But I think conservative Americans will fend for themselves before long as we have seen the beginnings of at the Capitol, so I'm not so worried about them. More enduringly bad news is this: Norwegian courts have a 92% approval rating, up from 83% in 2019. While it is possible to interpret the slight dip that year as a response to the abolishment of the jury in 2018, Norwegians certainly got over that fast and care nothing now. In other words I am surrounded by evil people who don't care for the most basic principle of justice: the right to an independent jury of your peers when accused of a serious crime. On top of fundamentally not sharing society's sexual morality, I see now that it is utterly hopeless to even have a justice system worthy of the name -- that's how isolated I am. Forgive them not, for they know what they are doing and want it that way.
Our liberties are under constant onslaught from tyranny, so if we wanted to keep them, our opposition also would need to be constant. Thomas Jefferson famously said it best: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." The right to trial by jury is, like the US constitution which also upholds it, one of those documents that periodically need to be drenched in blood if we are to keep them. When Norway’s jury system’s number came up for renewal against the ongoing feminist-driven attrition of our liberties which finally won out on this issue in 2018, I was the only one ready to defend it with my life, but because I had no one to fight alongside, I and what little patriot manure I could have offered up succumbed to cowardice.
The turning point came from the so-called "Hemsedal-saken" from 2014-16, which was a high-profile false rape case -- decided to be false only thanks to a jury, and then even through the rare occurrence of the lay judges rebelling against the professionals in the triple-jeopardy retrial without a jury that the system allowed for even back then (which means Norway never truly had a jury, but the need for that second retrial in order to set it aside was a pretty good deterrent against tyranny since it made it difficult to routinely prevent jury nullification). The Hemsedal trial was a classic case of drunken regret-rape and I suppose they could have successfully prosecuted it under the empty category of "negligent rape" even then (introduced by feminists in 2000 as a way to compromise with juries instead of flat-out defining all regretted sex as first-degree rape as in current practice), but since prosecutors got so greedy that they decided to present it to the jury as deliberate rape in order to send the men away for much longer, the jury put its foot down, which with this smoking hot photogenic girl was once too many a jury nullification for a society so hateful to men. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that Andrea Voll Voldum single-handedly destroyed the Norwegian justice system and plunged us all into tyranny, removing the most fundamental legal right from us all and establishing herself as the most evil person in Norwegian history since Vidkun Quisling similarly handed our jury rights over to an evil ideology (that only lasted five years though, unlike the feminists who have no end in sight). This particular accuser doesn't bear all the blame since reform had been brewing for over a decade with the supposedly low conviction rate in rape cases as the main argument (as I noted already in my first blog post in 2007 and then again in 2015), but she was the triggering event that made sure it tipped over in favor of the tyrants, and then she became an activist for abolishing the jury as well until it happened. Society could not accept that this refusal to convict men for vacuous sex crimes anywhere near as much as the feminists wanted is in fact the healthy process of jury nullification, so they abolished that option.
This means verdicts are henceforth determined by the government rather than the people, with professional judges as the real deciders. The remaining majority of lay judges (five out of seven) is a sham when they have to justify their verdict, which means they will be pressured into forgoing jury nullification. This is the absolute worst thing that can happen to justice.
Looking at people superficially and aside from the coronavirus it seems life goes on in Norway. But it doesn’t really, not if you care about justice. The single most important aspect of democracy is the right to jury trials by your peers who don’t have to provide a justification for their verdicts. This is more important than elections because jurors who don’t need to justify their decisions are more powerful than a dictator, even, whose laws can then be overridden by the people (assuming he respects juries, but if he doesn’t then we don’t have a jury so that’s not the situation we are talking about). This is what happened to the extreme feminist rape law reform between 2000 and 2018, from the hyperinflated definition of "rape" was introduced until feminists managed to abolish the jury so they can fully enforce it (including some new innovative interpretations that weren't even imagined in 2000 like the ones used to convict Gaute Drevdal in 2020).
