Friday, August 13, 2021

Yup, Elliot Rodger was a trend

It’s not the first time I have declared male resistance to feminism to be dead as I did in my last post followed by a shock that makes the picture more nuanced. I still think I am right about the big picture though. Men like Craig Murray, Julian Assange, Geoffrey Epstein, Aubrey de Grey and Prince Andrew are all lambs to the slaughter, but Jake Davison is not. He is a slaughterer himself, reminding us that marginalizing men isn’t going to be an entirely peaceful affair to the feminist oppressors who perpetrate the police violence against us. Yes, male sexualism is more geared to the victimhood of princes and millionaires than incels. We realize that the true monsters in this world are the police, which is wisdom incels haven’t yet reached. Jake was, in his own words, a
100 percent a kissless handholdless hugless virgin unless I count the 1 time I went to a massage parlour and had a happy ending although I wasn’t going there for that legit went for massage but I wasn’t expecting

I had opportunities with girls when younger but never took them most where around that age 15-18 I regret massively been in male dominated environments my whole life

had girls into me let it slip unfortunately when I was at college when younger now I have no social group and don’t know a single girl and haven’t spoke to one since I was 18 I’m almost 23 now unless you count cashiers at supermarkets, spoke to plenty of men though unfortunately
So that sets the stage and also shows how feckless incels are. Imagine how passive you have to be to not even expect sex from a sex worker, or pursue that avenue more. Let alone the other opportunities that would indeed be available to him, and were by his own admission except he didn’t pursue them vigorously enough, presumably because he was too enfeebled by fapping and yes, maybe some bad luck of a random depression as well or whatever other comorbidities. I don’t know all else he tried, but he should have just stayed away from toxic shamers like that girl on Reddit whom he tried to charm when writing that description of himself, where on top of all the rejection he faced as an incel he also had to contend with idiots claiming 16-year-olds can’t consent (even though they legally can in the UK where he lived) and even the girls themselves jumping on that bandwagon. That forum, Incel Tears, is a place for the most toxic feminists to brag about how much they can hate the weakest men, so it’s exceedingly foolish to hang out there when you are trying to get laid, but still...

Now we have a direct link between that sort of shaming, which does indeed suffuse our entire culture to some extent, and a mass shooting. It’s not making the antisex bigots look good, is it? But once again, I don't expect any self-awareness from feminists on this. They will simply double down on the sex-hostility like always. Criminalize and demonize more and more and more of male sexuality and yes, men will mostly publicly take it and live a double life with their sexuality expressed in “illicit” ways, but every once in a while there are exceptions who lash out. It is irrational from a selfish perspective to go on a murder-suicide mission when you can go along to get along like most men do while keeping their inevitable feminist-defined “sexual misconduct” hidden as long as they can, so it either takes extreme altruism or delusions like thinking life is over at 22, with the latter actually being more common -- basically what incel culture is about.

But did Jake also fight for men’s rights, in a way that can help men who figured out how to meet women and only face persecution from the police? Well, mostly not. There are too few like him to matter for that, with most incels being as lethargic in other areas as they are sexually. And to be clear, attacking innocent civilians isn’t a male sexualist value in any case. In my estimation, incel terrorism is a symptom of feminism rather than antifeminist activism per se. But it is still notable, even more so because he did it in a gun-controlled country where it actually means something to resort to this. Americans will go on shooting sprees for no other reason than guns being available, if you listen to the liberals who want to ban then, and frankly I have to concede that’s not far from the truth. Which adds another perverse argument in favor of gun control, so political messages won’t be drowned out by the background noise of constant gunfire.

A society which produces incels like this better do some introspection for their own good, even if he isn’t overtly political. Blaming “mental health” would be a cop-out, as even if he did have mental issues, they don’t only appear random here. One thing society should realize -- which corresponds to the male sexualist agenda -- is that criminalizing more sexuality isn’t going to help, and trying to shame men even more for their attraction to girls at peak nubility isn’t helping either. The absurd feminist demarcation of an absolute line at 18 which is treated like a war zone across which any intimacy attracts the full force of state violence is a great way to give incels the idea that they irreparably missed out when still a virgin in their 20s.

