional, and at least not partake in the delusions ourselves. Laws against child sexualization in representation are as alien to me as the similarly outlandish (but much more limited in scope) taboo against drawing the prophet of a certain religion. That is what they are -- alien and horrifying that humans can be so intolerant of inconsequential blasphemies -- not a bona fide conflict of interest with my sexuality.

Let us now see how this definition of complete gibberish stacks up to the rest of feminism. The female sex offender charade comes closest. Here you have persecution of sexuality based on entirely false premises, but at least it is persecution of sexuality. Women are punished for being sexually nice to boys -- to the detriment of both sexes and especially males when you consider the bigger picture where only we are really sorry that such relations are outlawed -- so at least there is real persecution of sexuality. “Sexual harassment” and “stalking” laws likewise represent a true sexual conflict of interest, even though they impose unfair restrictions on men. Laws against paying for sex that feminists impose wherever they gain power also represent a real sexual conflict of interest, though not one between the parties actually involved since they are both harmed by the laws, but women as a group benefit while men suffer. Statutory rape and abuse where men are “perpetrators” also get half the story right. Not the rape and abuse part, which is just a legal fiction, of course, but the part where the so-called abuser is sexually benefiting is correct. The biggest, most harmful part of feminism is to expand what used to be the real definition of rape to any instance where a woman regrets sex, and this also gets at least half the story right (except when it refers to getting a woman to masturbate like the Norwegian rape law now enables, or to copulate with objects, in which case it fits squarely in the topic of this post). Because we are an interest group for male sexuality, not merely fighting against persecution of any kind, it is crucially important that at least one part of the conflict of interest be present in order for something to be a male sexualist issue. As such, we are a contact-only movement.

It has just come to light that Facebook paid a ridiculous amount and lost every last bit of pretense that they care about privacy for anybody including the genuinely persecuted people who need Tails OS, in order to catch a no-contact “child predator.” It was the ultimate case of normies oppressing normies, wankers oppressing wankers -- the dimwits employed at Facebook even considered him “the worst criminal to ever use the platform.” ūüėā The fools who believe girls can be abused via pictures are just as much wankers as the men who are content with that sort of thing. They even call it “content” as if there is anything there, LOL! Male sexualists believe neither; we see pornography for the inert, worthless garbage that it is, equivalent to the beer bottles littering the Australian outback fooling male jewel beetles to waste their mating efforts. I am sure Buster Hernandez was not a nice person, and yes, he deserves prosecution for criminal threats if he said he would carry out shootings and bombings at the girls' schools if they didn't send him nudes, but the idea that he thereby sexually abused these girls is a complete mirage that is sustained by nothing other than the idiots’ belief in it including their evil imposition of this voodoo belief on the girls as well. Criminal pornography cases are typically such displays of witch doctors hunting witches who believe their witchcraft is meaningful, usually even without the threats to do anything in real life, which admittedly this case was exceptional at. We can only stand by and laugh at the normies wasting their resources cracking down on or consuming asex when we are about sex. The idea that the worst sex predator who ever used Facebook never touched a girl is so hilariously absurd and ironic that it frankly makes the feminists look like pathetic pushovers in thrall to the wanker's delusion, and it makes nofappers seems like superheroes even though we are just normal, LOL!

I am disturbed both by society’s reification of pornographic voodoo magic -- by the persecution as well as the irrationality that it reveals -- and some men’s belief in the same on the opposite side. Honestly I don't know which is worse, the feminist police state or men believing porn is sexually valuable, and we have to admit these men are many and even include some otherwise close to my own movement. But on the plus side, I shudder at how much more damage the antisex bigots could do to sex if they spent all their resources where it matters, so perhaps it is for the best that the police state is so deluded.

I marvel at the poverty of real-life experience that must underlie a conviction that pictures or words are so important that girls can be “sexually exploited” simply by sending a nude. I studied art and learned that it is something you play around with, something you fearlessly control. Ditto for literature and any kind of symbolic representation. It isn't real, and it is absurd to think that you possess them just because you have captured someone’s likeness. That sentence sounds violent, but it is just a metaphor. Sometimes I wonder if the normies don't know this? Do they think they inhabit a reality of sympathetic magic where an image can steal your soul like in the joke about primitive people? Slightly more charitably, what the antisex bigots who hunt wankers in the belief that it carries sexual significance are engaged in is to avenge the “honor” of girls. Unlike sexual abuse, this is something external to the girl, her sexual market value if you will. It is indeed a symbolic construct, her social reputation, so it can be messed up by pictures and words (which again doesn't benefit men sexually, so it's not in that realm of conflict). But do the feminists really want to go there? Weren't we supposed to be past a world where a woman’s value is wrapped up in her sexual purity? Well, apparently not. Again, they may claim they are fighting sexual exploitation and abuse, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Having the power to persecute confers no entitlement to truth, and we see right through them.

As a bonus, I invite you to look at this Twitter thread as an example of the sad amorality of women pertaining to the female sex offender charade. I thought this request would be an occasion for some enlightenment, but no, it was only “an assignment” to her and she had zero interest in the moral implications, so she blocked our most excellent @fertiledating twitterer.