I cannot stress enough how crucially important it is that the jury be not just of your peers, but also not required to justify its verdict. Because this lack of a public justification is what enables jury nullification. When the lay judges (who theoretically could still nullify under the new hybrid system) are forced to justify their decision, they can't simply say the reason is they disagree with the law, so they would all need to coordinate a lie which is also prevented by them not being an independent group deliberating apart from the professional judges all the way up until handing in their verdict. What we have now is 99% as bad as having no laymen involved at all, and I hope the profound lack of justice sinks in when you ponder these implications. Norway literally doesn't have a justice system anymore and all verdicts are morally null and void.
The best litmus test for whether a person is justice-minded or tyranny-minded is how they feel about jury nullification. If they feel jury nullification is wrong because the law is above morality (or perhaps they can't distinguish law from morality), then they love tyrants, which sadly describes most Norwegians and explains how the jury was abolished without resistance. I am old enough to have heard it said that the jury is supposed to judge the law as much as the man, but the current crop of Norwegians tend to get offended by that idea because they are so obsequious to authority.
If Norwegians had mounded a resistance, this is definitely something I would have been willing to join unto death. Sometimes I feel that people in places like Syria or Afghanistan, even ISIS when that was going on, have a better life. There may be more war, but they fight for what they believe in. We have peace but moral decrepitude, or if our hearts are pure like mine we have the inescapable feeling of being a coward. There is, however, some comic relief to the current situation of people being too cowardly to oppose draconian social restrictions over a barely lethal virus, but that's another story, made even more comical by the fact that the commies are the only ones who oppose it. Yes, the most freedom-loving people in Norway right now are the communists, but they too failed to defend the jury and of course support all the antisex crap.
Can a democracy decide to abolish democracy? Because that is what Norway has done. The right to trial by a jury of your peers which does not need to provide a justification for its verdict is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, far more important than elections, even. A dictator in every other way, but who respects juries would be better than what we have now. Every day I feel the moral pain and hatred against the authorities from living like this. I feel a civil war would be inevitable if there were even a tiny minority with moral integrity left. If there is one democratic principle obviously worth killing and dying for, it is the right to jury trials. On top of that comes the sex laws that have redefined our normal sexuality into rape and abuse and may also be worth deadly resistance, but this is so much more fundamental. Back when we had a jury, many of the empty rape accusations were in fact nullified, which is why we lost the jury because feminists have the power now and they couldn't tolerate nullification.
And worse still, what I see as an obvious reason for civil war, most people around me don't even see as a conflict! In doesn't enter their consciousness as they go about their daily lives -- and usually not even when they are put on trial -- that we no longer have a justice system. That is how profoundly out of touch with society I am, because I cannot be in touch with a society that is out of touch with justice. How does one live like this, assuming one doesn't want to be a lone wolf martyr? I know of no one else at this level of misfit aside from convicted terrorists, and in Norway we only have one who even comes close, except he doesn't because he isn't ideologically coherent. I am the the one solitary living dead -- or at least in the 8% who disapproves of the courts, though I suspect most of them too do so for far less fundamental reasons like factually false accusations instead of empty ones, so I am truly alone as far as I can see aside from my very few commenters.
I am not like other people because the fact that my sexuality has been criminalized makes me want to retaliate and sabotage society ever since I was a teenager, but then it got worse and we lost the jury too. I feel as strongly about this and am as morally convinced as, say, the resistance fighters during WWII. I am truly a quisling in reverse. I have no business in society because I don’t share its morality. Yet, here I am, and with violence off the table I need to make the best of it -- that is, manage my hatred (or sublimate it) and at least make my ideological position known. But even that is now a hollow undertaking because with the justice system replaced by total tyranny, is there any point in arguing about laws at all? I feel our attitude instead should be one of total criminality -- the outlaw and lawless and beyond, self-identifying as the homo sacer -- since the state has abolished the foundation of justice and ensured that we cannot, by definition, get a fair trial. This is how we have long felt with regard to the sex laws, to be sure, but now that conclusion is inescapably total.