You do indeed miss out on something big if you can never experience teenage love; so much is true. Where the incels go wrong is in thinking that can only happen as a teenager yourself. If you are like Jake, please consider a different route. I would advise getting on board with male sexualism, which is to say read my blog and a few like-minded communities. I have written a post “How to not be incel” that is a good starting point. If you do follow all that (which is merely one incredibly simple step otherwise known as nofap), and hopefully but not necessarily pick up the rest of male sexualist ideology and philosophy as well, I guarantee you will discover that you are not incel but rather a late bloomer. You will also realize that the true monsters of this world are the police when operating on feminist ideology. Your mission then becomes firstly to grab life by the pussy and secondly to oppose the feminist sex laws specifically, rather than making short shrift of yourself.


Anonymous said...

I condemn the senseless and tragic slaughter that this guy committed, but seeing sex workers would not have been a solution for him. Incels by and large want love, not sex with a whore who finds them as disgusting as every other women does. BTW, in the UK visiting a prostitute is becoming legally risky, as well as prohibitively expensive unless you have a good income.

This particular guy wanted love from a teenage girl. In his own words :

"“Let’s say I get with a woman my age. She’s had a million relationships. Likely been destroyed and broken and torn apart by a fucking Chad. She’s probably completely incapable of loving anyone like she did when she was 16, 17, 15, when she first got with that fucking Chad."

Do you think paying $300 an hour to fuck a 25 year old whore who has already had 20 different cocks insider her that day is going to make him happy?

And get real with the NoFap - do you not think Incels don't try NoFap? No it doesn't add 4 inches to their height or angles to their cheeks and jaw line.

Fighting feminist anti-sex laws would have given his life some meaning and hope, but it appears he was a typical aspie paedocrite as he was heavily into QAnon crap and believed the world was governed by paedophiles.

Incels are likely to be designated a 'terrorist group' in the UK now. One femihag MP wants to make 'misogyny' officially designated as 'radicalization', which means that it will likely become illegal to view men's rights and incel material online, and even publicly voicing an anti-feminist position will get you a visit from the police as a potential terrorist.

Which highlights the dangers of trying to pretend there is a 'male sexualist movement'. There is no movement, and certainly no leader of such a movement.

And out of curiosity Eivind, why do you constantly claim that the pigs are the real enemy and not feminists? I understand that like Jack, you have a view of women being sweet, innocent, angelic, child like creatures with no actual agency - even feminists - but even so, it's a bit weird. I would guess there's at least 20 million police officers worldwide (who are now almost equally male and female, though I guess you and Jack only include the male pigs) enforcing feminist laws, and maybe 1,000 to 5,000 feminists actively lobbying and pushing these laws.

Yeah, it's true that without the police, feminist laws would be worthless, but it's equally true that without feminist laws, the police could be ignored (on this subject). Who do you think it's easier to defeat? 20 million pigs, or 1,000 feminists?

Eivind Berge said...

He was heavily into QAnon crap and believed the world was governed by paedophiles.

That’s tragicomic. Being called a pedophile for chatting up a 16-year-old girl even by the girl herself a week before he died must have contributed to pushing him over the edge. When are the men who buy into those conspiracies going to realize that the “pedophiles” are themselves? QAnon is a psyop which reinforces the official agenda; what could be more politically correct than turning men on themselves like this?

Who our enemies are depends on your level of analysis. At the pragmatic level it is definitely the cops. The law is a more philosophical level about which I am at least sometimes inclined to be a nihilist. And those who lobby for laws are even further removed. But yes, these things are fuzzy and you can certainly make a case that the lobbyists bear a great deal of responsibility. But then voters are also responsible so it becomes a social problem, with the enforcers a small group out of that picture.