45 comments:

theantifeminist said...

Feminists. Completely turned the world upside down within a generation or two of women needing them to - when the contraceptive pill divorced sex from reproduction in the early 60's.

Eivind Berge, 15 years of blogging and maybe 4 or 5 followers.

But Eivind has a higher IQ apparently than the entire feminist movement.

About as plausible as the theory that NASA 'sacrificed' the challenger crew to 'celebrate' a sex trafficking law.

Eivind Berge said...

Divorcing sex from reproduction is not as bad as divorcing sex from persons, which is what porn does. If you still believe it has value at that point, you are nuts. It is fine to not be fertile all the time, but sexualism is about real sex.

The realization that we need to go back to real sex and celebrate real sex ought to have a lot more impact than my followers, I agree. And it does when you count the nofap movement. Still not turning the world upside down, but it is the right thing to promote regardless of how popular or unpopular it is.

And no, I do not find that conspiracy theory about the space shuttle credible, but you have to give Galileo2333 some credit for originality at least. It is a reverse version of all the crazy conspiracy theories of baby-sacrificing pedos running the world that lots "normal" people believe in, and the fact that it seems to be working for them makes me wonder if we should be more imaginative along those lines? This is a new revelation comparable to Tom Grauer's shenanigans and I wish him luck -- though I promise not to go off my rocker myself.

Eivind Berge said...

Don't underestimate the power of myth. Part of the reason why antisex bigots are so incredibly successful at promoting hatred and persecution is because they don't give a shit about truth, or at least have plenty of crazies on their side who don't, with a vivid imagination too. All those fantasies about satanic ritual abuse and various evil conspiracies no doubt make a difference even when they aren't literally believed. If we could also have a mythology about evil antisex bigots who sacrifice the space shuttle to celebrate their hateful legislation, and that sort of thing, it would provide some balance. Not something I want to promote as a serious leader, of course, but there is a place for it.

theantifeminist said...

More BBC doublethink.

'The teenage Dutch girls who seduced and killed NAZIs'. 19, 16, and 14. The Dutch resistance used teen girls to seduce NAZIs with. Not 40 year old MILFs??

I don't know what Human-Stupidity and some of your other readers will make of this. The Dutch resistance, the German army in WW2, and the BBC when they are being honest, were/are all ephebophiles?

I wonder if (as seems likely) Russia and China eventually end up occupying the degenerate leftovers of Western Civilization, that the PC European 'resistance' will actually send out 40 year old trans BBWs to 'seduce' the occupying forces?

I suspect they'll swallow reality and choose nubile 14 year olds again.

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0808hpm/the-teenage-dutch-girls-who-seduced-and-killed-nazis

Eivind Berge said...

How did we go from there to where this kind of sentiment is so politically correct that it gets hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets:

"Pedophiles aren’t just old men touching up little kids

They’re also your boy who’s 23 going out with a 16 year old"

https://twitter.com/6jjayllenn/status/1272351924759732225

Bigotry is a bit like fashion. Maybe there is no clear explanation for why a certain kind of hate is popular at a given time. In some ages it is politically correct to be a racist, and others it is politically correct to be an antisex bigot. We live at the peak of one of the latter now.

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile this is considered a wholesome activity for a 16-year-old. At least they presumably kept her away from sex, so all is well:

"French climber Luce Douady has died at the age of 16 after falling from a cliff on Sunday, the French Federation of Mountaineering and Climbing (FFME) has said.

The 16-year-old was with friends when she fell from a cliff near Crolles in the Isère department, southeastern France, according to the statement."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/16/sport/luce-douady-climber-death-scli-intl/index.html

Jack said...

"Meanwhile this is considered a wholesome activity for a 16-year-old. At least they presumably kept her away from sex, so all is well"

Well-said Eivind. Guys, time for us to go on youtube and drop a few incendiary comments about this!

Anonymous said...

Brittany Zamora is divorcing her husband for some reason.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-jailed-sex-boy-13-22055090

Eivind Berge said...

Brittany Zamora's husband is the only person who has any reason to take offense at what she did. As a mechanism to control unfaithful women is the only way the female sex offender charade can be understood to serve any intelligible purpose. Personally I would not want to make that a criminal matter, however, and it is amazing that the feminists think 20 years in prison is an appropriate punishment for an adulterous woman. One way to see it is that women are property of the patriarchy, who won't tolerate women managing their sexual assets themselves. In this day and age, all it takes is that little reframing as "sexual abuse of a minor" and the feminists embrace any and all violence against women and promote it as their own agenda. I guess they aren't very bright.

Anonymous said...

https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1273993515253579777?s=06

Yo, whatsup my mannn. Have you seen this twitter post? This girl sent this 20 year old pop star a message, and agreed to have sex with him, when she was 17. Now she is claiming the consensual sex is "sexual assault" because she was under the magical number 18.

And look at all the NPCS in the comment section calling for him to be executed lol.