What remains, then, is blogging therapy for ourselves and manifesto-writing for future generations in case a justice is restored at some point -- after a bloody civil war (unlikely) or collapse and dark ages (more likely). The jury system we had was imperfect in that it allowed for double jeopardy if the professional judges disagreed with the jury, didn't require a unanimous jury and and was only for crimes that could get you eight years or more, but it was better than nothing. Now we have nothing. It is a horrible, unbearable situation, made even more unbearable by its 92% approval rating which means there is no hope of any real resistance in my lifetime.
The only thing we can do about it now is to come up with an ideology for what to do when accused of a crime with no right to a jury, with no justice system that we can acknowledge as legitimate at all. I mean practically, how do you plead? We can't honor them with either a "not guilty" or "guilty" plea (which funnily means the government has removed the basis of terrorism too, since that requires a "guilty" mindset but we cannot deign to take criminal responsibility under this system if we are morally aware and consistent). We can only plead contempt, except that is also too much respect when the courts have zero legitimacy. So now is the time think and have a response ready if ever faced with that decision.
Of course we argue our cases in the media like before, with added emphasis on the lack of a legitimate justice system since there is no jury. But what do we do in court? One option is to make it clear you completely disrespect the justice system but nonetheless let your lawyer handle everything based on what he thinks is best, with the exception that you just never testify. Let him enter pleas for you and do whatever he thinks is in your best interest except you never address the court yourself. It doesn't matter if the charges are completely fabricated -- saying you didn't do the crime would be showing the justice system too much respect when it fundamentally disrespects the people.
I am torn between that option and an even more extreme one. It would be most morally pure to have NOTHING to do with the justice system. This can and should (since terrorism is too respectful; though self-defense is still noble) be an entirely nonviolent posture. Don't give them time of day in any fashion. Since they are morally beneath us, we act as if they don't exist. Of course they will still cart us off to prison by way of the courts when accused, but we don't need to cooperate whatsoever. Say nothing except to address the media and public in court, and don't acknowledge a lawyer's power to act on your behalf either. But I feel this isn't realistic for most since the need for a lawyer's assistance at that point is so overwhelming, especially if you are in remand custody, and I probably wouldn't be able to go through with it myself, so I don't necessarily recommend it. Letting your lawyer present evidence and arguments within the framework of the law might be okay as long as you make it clear you don't personally respect the legitimacy of that framework. As such, the outcome probably won't be much different than it would have been with a general "remain silent" strategy that most criminals employ anyway (or actually, the typical Norwegian strategy is "say some bullshit" that the court doesn't believe anyway, which is also ill-advised), so you don't lose much while retaining most of your moral superiority.
Remember, we still prosecute our cases in the media and by self-publishing information about our cases which is a still uncurtailed right in Norway unlike some other countries (yes, there are other ways to implement tyranny almost as bad as abolishing the jury -- preventing you from speaking out in the media while the case in ongoing like they do in British-influenced countries is one and coercing plea bargains like they do in the US is another -- for example, Cardinal Pell had a jury but he had a secret trial, which is another kind of tyranny to achieve the same end as the Norwegian one, so egregious that I honestly don't know which is worse), and now it is more important than ever that you don't let them anonymize you like Norwegian media frequently tries, because with the jury gone this is your only chance to appeal to the people. With the right to free speech about your case removed (such as enforced anonymity for accusers or secret trials or gag orders or sub judice as an offense) you would have one sort of tyranny piled on top of another, making Norway the absolute world leader, and thankfully we aren't quite there yet. But still, anonymity as far as it goes is a way to enforce the narrative and make it look like the dominant moral norms aren't resisted by real people in Norway. Convicts then become nameless "perpetrators" who need not concern us at the human level as moral and political agents. Any accused person who agrees to anonymity in the media is implicitly endorsing the moral basis of the laws under which he is charged -- even if he disputes the specific facts and pleads innocent that way. I can't emphasize enough that you must never let the media portray you as nameless and faceless when accused of a crime (and of course not grant anonymity to accusers either if you can help it, but for God's sake not for yourself either!), because then you are part of the problem. Luckily that shit doesn't work on me and the first thing I said to the media when I was prosecuted in 2012 was "Full name and picture!" In Norway it is normalized that almost only terrorists and accused inciters like me proudly show their faces in the media (since these crimes would otherwise be pointless to begin with), or if they are already so famous that anonymity would be impossible they are also publicized, but really this is just as important for others and especially sex offenders, so we can better mock the immoral values behind the sick feminist antisex laws. Any mainstream article about the sex laws assumes that no normal person would disagree -- think about that and realize how important it is to prove it wrong, which is also a very low-hanging fruit in terms of activism.