I am a pragmatic kind of guy, and of course it is also pragmatic that cops are very good at destroying those who try to fight with them, so I definitely don’t do that. There was a time I had the mindset of an incel with nothing to lose, but now I want to live my life. It is still possible to express an opinion, however. Unless they ban our ideology too, which is frighteningly close, yes.

I really do believe in nofap and don’t see any indication that he tried it. And paying for sex doesn’t have to be like you describe. Why didn’t he get a sugar baby, who easily could have been 18 rather than 25, or aspire to earn enough money for such a relationship if he didn’t have it already? That would have been realistic and almost as satisfying as what he felt he missed out on. Not seeing the possibilities is mental disorder associated with depression and fapping, which itself is a mental disorder and also somatic when it makes you copulatorily impotent and ejaculatorily anhedonic and delayed.

Anonymous said...

Not seeing the possibilities is mental disorder associated depression and fapping, which itself is a mental disorder and also somatic when it makes you copulatorily impotent and ejaculatorily anhedonic and delayed.

You flirted with antipsychiatry until recently, and now you solemnly diagnose mental disorders?

Eivind Berge said...

I still agree with antipsychiatry as far as they resist coercion. It is wrong to declare anybody mentally ill against their will and certainly to force any treatment on them. It is also supremely important to have the right to legal sanity when accused or convicted of crimes. But there is objectively such a thing as being out of touch with reality. The blindness induced by porn and masturbation is an obvious example, blindness to female beauty and inability to think of ways to hook up with girls in a world that still has plenty of possibilities despite feminism; many of them illegal, to be sure, but they are still there. It is insane to not even see the opportunities, which is literally the case with incels to the point of thinking their lives are over. Again, they should not be forced, but compassionately guided towards solutions such as nofap and whatever other treatments might reasonably address their mental disorders.

I use the word “disorder” instead of “illness,” which is more philosophically problematic, indeed indefensible if not metaphysical nonsense. I realize that hardcore antipsychiatrists such as Thomas Szasz held “mental disorder” to be a cop-out describing the same thing as “mental illness,” but so be it, then I don’t entirely agree with them. There is something there which deserves the description I gave it -- not solemnly as if these are very well defined and essential entities, but there is something to it. If you don’t like “disorder” then how about maladaptive behavior? Masturbation is certainly that -- unless you hold deranged values about the meaning of life, in which case it becomes a disagreement about what pursuits are really worthwhile, and if you think it’s fine to retreat in to a fantasy world then fine, but you are not normal or entitled to claim that’s good for most men.

Eivind Berge said...

I guess I understand now why TheAntifeminist shut down his blog, and now seems to comment even more anonymously if at all (the first comment above sounds like him, but I can never be sure who Anonymous is). There is a real possibility that the authorities in the UK and elsewhere will crack down on incels as “terrorists” (which some of them undeniably are) and lump MRAs into that and then us if we come to their attention at all. Of course we don’t have a movement in any practical sense, but in their piggy brains it might seem so and they might take my talk of leadership too seriously. So the time has come to quit that boast. I shall remain an activist and public figure, but I am just a guy expressing an opinion about an ideology I call male sexualism. THERE IS NO ORGANIZATION of male sexualism, which we never claimed either, and only a movement in the loosest sense as a label for a set of ideas. Hell, I can’t even get incels to read my blog -- who instead prefer QAnon shit that is antisex feminism on steroids -- so it would be doubly, nay triply unfair if I were to be held responsible for their actions.

Eivind Berge said...

Today we can rejoice in a tiny bit of backlash against the pigs:

"(CNN)--Three former Philadelphia Police Department detectives have been charged with perjury and false swearing stemming from a 1991 rape and murder case, according to a statement released Friday by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner.

Former homicide detectives Frank Jastrzembski, Manuel Santiago and Martin Devlin were charged with perjury for allegedly providing false testimony in the 2016 retrial of the case, according to Krasner.