Twitter will let them preach their violent bigotry all day long, but they will ban us instantly for having an alternative view. Bizarre world we live in.

Eivind Berge said...

Sometimes I wonder if the normies are conscious in the same way I am. They seem to operate on symbolic logic alone, with zero ability to let other observations or experience influence their simpleminded concepts. Perhaps they aren't even conscious of these things? To them, everyone under 18 is a "child" -- and an androgynous one at that (enabling the female sex offender charade) -- with the simplistic, cartoonish characteristics that go along with this conceptualization, chief among them that "children" have no sexuality and cannot consent to sex (except in the role of predator, which is magically exempt from such considerations). This changes instantly the moment one turns 18, and then they grant a small margin where consensual sex is still "abuse" of anyone younger, but it isn't prosecuted. This margin is now pushed down to two years -- maybe not legally yet but in the court of political correctness -- if that tweet is any indication.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the world-wide social media is that they are mainly aimed to those who know that, as soon as they get up and whine that they have been "abused", they will receive a standing ovation even if they are good for nothing.

Eivind Berge said...

That still doesn't explain how they are able to push the definitions of abuse so far into the absurd, and still be taken seriously. It is one thing to segregate the ages and define everyone in an out-group as an abuser, but when you get down to 18 as an absolute line, they now also need to apply the antisex bigotry to people who normally associate as peers because they are in the same classes and so on. Apparently the normies are OK with that, too. You would think that at some point it gets to be too much trouble to observe all these taboos, even if their minds are too small to object to them in principle. I have wondered when we would reach that point ever since I got into activism, but sadly there is still no sign of it.

In contrast, the equally arbitrary 2-meter rule instituted this year for covid is already breaking down. To have a really strong taboo it needs to be sexual, apparently, and once you frame it as such there is no limit to how far you can push it.

theantifeminist said...

A finer analysis is clearly needed. I still don't understand why washed up 50 year old hags would be against men banging beautiful young girls. None of it makes sense. Perhaps something to do with 5G masts and the space shuttle Endeavour?

Meanwhile famous British DJ Tim Westwood is facing trial by Twatter after being accused of having consensual sex with university students.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8447877/Tim-Westwood-denies-fabricated-allegations-behaved-inappropriately-student-fans.html

https://twitter.com/hashtag/survivingTimwestwood

Your 'MAP' allies are going to have give themselves a new name. Or maybe we need another group to fight for the right to have consenting sex with 'majority age' women? Something like 'AMAP' - Above Majority Attracted Persons'?

Eivind Berge said...

How do you explain all the men supporting antisex bigotry? The problem goes way beyond old hags: our culture is hatefully antisex to its core. There isn't even a word for acceptance of middle-aged men who have success with younger women like Tim Westwood is accused of. Except male sexualist, of course, which is too marginal to count. I do what I can, but it's just hate all around and men are taking it lying down. Here the accusation is that women fell in love with him and it is still "inappropriate": absolutely nothing an older man can do can redeem him, because he is fundamentally and irredeemably an abuser by his very nature, filthy to the core. If he is so popular that women are throwing themselves at him, then that's just more evidence of abuse.

I also note that part of the accusation here is that many of the young women who loved this DJ were black, which evidently is supposed to make it especially heinous. So exactly like Galileo2333 predicted, it looks like miscegenation soon will be criminalized on the part of white men. This is especially bizarre considering that the women are British just like the DJ, so apparently they don't even need the "Western men oppressing poor foreign women" angle to construe abuse here. I thought British was just one culture with Black British an equal constituent, but clearly that is wrong; it is also stratified with layers of "abuse" starting with age and then race and white men on the bottom as the most hunted "predators."

It is difficult to conceive of a deeper hatred than what men, and especially white men, are subject to now -- if we care about our sexuality. Men need to ask themselves if they want to be egosyntonic -- male sexualists -- or relinquish their sexuality in favor of fitting in or not being persecuted in today's climate. Obviously we are long past this being a "MAP" issue and I don't know if even they care or would consider it "virtuous" to side with the accusers here? Did we really just lose our normal sexuality to persecution without even a word for any opposition registering on the mainstream radar? Of course the "MRAs" (if there are any left) don't care either (if anything, they just want to apply the same hate to women); maybe the PUAs but they aren't a political force.

Eivind Berge said...

The idea seems to be that men are just too filthy to be good enough for women beyond a few years' age gap. Anything which makes up for the ugliness of an older man in the opinion of young women, such as being a famous DJ or whatever, constitutes an "inappropriate" use of the man's advantage (no matter how honestly he worked for it) that needs to be removed from the table via criminalization and/or shaming. Paying the woman already is in many countries, which is a de facto criminalization of age gap, and any workplace-related benefits are heavily persecuted via "sexual harassment" laws. In short, any time when a young woman feels she has reason to have sex outside of some incredibly narrow circumstances with men close to her own age, it is either criminalized or social-media shamed while we are waiting for more laws. They have taken this so far now that a young woman simply admiring a celebrity and throwing herself at him for no other reason than love counts as abuse, with the full force of society agreeing. I'm not even exaggerating!