This means verdicts are henceforth determined by the government rather than the people, with professional judges as the real deciders. The remaining majority of lay judges (five out of seven) is a sham when they have to justify their verdict, which means they will be pressured into forgoing jury nullification. This is the absolute worst thing that can happen to justice.
Looking at people superficially and aside from the coronavirus it seems life goes on in Norway. But it doesn’t really, not if you care about justice. The single most important aspect of democracy is the right to jury trials by your peers who don’t have to provide a justification for their verdicts. This is more important than elections because jurors who don’t need to justify their decisions are more powerful than a dictator, even, whose laws can then be overridden by the people (assuming he respects juries, but if he doesn’t then we don’t have a jury so that’s not the situation we are talking about). This is what happened to the extreme feminist rape law reform between 2000 and 2018, from the hyperinflated definition of "rape" was introduced until feminists managed to abolish the jury so they can fully enforce it (including some new innovative interpretations that weren't even imagined in 2000 like the ones used to convict Gaute Drevdal in 2020).
I cannot stress enough how crucially important it is that the jury be not just of your peers, but also not required to justify its verdict. Because this lack of a public justification is what enables jury nullification. When the lay judges (who theoretically could still nullify under the new hybrid system) are forced to justify their decision, they can't simply say the reason is they disagree with the law, so they would all need to coordinate a lie which is also prevented by them not being an independent group deliberating apart from the professional judges all the way up until handing in their verdict. What we have now is 99% as bad as having no laymen involved at all, and I hope the profound lack of justice sinks in when you ponder these implications. Norway literally doesn't have a justice system anymore and all verdicts are morally null and void.
The best litmus test for whether a person is justice-minded or tyranny-minded is how they feel about jury nullification. If they feel jury nullification is wrong because the law is above morality (or perhaps they can't distinguish law from morality), then they love tyrants, which sadly describes most Norwegians and explains how the jury was abolished without resistance. I am old enough to have heard it said that the jury is supposed to judge the law as much as the man, but the current crop of Norwegians tend to get offended by that idea because they are so obsequious to authority.
If Norwegians had mounded a resistance, this is definitely something I would have been willing to join unto death. Sometimes I feel that people in places like Syria or Afghanistan, even ISIS when that was going on, have a better life. There may be more war, but they fight for what they believe in. We have peace but moral decrepitude, or if our hearts are pure like mine we have the inescapable feeling of being a coward. There is, however, some comic relief to the current situation of people being too cowardly to oppose draconian social restrictions over a barely lethal virus, but that's another story, made even more comical by the fact that the commies are the only ones who oppose it. Yes, the most freedom-loving people in Norway right now are the communists, but they too failed to defend the jury and of course support all the antisex crap.