The district attorney accused the men of lying "both in and out of court about their on-duty roles in the investigation, interrogation, and wrongful conviction of an innocent man, Anthony Wright, which occurred in 1993."

Wright was wrongly convicted of raping and murdering 77-year-old Louise Talley in 1991.

Not our enemies, huh? And how does TheAntifeminist feel about stings which are entirely their invention?

Eivind Berge said...

It turns out that India has beaten the UK in jigsaw identification criminalization by also applying it to dead victims:

5000 Twitter accounts who shared a picture of parents of the dead victim blocked to enforce the sick law. The behemoth marches on with yet another surreal level of insanity. At this rate we soon have to nuke all human communication because it may lead to the name of a sexual accuser somewhere, which of course it all does. All human speech, all culture is an intertextual jigsaw puzzle which leads to millions of accusers, each and every one of whom must be kept secret all the way down to the rape of Lucrece, henceforth *******, so we must black out the works of Shakespeare including every jigsaw piece so there is nothing left in that or any other work, down to the last footnote in the last commentary. Can’t mention her father Spurius Lucretius either because that’s another jigsaw piece, so here we go again expunging that name from history or anything leading to it and so on until only a blank sheet remains, except we also need to erase our minds so nothing can be reconstructed. How can people be so batshit crazy sick in the head as to not oppose the idea that accusers are entitled to anonymity because "sex"? It all just need to ramped up and up and up until the entire earth is scored -- and this is just one tiny avenue of the myriad ways of antisex bigotry.

If a girl is “just” murdered then there is no requirement to keep her identity secret, but if she is claimed to be a victim of the slightest sexual offense then secrecy must be enforced at all costs because sex is a fate worse than death (or perhaps infinitely shameful?) which shuts down all critical thinking and leads to blind acceptance of unlimited and eternal scorching of all that can be related, including after her death in India.

I knew free speech was dead, but this takes it to a whole other surreal level.

Eivind Berge said...

It is clear from that story from India that the Singularity is already here. Humanity has inadvertently built (or maybe the feminists earnestly wanted this; can they be so evil?), not a paperclip maximizer but an antisex maximizer that is out of control and now rules over us. Twitter is one cog in this machine which follows its mindless rules to suppress sexuality at all costs even when, as here, the purpose of the information suppressed is actually to support rape victims. When asked why, the AI will give an equally mindless answer like this:

When asked about Congress party's blocked accounts on Thursday, a Twitter spokesperson told CNN Business that the "specific content" flagged by India's child rights body was reviewed and deemed in violation of the company's policies as it may have revealed the identity of the alleged sexual assault victim's parents.

"We have taken proactive action on several hundred Tweets that posted an image that violated our Rules, and may continue to do so in line with our range of enforcement options," the spokesperson said. "Certain types of private information carry higher risks than others, and our aim is always to protect individuals' privacy and safety.

It is written in human-readable language, but there is no humanity in it, no sense above the grammatical level, only antisex maximization. Along with Apple’s perceptual hashing and all the other antisex AI already deployed or under development, this constitutes the Antisex Matrix in which we are doomed to live until technological civilization collapses. Perhaps it is becoming clear why I am such a big fan of Gail Tverberg.

Eivind Berge said...

My last couple of comments might contain a tad of hyperbole, but it’s serious that we are building the Antisex Singularity. All the rules that go into it, like “don’t identify sexual accusers,” “minors must never be sexualized” etc. seem sensible by feminist “logic,” but when you hand it all over to a global artificial mind to enforce, it has unintended consequences even for the feminists. And they can’t just shut it down either, because it has its own life now. It can and will collapse when industrial civilization does due to base resource constraints and low EROEI or a financial crisis, but not be controlled because it is more complex than anyone understands, and in any case there is no will to control it any time soon and they are still eagerly inputting more antisex algorithms. This is all built by corporations, but the laws are also an AI of its own that work the same way. It is nontrivial to reverse verdicts that get out of hand in the traditional system, and likely even more difficult to control the level of AI that we are building now, which is also fed hysterical new rules with no oversight and already allowed to bully the most powerful people in the world. I’ve been a skeptic of the Singularity, but I see now that it is happening in a very sinister way. Not the kind of Singularity that we get to have any kind of intelligent conversation with, but it will certainly tell us that we are sexual predators and act accordingly even when no human understands the basis for it anymore.