Cui bono? Old hags? Sure, but also younger men, a lot of whom jump on the antisex bandwagon. Older men with daughters also do, as do a good many just for "virtue" signaling or pathological white knighting and blue knighting. And then there is everyone in the abuse industry who do it out of greed, all the cops and lawyers and therapists and so on. I see it as a civil war between men, primarily. With feminists supplying the ideological rationale at the moment, sure enough, but antisex bigotry would be toothless without male enforcement. This is just speculation, but perhaps it has to do with our unprecedented life expectancy more than anything? Old men used to get out of the way, for the most part, but now they are here competing for young women, so what better way to immobilize them than "feminism"?

Jack said...

Now they're going after Ron Jeremy:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/adult-film-star-ron-jeremy-180913684.html

He was a short an ugly man with a huge cock. I feel sorry for him because he had a real sense of humour and he was educated.

Like Woody Allen, Weinstein and Bill Cosby, Jeremy belongs to the class of men who got more women than their looks warranted. Expect the justice system to maul them to pieces. I am convinced the campaign against such men partly stems from lookism. That is why they get attacked years later, after age degraded their looks even more. They should get punished for having so many women while being so poor looking.

Good-looking Hollywood male stars get attacked and blackmailed too but they get off with a lighter punishment.

Eivind Berge said...

So after getting paid to fuck 2000 women, in his 60s and having suffered an aortic dissection, Ron Jeremy is out in the bars "sexually assaulting" and "forcibly raping" women, huh? How very plausible. Or maybe it's the usual feminist redefinition of reality where drunk women "can't consent," or any other excuse to cash in on a system rigged against men. Yes, lookism is part of it, but it can happen to anybody. And celebrities are more vulnerable because they are bigger targets and being so popular, there are more women who've had experiences they can redefine to abuse when the system is eager to accommodate them like now.

Gail Tverberg was wrong. I am sorry to see that society is not collapsing due to the covid lockdowns, but instead doubling down on the antisex bigotry, which is now part of a greater purge where accusers get extra points if they can make it a racial issue as well and take down a white man.

Also open season to kill men who have sex with teen girls:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/24/us/teen-chrystul-kizer-sex-trafficking-death-bond/index.html

Notice the deliberately misleading language "bought her for sex when she was 16 years old" for paying a girl, which is then an excuse to get away with murder, because that's literally how hated men are for our sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

Men are in denial about how much of them has been criminalized. Once you realize that some of the most important aspects of your identity -- the better part of our sexuality, has been turned into criminality -- with women now empowered to redefine entire normal relationships to “rape” like they did to Weinstein simply by declaring that they weren’t feeling consenty at some moment or another -- there is no other option than to define yourself as an enemy of the state -- like I am openly and avowedly. But that status also comes with horrific implications, or course. Then you have to give up other parts of your identity, everything to do with belonging and fellowship, especially when there is also no strong sexualist movement to identify with and any other subculture you’re a member of will also denounce you. And of course you paint a big fat target on yourself for the feminist police state to hone in on, who now have double reason to get you because you are a political dissident as well. It is understandable that men cling to the idea that they are “respectable” members of society as long as they can, the sort of person who wouldn’t break the law and should be above suspicion. But reality is they are already breaking the sex laws in many ways and it’s only a matter of accusations (or more intensive police work in case of prostitution and such that don’t get accused directly) to bring that fact to light. When a society goes off the rails with taboos and persecutions, it is amazing how far people are willing to go living a double life where they publicly denounce their private identities.

I decided to hate the antisex bigots back a quarter century ago, and am still waiting for men to catch up. As the hate against us has increased, sadly any male sexualist resistance is more subdued than ever now, because seeing how the purges ramp up, men are scared shitless to display any hint of politically incorrect opinions. It still looks like it needs to get much worse before it can get better (unless society collapses for unrelated reasons), so bad that the pain to their sex lives will outweigh men’s desire to appear as socially respectable.

Jack said...

"When a society goes off the rails with taboos and persecutions, it is amazing how far people are willing to go living a double life where they publicly denounce their private identities."

What you are describing about sexuality has been happening for over half a century now with the "war on drugs" (actually a war on people). Hundreds of millions the World over leading a double life in fear of the justice system because they feel the need to get high on some herb or chemical. Not quite as numerous as the male half of mankind, whose sexuality get criminalised, but in the same order of magnitude. The bad news is that if Societies can wage such a war on their own people decade after decade because of drugs, they can do so on grounds of sexuality.

theantifeminist said...

#Twexit You should think about creating an account on the new free speech platform Parler - https://parler.com/auth/access

Run by American Conservatives, so obviously the one topic they wont consider free speech is the fight against anti-sex bigotry.