Can a democracy decide to abolish democracy? Because that is what Norway has done. The right to trial by a jury of your peers which does not need to provide a justification for its verdict is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, far more important than elections, even. A dictator in every other way, but who respects juries would be better than what we have now. Every day I feel the moral pain and hatred against the authorities from living like this. I feel a civil war would be inevitable if there were even a tiny minority with moral integrity left. If there is one democratic principle obviously worth killing and dying for, it is the right to jury trials. On top of that comes the sex laws that have redefined our normal sexuality into rape and abuse and may also be worth deadly resistance, but this is so much more fundamental. Back when we had a jury, many of the empty rape accusations were in fact nullified, which is why we lost the jury because feminists have the power now and they couldn't tolerate nullification.
And worse still, what I see as an obvious reason for civil war, most people around me don't even see as a conflict! In doesn't enter their consciousness as they go about their daily lives -- and usually not even when they are put on trial -- that we no longer have a justice system. That is how profoundly out of touch with society I am, because I cannot be in touch with a society that is out of touch with justice. How does one live like this, assuming one doesn't want to be a lone wolf martyr? I know of no one else at this level of misfit aside from convicted terrorists, and in Norway we only have one who even comes close, except he doesn't because he isn't ideologically coherent. I am the the one solitary living dead -- or at least in the 8% who disapproves of the courts, though I suspect most of them too do so for far less fundamental reasons like factually false accusations instead of empty ones, so I am truly alone as far as I can see aside from my very few commenters.
I am not like other people because the fact that my sexuality has been criminalized makes me want to retaliate and sabotage society ever since I was a teenager, but then it got worse and we lost the jury too. I feel as strongly about this and am as morally convinced as, say, the resistance fighters during WWII. I am truly a quisling in reverse. I have no business in society because I don’t share its morality. Yet, here I am, and with violence off the table I need to make the best of it -- that is, manage my hatred (or sublimate it) and at least make my ideological position known. But even that is now a hollow undertaking because with the justice system replaced by total tyranny, is there any point in arguing about laws at all? I feel our attitude instead should be one of total criminality -- the outlaw and lawless and beyond, self-identifying as the homo sacer -- since the state has abolished the foundation of justice and ensured that we cannot, by definition, get a fair trial. This is how we have long felt with regard to the sex laws, to be sure, but now that conclusion is inescapably total.
What remains, then, is blogging therapy for ourselves and manifesto-writing for future generations in case a justice is restored at some point -- after a bloody civil war (unlikely) or collapse and dark ages (more likely). The jury system we had was imperfect in that it allowed for double jeopardy if the professional judges disagreed with the jury, didn't require a unanimous jury and and was only for crimes that could get you eight years or more, but it was better than nothing. Now we have nothing. It is a horrible, unbearable situation, made even more unbearable by its 92% approval rating which means there is no hope of any real resistance in my lifetime.
The only thing we can do about it now is to come up with an ideology for what to do when accused of a crime with no right to a jury, with no justice system that we can acknowledge as legitimate at all. I mean practically, how do you plead? We can't honor them with either a "not guilty" or "guilty" plea (which funnily means the government has removed the basis of terrorism too, since that requires a "guilty" mindset but we cannot deign to take criminal responsibility under this system if we are morally aware and consistent). We can only plead contempt, except that is also too much respect when the courts have zero legitimacy. So now is the time think and have a response ready if ever faced with that decision.
Of course we argue our cases in the media like before, with added emphasis on the lack of a legitimate justice system since there is no jury. But what do we do in court? One option is to make it clear you completely disrespect the justice system but nonetheless let your lawyer handle everything based on what he thinks is best, with the exception that you just never testify. Let him enter pleas for you and do whatever he thinks is in your best interest except you never address the court yourself. It doesn't matter if the charges are completely fabricated -- saying you didn't do the crime would be showing the justice system too much respect when it fundamentally disrespects the people.