Anonymous said...

This guy was depressed because he pedestalized women, clearly. Instead of the good incel thoughts of "I refuse to associate with a whore girlfriend because she doesn't deserve my attention" in which case paying for it would work just fine, he had the bad incel thoughts of "waaah a woman won't reward me with sex because I can't charm her good enough, I'm a loser because a woman won't pat me on the head and call me a good boy".

That is not really incel at all. That is just a confused, depressed male who was never informed about masculinity and patriarchy. Which is understandable.

Eivind Berge said...

"The men must keep masturbation diaries, wear ankle monitors, and even use penile circumference gauges."

Inside the prison.

After they served their sentence.

Because this is the crimen exceptum we are talking about, which exacts infinite punishment and a grotesque abuse industry to profit from it.

LENORE SKENAZY | 8.12.2021

Dom Krauer said...

"The men must keep masturbation diaries, wear ankle monitors, and even use penile circumference gauges."

This is why I get so angry at the $hiT show that is 'Male Sexualism'.

As I was saying 10 years ago, we really are undergoing a sexual holocaust, and the only way we as individuals will avoid it, no matter how religiously we adhere to even the most unfair or insane femihag law, is if we die of old age before it reaches us.

Compare us with the Incel movement. How quickly they accept and promote memes, such as 'Stacys and Chads', the port-manteau use of adding -cel to different words (when I tried with the simple 'paedocrite' I got readers saying they didn't understand what it meant, or its a 'made up word', or Eivind trying to out dick size me with his own 'nocebo'). etc.

They bitch and argue with each other (on their forums) but even though most of them are literally and self-admitted aspies, they can agree on the universal and basic obvious points. They don't talk about having bigger dicks than each other as we literally and figuratively do in the comments section here, and outcompete each other with increasingly absurd and elaborate 'theories' as to why they can't get laid.

It's been obvious for years that the Incel movement is the only place online where a real male sexual consciousness is emerging. All of you would have been better served trying to post on incel forums than here or anywhere else. I tried to join a couple of years ago but they refused me as my 'reasons for joining' weren't convincing enough for them.

To be fair, even Tom Grauer saw that Incels was where it was at.

If there is any hope it lies with the incels. Now thanks to this idiot in Plymouth they are likely to be banned, at least in the UK.

Eivind says incels just need to visit a prostitute and do NoFap to attract 1,000 lb black mammas.
Holocaust22 says he doesn't understand how incels can't get laid.
Anonymous (above) says incels shouldn't pedestalize women.
Jack says he has a bigger dick than incels and he has a theory to explain why.

Jesus, you're all missing the point entirely.

Imagine if ten years ago, Eivind had stood up in court and calmly said 'incel rebellion'? He would have been a God to them for the next 5 centuries. Maybe all these 'ER' shootings would have been avoided because he would have demonstrated how to get public attention without actually hurting another human being?

Instead, Eivind doesn't even want to admit that he was an incel back then, and today promotes a feminist ideology (NoFap) as a magical solution to them (and himself).

Jack said...

I was never much interested in incels, considering they were no more than the celibate branch of MGTOW, the diametrically opposite branch of which being I suppose the unmarried whore-mongers and expat pussy hunters to whom I belong. In order to educate myself I had a look at the Wikipedia article. What a hatchet job that Wikipedia article is! It seems to have been entirely written up by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I don't think killings like these further our cause one tenth of an inch. If a man got himself killed while fighting arrest after being sentenced to jail for "abusing" a 17 year-old "child", that would draw attention to the desperateness of normal men and the unjustness of the law.