Perhaps worth a try though.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the drug war is atrocious. Apart from weed and psychedelics and a few other things that don’t have huge downsides, no one really thinks drugs are good for you though. Once you get addicted to hard drugs, everyone including the junkies themselves would rather quit. Criminalization is a terrible way to deal with it, however. So in that sense, governments are fighting a war on their own people. They managed to fill the prisons, but curiously the drug war has not raised much social stigma. The attitude to drugs is that they are only wrong if you get caught, not something you accuse and denounce your neighbor for. This is both heartening and scary -- heartening because it shows laws don’t dictate morality, and scary because governments are allowed by the people to use so much violence for so little, like a mere administrative decision to send you to the Gulags for a minor nuisance.

Having been involved with both activism to end the drug war (used to march in the Global Marijuana March) and sexualism, I can say that I feel much, much stronger about the latter, which should bode positively for us. I can and do live without drugs, but sexuality is non-negotiable. It is such an intimate and profoundly important part of us that has been criminalized that when I say give me my sexuality or give me death, it is not a figure of speech. Junkies might also kill for drugs, but they are not egosyntonic like the male sexualists. Once we got rid of porn and masturbation, what we stand for is pure and noble and the more balanced we are, the harder we fight.

Criminalizing so much of normal sexuality doesn’t have a precedent that I am aware of. Sure they used to oppress the gays, but they are just a few percent of the population. Then they came for the pedos, who are also not that many. Now they try to get us who make up the vast majority of men for sex with teens and young women, and there is no way in hell those taboos can pass as normative for very long. Sadly I am one of the few who feel strongly about it yet, but we shall see. And yes the drug war shows that governments don’t even need taboos in order to persecute at a large scale, so I’m not optimistic about winning that part, but it will be a better world if we can just normalize sexuality again like drugs are considered normal even if they are incriminating. Then at least we will be respected in prison.

Eivind Berge said...

I tried to make an account at Parler, but their registration didn't work with my system, just froze after captcha. And if they straighten that out, to go from something I never heard of before now to a real alternative for Twitter is wildly improbable. Twitter is the hardest mainstream platform to replace because the network effect is strongest there. They would need at least hundred millions of users or else your account is just as good another blog (which can be replaced quite easily, but Twitter requires so interlinked following that their monopoly is all but undefeatable).

@The Antifeminist, your latest blog posts are more of your usual negativity that seems to always go with the masturbatory mindset (as opposed to strength through adversity and blissful sense of wonder at the possibilities that life nonetheless has to offer that comes with nofap), and also two things that are so glaring that they call for specific comment -- the first maybe a careless oversight and the second a malicious attack on me. No, I never declared Gally any sort of leader of male sexualism. I said he was a member of our movement and gave him one guest post, that's it. He turned out not to be one of us, instead bizarrely siding with the sex laws against himself even, but my judgment wasn't worse than welcoming him into the movement, which shouldn’t have a very high bar. The only person I ever declared the leader was Tom Grauer, which was a very unique situation with exciting things happening in the right direction at least; though his efforts got out of hand in some ways it wasn’t a bad call.

You can have your fellowship with wankers like David J. Ley who gloss over the erectile problems (as if delayed ejaculation is so much better than ED???) and IGNORE the opportunity cost that comes from masturbating rather than chasing pussy to your full potential, but please don’t insinuate that I promote nofap in bad faith. The accusation that I might be out of the game and secretly find value in porn -- that I don’t mean it when I say male sexualism is about sex and that sort of value judgment -- is so vile and disgusting that if you go down that path I will have to not only consider you outside the movement, but quit reading your blog and engaging with you as well. Perhaps you are so far gone into the fantasy worlds of porn and mythical future sexbots that you can’t imagine a man can be a true sexualist, but I don’t need to be exposed to that negativity. It is bad enough to have all these antisex laws and persecution without the assumption that we aren’t even sincere about our sexualist activism, just like the normies who are happy with porn and don’t have real ambitions, and that anything we’d say otherwise is just an excuse to hide the fact that we are so feckless.

I am sorry that your libido is declining. Aging is a horror, and the decline of libido that comes with it is one of those horrors that should teach us that life is too short to waste any time on porn and masturbation. While we can’t prevent aging, we can make the best of what we have and at least avoid your negative mindset. To you the glass is not only half empty, but also not worth drinking, apparently. You have utterly failed the self-help part of male sexualism. Nofap is more important than the fight against the sex laws because fapping is likely to hurt you more. For the laws to hurt you they actually need to catch you, you know, while a negative outlook and fapping will oppress you with 100% certainty.

Anonymous said...

When did galileo2333 ever bizarrely side with the antisex laws? On what basis did you decide galileo2333 was not one of us?

Eivind Berge said...

Sorry if that was unclear: Gally is not and has nothing to do with Galileo2333! The latter is definitely one of us -- indeed I would consider him the best candidate for next leader of male sexualism, if we were to appoint one now.

"Gally" was a commenter and one-time guest poster here who appeared a few years back. I thought he would be a male sexualist because he was on trial, and later got convicted, in Norway's biggest CSEM case where they even pushed it to new extremes in a very political verdict. But bizarrely, he agreed with the verdict (aside from some minor technicalities not having to do with the main charges) and even refused to change his guilty plea for the appeal after I tried to convince him. Now this post has been all about how pornography isn't really a male sexualist issue and we most definitely should stay away from it, but we can't have anybody in the movement who is so deranged that they believe they should be punished for it either. He also argued in favor of the female sex offender charade here on this blog, so it was abundantly clear he's not on our side. Did provide great entertainment though as we was quite a character.