I am torn between that option and an even more extreme one. It would be most morally pure to have NOTHING to do with the justice system. This can and should (since terrorism is too respectful; though self-defense is still noble) be an entirely nonviolent posture. Don't give them time of day in any fashion. Since they are morally beneath us, we act as if they don't exist. Of course they will still cart us off to prison by way of the courts when accused, but we don't need to cooperate whatsoever. Say nothing except to address the media and public in court, and don't acknowledge a lawyer's power to act on your behalf either. But I feel this isn't realistic for most since the need for a lawyer's assistance at that point is so overwhelming, especially if you are in remand custody, and I probably wouldn't be able to go through with it myself, so I don't necessarily recommend it. Letting your lawyer present evidence and arguments within the framework of the law might be okay as long as you make it clear you don't personally respect the legitimacy of that framework. As such, the outcome probably won't be much different than it would have been with a general "remain silent" strategy that most criminals employ anyway (or actually, the typical Norwegian strategy is "say some bullshit" that the court doesn't believe anyway, which is also ill-advised), so you don't lose much while retaining most of your moral superiority.
Remember, we still prosecute our cases in the media and by self-publishing information about our cases which is a still uncurtailed right in Norway unlike some other countries (yes, there are other ways to implement tyranny almost as bad as abolishing the jury -- preventing you from speaking out in the media while the case in ongoing like they do in British-influenced countries is one and coercing plea bargains like they do in the US is another -- for example, Cardinal Pell had a jury but he had a secret trial, which is another kind of tyranny to achieve the same end as the Norwegian one, so egregious that I honestly don't know which is worse), and now it is more important than ever that you don't let them anonymize you like Norwegian media frequently tries, because with the jury gone this is your only chance to appeal to the people. With the right to free speech about your case removed (such as enforced anonymity for accusers or secret trials or gag orders or sub judice as an offense) you would have one sort of tyranny piled on top of another, making Norway the absolute world leader, and thankfully we aren't quite there yet. But still, anonymity as far as it goes is a way to enforce the narrative and make it look like the dominant moral norms aren't resisted by real people in Norway. Convicts then become nameless "perpetrators" who need not concern us at the human level as moral and political agents. Any accused person who agrees to anonymity in the media is implicitly endorsing the moral basis of the laws under which he is charged -- even if he disputes the specific facts and pleads innocent that way. I can't emphasize enough that you must never let the media portray you as nameless and faceless when accused of a crime (and of course not grant anonymity to accusers either if you can help it, but for God's sake not for yourself either!), because then you are part of the problem. Luckily that shit doesn't work on me and the first thing I said to the media when I was prosecuted in 2012 was "Full name and picture!" In Norway it is normalized that almost only terrorists and accused inciters like me proudly show their faces in the media (since these crimes would otherwise be pointless to begin with), or if they are already so famous that anonymity would be impossible they are also publicized, but really this is just as important for others and especially sex offenders, so we can better mock the immoral values behind the sick feminist antisex laws. Any mainstream article about the sex laws assumes that no normal person would disagree -- think about that and realize how important it is to prove it wrong, which is also a very low-hanging fruit in terms of activism.
And when we don't have a jury, it doesn't really matter how you defend yourself (beyond what is immediately obvious to your lawyer), because tyranny will decide anyway. The most important thing then becomes to make an ideological statement, to at least undermine the fake moral legitimacy of the courts that sadly 92% of the population accept. Please comment to help work out a strategy of how to best preserve our dignity by refusing to play along with a sham justice system. How to best look out for our remaining rights while not pretending that they had the right to remove the others including jury trials? Should we even have a lawyer represent us when accused in such a fundamentally evil system? You should never talk to the police anyway even with full jury rights, so this doesn't change that. What is new is how to deal with the situation where the courts are completely illegitimate because there is no chance that your case can ever end up before a jury, and I am at loss for more answers than I have given here. These are really only rudimentary thoughts, since the situation is so new, and while foreseen for some fifteen years, I have been in denial about about actual dealing with because it is so ghastly. We must now treat the Norwegian "justice" system the same as North Korea or "negotiating" with terrorists or as accused terrorists held at Gitmo in order to deprive them of rights, who also don't get jury trials just like the Norwegians -- and how does one do that?