However in this case we are dealing with a helpless guy with a feeling of entitlement who is just the caricature the fems want men to be made to look like.

Eivind Berge said...

Right, Jack. We don't support killing noncombatants in the sex war. I am glad I never associated myself with "incel" and am certainly not going to start now. At the times I was unable to get laid it didn't come with this baggage, this culture that arose entirely without my involvement. It really is a hateful movement making war on regular people and these mythical Chads and Stacys. That might help making society realize men are marginalized and that's dangerous, but it will not get attention to how evil the sex laws are, which sadly incels themselves don't seem to grasp either. They wouldn't know because they haven't gotten around to being targets of the sex laws, and are not idealistic but selfish. Jake Davison thought it should be OK for him to have a 16-year-old girlfriend but for men over 30 he was aligned with the rest of society. Just enough to help their individual situation is what they can see. Yet that is sadly the only place where male sexual consciousness is emerging; Dom Krauer is right about that. Male sexualism does not gain traction, but it is of course morally superior and I will continue to promote what I believe is right even if it gets no followers. I will also continue to promote nofap, and do I have to explain once again why it is insane to call it feminist?

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I'm sure that you'll disagree with at least 30% of what's in this semi-manifesto; nevertheless, you should read it:

Eivind Berge said...

That is interesting, and includes some good points. I agree with abolishing misandric sex laws, obviously, and subsidized prostitution would be good. Cultural messaging might even lead to some girls sleeping with unattractive guys for virtue points. But I can't quite agree with restoring slavery or abolishing democracy (which has already been abolished in Norway and needs to be RESTORED!), and genetic engineering is also iffy. So yes, at least a good 30% of those 10 points are problematic, but I appreciate the effort; thanks for posting it and to whoever made it.

Anonymous said...

Democracy is fine after wars or other adverse global events that develop solidarity and natural confidence between people, but as time goes by, it tends to verge on tyranny of the majority. In this case, enlightened absolutism (it does not need to be bloody or murderous) is better - the majority cannot be enlightened anyway.

Dom Krauer said...

That Blackpill manifesto is a work of genius.

The guy even understands the history of age of consent laws which is something virtually no 'male sexualists' or the ephebophiles do, despite myself hammering away to get the message across for nearly 15 years.

Eivind says we need more democracy, does that include women? A democracy in which women cannot vote is very different to one in which they have equal voting rights. Given that the vast majority of women agree with feminist anti-sex laws (or rather, feminist attempts to protect the sexual market value of the mass of women), and tend to vote as a bloc with their vaginas, it's hard to see a female enfranchized democracy ever being compatible with male sexual rights.

Sorry to keep criticizing Eivind, but his whole 'system' remains a jumble of contradictions to me. He wants civilization set back hundreds or even thousands of years, which would result in unimaginable suffering for billions, but deleting the dna segment out of the female genetic code which makes them regretful after sex, sexually jealous, or hypergamous, is 'cruel'.

NoFap is feminist because feminists are anti-male masturbation. It's that simple. But a slightly longer explanation - because male masturbation lowers female sexual market value, and everything feminism does is about increasing female sexual market value. Of course we disagree about what feminism is. I have a clear idea of it being a sexual trade union or a pussy cartel, whichever you prefer. You seem to have a very vague conception of what feminism is. You talk about feminists a lot, and agree that most of the anti-sex laws are the result of feminists (although despite this you see pigs as more of the enemy). You don't really know why feminists are so anti-sex. It seems you think they are simply acting from motives of misandry, a blind and mysterious hatred of men. Therefore, you can believe that when it comes to their anti-porn stance, they are 'stupid'. They think they are hurting men by banning porn, but in fact they are helping men.

Milan Horvath said...