Eivind Berge said...

Gally was a virgin who thought he was a vile child abuser for looking at pictures of nude girls. Most were not very young either and simply posing. He was a "virtuous hebephile," you see, and that label should have been a red flag in retrospect. But his initial comments seemed positive to our cause against the sex laws, so I thought he would be ok. It is pointless to bicker about my mistaken judgment however like The Antifeminist is doing. It wasn't that consequential and I never proclaimed him a leader.

At he time Gally was here, there was also a nasty troll campaign against the entire male sexualist movement staged by antisex bigots. They would make threats in the comments and impersonate us to sow discord. One of the names they used was Gally, so not all comments signed by that name are really from him. They even impersonated me on other male sexualist blogs, and that's when I started moderating comments and realized there is no other way because our enemies will abuse any avenue available to them, including posting illegal content in an attempt to frame us.

When I wrote this post:

http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2018/09/i-am-under-attack-by-criminal-harasser.html

I mistakenly thought Gally was the harasser and I am sorry for implicating him in that.

But what I relate above about his trial and all that is definitely true -- he is hopelessly brainwashed by feminist antisex bigotry and sided with their laws even when he came straight out of prison after months in remand custody on bullshit charges, whereupon he further helped the prosecution against himself by pleading guilty. So bizarre you can't make that shit up, but that's a "virped" for you.

Eivind Berge said...

Male sexualism is all about how most sexual charges nowadays are not accusations, but rather redefinitions of our normal sexuality to rape and abuse. A big trial just concluded in Norway which makes this very clear. Gaute Drevdal sentenced to 13 years:

https://resett.no/2020/06/26/tidligere-redaktor-domt-til-13-og-et-halvt-ars-fengsel-for-flere-voldtekter/

When the prosecutor feels the need to protest that she isn't conducting the very definition of why we need male sexualism in her closing statements, you know that is exactly what it is:

"РDenne saken handler ikke om sex man angrer på, ikke om sex man ikke husker og ikke om gjensidig seksuell kontakt i en slags gråsone mellom frivillighet og utnyttelse. De fornærmede i vår sak har fortalt at de våkner opp til at tiltalte har seksuell omgang med dem, sa statsadvokaten i prosedyren melder NTB."

And of course, it's also about getting an older man for success with young women and the phony idea that women attracted to men in any kind of higher positions makes it abuse:

"– Han var en betydelig eldre person enn de forn√¶rmede, og han hadde den gangen en sosial maktposisjon i milj√łet. De forn√¶rmedes unge alder og manglende livserfaring gj√łr dem generelt s√•rbare overfor tiltalte, sa politiadvokat Hilde Strand."

Eivind Berge said...

Notice how the greater life experience of an older man is used to twist his sexuality into abuse, quite apart from his "position" as well. The feminist police state is not content with age of consent for that, nor the age of majority, but keeps pushing this excuse for women into their twenties to regret consensual sex and have the man thrown in prison. If you are attracted to women at the age the vast majority of us find them most attractive -- around 20 -- then your sexuality is by definition abuse. Could it be any clearer that we are dealing with pure, unadulterated hatred of our very souls, of everything that makes us men? How can men still not wake up and fight back?

Anonymous said...

Oooooh. sorry about that. I am galileo2333. I thought someone had nicknamed me gally I'd never heard of who that was. Anyway I've got a new video about Tim Westwood.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your analysis and perspective about the age difference thing, Eivind (with regards to the recent sentencing of Gaute Drevdal, as well as in general). However, there is something I want to add. The real reason the age difference is "skjerpende" (the English word slipped my mind here), is that it's an indicator that it's less likely that the sex was consensual, since most young women would be put off by the age-gap. Now, why am I bringing this up? Well, imagine a defense attorney using the fact that an alleged rape victim was old and/or fat as "evidence" that his client was not likely to want to commit a sexual offense against her. Can you imagine the screeching on social media? Yet, that is very similar to what is being done here with the age-gap thing, no matter how much they claim it's about the "imbalance of power".

Eivind Berge said...

Hmmm... good point, but am not so sure the age difference is just a probabilistic thing, like arguing that men would be unlikely to want to rape an old woman (which as you note, however true would cause an uproar if used as an argument in court today -- certainly a double standard). When the prosecutor says young women are "generelt sårbare overfor tiltalte" -- "generally vulnerable in relation to the accused" -- she means something much more sinister and fundamentally damning of us than what that probabilistic analogy would indicate. This line of argument reeks of the idea that older men are inherently disgusting in an absolute sense, so that women who are sincerely attracted to them and want sex are still victims. It is also flatly untrue that women are unlikely to want sex with men who are seen as leaders in a community, even if older, and this man wasn't even that old: he is 50 now and these "rapes" date back up to 15 years. There may be an attempt at a probabilistic argument in addition to this, but clearly no amount of adoration from a woman will absolve us, and feminist prosecutors are just itching to throw us in prison for that alone just like they do with girls under 16 or 18 without construing a "rape" -- which here consists of the women allegedly being asleep during some parts of the consensual encounters -- that universal weapon to turn every single night you spend with a woman into rape.