.Problem with opposition to "new sex laws" is IMO also that, there are very few people motivated by ideals rather than some selfish motives
(cannot get laid, having sexual preferences not accepted by present socio-cultural norms, being victim of false accusation etc.).

I am not saying that I am 100% principled altruist, but especially when it comes to sex issues it look like, most people cannot see beyond horizon of their personal needs.
Sex laws should be classical liberal's cause(victimless crimes, disproportionately harsh punishment of real crimes,due process ,state intrusion into personal or family life, growing carceral society and nanny state...and so on)

.Occasionally reading through some incel forums it makes me think that, those guys deserve their fate, considering how retarded their ideas sometimes are.
I wonder why people, who have decided to solve their problems by suicidal attack, are attacking innocent bystanders instead of people who have influence.(I am not endorsing any violence, just thinking about it.)

In case, someone is interested (and have plenty of time) I recommend some interesting books, I am just reading:
(I do not necessarily endorse all views of uploader)

Eivind Berge said...

@Dom Krauer

Eivind says we need more democracy, does that include women?

Yes. The Norwegian jury system was abolished because juries tended to nullify the feminist definition of “rape,” and female jurors voted to acquit more often than men. I don’t have statistics from other countries but suspect it is similar. Juries have to go because professional feminists are needed to enforce the feminist sex laws, or else the conviction rate will be low, like it still is in the UK for example. Americans in effect do the same thing as Norway by replacing the jury with plea bargaining, bypassing democracy and the will of normal women there too. While a minority of particularly nasty feminists will lobby for hateful sex laws, regular women work in the other direction more than men, so more democracy is good. Women do actually see through the bullshit rape definitions that feminists come up with more than men and are actually not so willing to convict when it comes down to it. It is conceivable that it would be even better for men if women couldn’t vote or be legislators (but could serve on juries) so feminism couldn’t work its way in so easily, but that is not realistic. In any case, the jury is more important and more fundamental to democracy than laws, and now Norway has lost democracy.

NoFap is feminist because feminists are anti-male masturbation. It's that simple.

If feminists are against male masturbation -- and yes they are insofar as they criminalize pornography -- that means the feminists are just as deluded as the wankers that masturbation has sexual value. They focus on the flipside that it supposedly exploits women and children, but it is the same delusion. As a nofapper I reject both sides of the wanker’s delusion. I am appalled by the self-defeating idea that men derive any benefit from porn and masturbation. I know the opposite is true -- men only abuse themselves and get further removed from real females when they are sucked in by porn and masturbation, and therefore by logical necessity it can’t be sexually exploitative of females either since there is no beneficiary. So yes, feminists are inadvertently helping men by fighting porn (except the men who are excessively punished on top of the damage that masturbation does to them, which of course I am against). Feminists are our useful idiots on this because once you discount all the online pretend-“abuse” that they so absurdly combat, men get more driven towards the real thing and better able to enjoy it. We should never have had the least bit of interest in that online crap to begin with. You are literally blind to this truth because you can never disabuse yourself of the wanker’s delusion. See how pernicious it is (if you could see)? Men need help because many literally can’t see this, due to digital porn being evolutionarily novel and so not accounted for by defense mechanisms we should have had built into our psychology. We should simply not be aroused by images, but need more stimuli that only real women can provide before allowing sexual release. The good news is you can willfully train yourself to be healthy like this. When you practice nofap for a long time like I have done, you notice the unrealness of porn and fully realize how insane it is to use it. It then ceases to be arousing while real women become more so. Then you see the wanker’s delusion for the literal insanity that it is and shudder at opinions like I am replying to here. Masturbation is a horror that you should be afraid of, and when you realize how much harm it does to what could have been your sex life, you will be afraid and bitterly regret your prior delusional actions. Maybe you will never get it, but at least I tried, and some readers might be helped before it is too late, which is why it is crucial to include nofap in male sexualist ideology.

Eivind Berge said...