To claim that adult women can't make their own sexual decisions, but are "generelt sårbare" to men who possess the "wrong" attractive characteristics would be just as insane as to claim men are "generelt sårbare" to fall for women with augmented boobs or heavy makeup or a flirty disposition or whatever and therefore should be entitled to a refund for child support or whatever negative things followed -- but no one cares, absurd hatred against men to the benefit of women is infinitely tolerated in this society.

Eivind Berge said...

Also, the word "skjerpende" -- aggravating -- can't really be used of a probabilistic thing after conviction. You are either guilty or not, and if found guilty then the court can't claim something that merely heightens their confidence in that fact as an aggravating factor in sentencing unless it actually aggravates the crime. The man being older is clearly taken to be an aggravating factor in the crime itself, if that word is used to support sentencing. Which is exactly like saying rapists should get a lighter sentence if the woman is old or fat, LOL! Not an argument that the rape probably didn't happen like a defense attorney might claim, but something much worse, that old and fat women are less worth, and older men are too.

Eivind Berge said...

Also I wonder if they are willing to turn it around and give handsome rapists of exactly the same age as the victim a sentencing discount ūüėā

If not, they should just drop the whole age gap thing.

Eivind Berge said...

Obviously, obeying the law is not an option for men, but it’s funny how it can take decades before you even know you broke it because that’s when the redefinition to crime occurs as women suddenly “remember” that they were partly asleep during a one-night stand (who isn't?) or got taken advantage of because of your slightly advanced age or greater life experience or admirable position in society or whatever. And older men are judged on their current age when the accusations are made rather than when the formerly consensual sex took place, so that’s how you will go on trial, where your ugly visage will aggravate your sentence to life and your sole remaining use for society is as a payday for the accusers and fodder to the prison industry.

What to do when your very being is criminalized? Obviously if we had an army we would fight, but failing that we now only have ideas, rhetorics and philosophy that we hope can be compelling to enough men in due course. When I called our enemies no more morally noteworthy than rabid dogs in an effort to dehumanize them, I used philosophy as a weapon. But that isn’t satisfying because we can't help but hold humans responsible for their actions.

So we need to dig deeper, and explore what it means to live in a world which hates your guts. Much of the time this hatred is hidden from view, except when the police state actually strikes, whereupon the violence is concealed behind prison walls and misleading headlines about rape and abuse, and it is possible to go about our lives ignoring it. This is why most men don’t think of themselves as MRAs or sexualists, and it takes especially sensitive guys like me to ponder the issue at length and come down with seething hatred in the opposite direction against the authorities.

This is what I have been doing for 25 years. While most men’s coping strategy, as it were, is to look the other way and pretend the persecution of our sexuality isn’t happening, I have faced it head on. What the feminist police state did to all these men over the years, they did to me, because I have the same sexuality and I feel their pain and so much more because I am ideologically aware too.

Eivind Berge said...

Galileo2333 goes even further and ponders criminalization not proposed yet. Yes, banning miscegenation would be shocking, but not more so than many kinds of persecution that I didn’t think possible before they happened in recent years. The Nordic model of prostitution law where only the buyers are criminalized was shocking, yet it was implemented and keeps spreading. “Negligent rape” was so shocking that even the legal profession recoiled at first, but it was normalized. The persecution of Mary Kay Letourneau shocked the entire world, yet kicked off a female sex offender charade with no end in sight, so vicious and normalized that decades in prison for sweet kind teachers like Brittany Zamora doesn’t even raise eyebrows anymore outside the male sexualist movement. The abolition of the jury in Norway explicitly so we can convict more men accused of rape was shocking in the extreme, yet it happened with nary any opposition. All the increasingly absurd rape trials that push the envelope of what they can redefine to rape up to and including the current travesty against Gaute Drevdal were shocking, but people absorbed them and are still hungry for more punishment against “sex offenders.”

This is simply what feminists do. They throw us in prison for our normal sexuality, and if something isn’t criminal yet they are always concocting new laws to encompass more and more of our sexuality so no accuser is left behind and no cop can look at anything remotely sexual without cause to arrest and prosecute. This is what our governments do to us as a matter of course, in an open and declared war on us for our sexual nature.

In all that hate, is there room to live even outside of prison? Obeying the law is not an option unless you are willing to be celibate; it’s only a matter of whether to break it consciously or not, and whether you want to be part of a movement in opposition or just a sitting duck targeted by the bigots. Of course, they can’t prosecute everyone at the same time even if they have the laws for it, so you will most likely have some time to ponder this question. I hope you will reach a sensible conclusion if you do.

Anonymous said...

Every guy should violate all the laws in mass. The government of Norway should be overthrown by force. The police in Norway should all mutiny and turn against the government there.

Anonymous said...

Why are the police, who are still predominantly male, not all quitting the police force or at least openly refusing to enforce the rape laws?

Eivind Berge said...

Quite right. I have written about this before: we should foster a culture of conscientious objection on the part of everyone enforcing the sex laws, including auxiliary roles like social and health care workers and of course jury nullification (sadly a much reduced possibility in Norway now, but there are still lay judges who can object).

https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2019/09/we-are-conscientious-objectors.html

It's called samvittighetsnekt in Norwegian, which is a powerful and succinct way to get the point across while doing real activism.

Ideally every man in a job valuable to society should go on strike against the sex laws. We should do the opposite of the COVID-19 lockdowns and take out essential workers until the sex laws are repealed and replaced with our (yet to be written in detail) platform. Actually they don't even have to be replaced because society could function just fine without any of them, but we can concede some reasonable things like extra protections for very young children and a law against REAL rape. In any case, such things would be covered buy generic laws against assault, so not strictly needed, in which case René Guyon's manifesto would serve as a model.

Anonymous said...

Tom o Carroll was banned from wordpress.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, no. Not that I didn't see it coming, but that is really bad news. I hope he gets all his content over to a new host and continues blogging!

Anonymous said...

Hei Eivind.
Har du dommen mot Gaute Drevdal?

Eivind Berge said...

No, I can't find the whole verdict at this time. Some excerpts here:

https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/gaute-drevdal-domt-til-13-ar-og-seks-maneder-i-fengsel-for-flere-voldtekter/3423987668.html

He was literally just accused of being most attracted to women from 18-25 in his 40s, and getting lucky with them and then anything which makes him attractive (such as his ability to get them into cool clubs and such) is used against him as supposed "abuse of trust" -- as if women should "trust" that older men don't want sex and are too immature to understand any of it into their 20s! "Rapes" where they "pretended to be asleep" because they didn't want to reject him and that sort of thing. Them letting him have it instead of fighting back or even saying no is considered his fault! Can you imagine eight women being "raped" and not one giving a hint of resistance? But that's irrelevant today because rape is redefined to regret only, formally because one were too drunk or asleep, or alternatively "abuse of position," which is technically another statute if they wanted to use it, but here it seems they blended that too into rape, which is quite an innovation. Plus there was one count of statutory "abuse" of a 15-year-old. No real victim there either.

His own reaction:

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/OpwWEl/gaute-drevdal-sterkt-uenig-i-dommen

The women coordinated their accusations and still they didn't come up with anything that a normal person would consider rape. Of course the feminists are hailing it as an enormous victory and step forward, which indeed it is to them:

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/LAJjPP/drevdal-dommen-enormt-stor-betydning

At this point they might as well drop the charade that there is a trial, and just throw men directly in prison upon all sexual accusations. The court will give them anything they ask for anyway, even if they have to reason based on no other premise than the man is older. Plus he's the one who needs to prove his innocence, as if that would even be possible when all sex is rape and abuse anyway because our very souls are criminal abusers.

"– For √• v√¶re helt √¶rlig f√łler jeg meg lurt av tingretten. De sa innledningsvis at det er p√•talemyndighetens oppgave √• bevise skyld, ikke den tiltales oppgave √• bevise uskyld. Det motsatte har skjedd, mener Drevdal."

And we won't even get a jury for his appeal trial -- so completely have the feminists clinched their victory.

Eivind Berge said...

And a funny thing. The 15-year-old girl was not raped -- just an age of consent violation -- while women up to 25 were what the law considers literally raped at least predominantly because they were too young and clueless to understand what was going on.

So there's a glaring inconsistency right there in the verdict. But don't tell the feminists because then the solution will just be to turn statutory abuse into rape convictions, with the much longer sentences that will entail.

So however bad this sounds, there is still plenty of room for innovation which I am sure they will get busy with once this level of misandry is normalized. I mean, when adult women are infantilized to this degree, it should be piece of cake to establish that teenagers between 14 and 16 literally can't consent (like they already have recently done for those under 14). And then the next step after that would be to raise this new absolute rape age to 18, which the public is also already ready for.

Eivind Berge said...

So all the women who conspired against Gaute Drevdal used the minimum accusation needed to have him convicted. Very clever. They didn't allege any violence since that would hurt their credibility, but everyone believes they actually had sex. The 15-year-old didn't need to embellish at all since the law already has her regret covered. The others make up just the bare minimum of lack of consent in their heads or supposedly being asleep or too intoxicated, and then they fill in the rest by the general idea that older men are abusers, and voila, the Norwegian feminist "justice" system hands them all the convictions they ask for. ALL of them. That's the recipe for most successful false accusations -- first make the justice system institutionalize false rape and abuse, and then play into that while not lying about things like actual violence that can expose them. I notice that false rape accusers in other countries often make up violence and hence get exposed as liars, but that's certainly not needed here.

Eivind Berge said...

I have adapted my comments here about Gaute Drevdal into a new post:

http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-conviction-of-gaute-drevdal-for.html

Please let's continue discussing him there.