Hello Milan, welcome back and thanks for linking to those books! I didn't know there was a book titled The War On Sex published as late as 2017 when I thought us male sexualists were just about the last bit of resistance. Looks well worth reading:

The War On Sex
by David Halperin, Trevor Hoppe

Publication date 2017
Topics sex, sexuality, prison, justice, HIV, sex work, carceral state, sex offender, criminal law, politics
Collection opensource
Language English
By examining how the ever-intensifying war on sex affects both privileged and marginalized communities, the essays collected here show why sexual liberation is indispensable to social justice and human rights.

Trevor Hoppe -- Foreword: Thinking Sex and Justice / David Halperin -- Introduction: The War on Sex

Part I: The Politics of Sex

Roger Lancaster -- The New Pariahs: Sex, Crime, and Punishment in America / Judith Levine -- Sympathy for the Devil: Why Progressives Haven't Helped the Sex Offender, Why They Should, and How They Can / Owen Daniel-McCarter, Erica Meiners, and R. Noll -- Queer Disavowal: "Controversial Crimes" and Building Abolition / J. Wallace Borchert -- A New Iron Closet: Failing to Extend the Spirit of Lawrence v. Texas to Prisons and Prisoners / Mary Anne Case -- Seeing the Sex and Justice Landscape through the Vatican's Eyes: The War on Gender and the Seamless Garment of Sexual Rights

Part II: The Invention of the Sex Offender

Regina Kunzel -- Sex Panic, Psychiatry, and the Expansion of the Carceral State / Scott de Orio -- The Creation of the Modern Sex Offender / Laura Mansnerus -- For What They Might Do: A Sex Offender Exception to the Constitution

Part III: Sex Work and the Trouble with Trafficking

Melissa Petro -- The "Hooker Teacher" Tells All / Elizabeth Bernstein -- Carceral Politics as Gender Justice? The "Traffic in Women" and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime, Sex, and Rights / Carol Queen and Penelope Saunders -- California’s Proposition 35 and the Trouble with Trafficking

Part IV: Making HIV a Crime

Sean Strub -- HIV: Prosecution or Prevention? HIV Is Not a Crime / Gregory Tomso -- HIV Monsters: Gay Men, Criminal Law, and the New Political Economy of HIV / Hans Tao-Ming Huang -- HIV Care as Social Rehabilitation: Medical Governance, the AIDS Surveillance Industry, and Therapeutic Citizenship in Neoliberal Taiwan

Part V: Resistance

Maurice Tomlinson -- The New War on Sex: A Report from the Global Front Lines / Alexis Agathocleous -- Building a Movement for Justice: Doe v. Jindal and the Campaign against Louisiana’s Crime Against Nature Statute / Amber Hollibaugh -- Bringing Sex to the Table of Justice

Eivind Berge said...

Quoting entire page one of The War on Sex because it's so damn good it reads like a mini-manifesto for sexualism:

The wold is waging a war on sex.

It is a quiet war. It is often an undercover war. It has gone unnoticed, for the most part, except by those who have been affected by it, directly or indirectly.

And yet it is hardly an unpopular war. Many people, when asked to endorse it, do so enthusiastically. It has aroused little indignation, opposition, or resistance. It is painfully difficult to contest. It relies on a mainstream consensus -- if not exactly in its favor, at least in support of the general principles in whose name it is fought.

It is also a terribly destructive war. It has devastated civil liberties. It has had grave consequences for the autonomy and agency of women, young people, the disadvantaged, and the vulnerable [AND NOT LEAST MEN!]. It has ruined many, many lives. It has had a particularly violent impact on those who are socially marginalized, socially stigmatized, or racially marked, or who cherish nonstandard sexual practices. Sexual freedom has lost significant ground to it -- ground that will take a very long time to recover.

Costly for some, the war on sex has turned out to be immensely profitable and useful for others -- not only for politicians and academics, therapists and police officers, journalists and moralists, but also for a multitude of interested parties. It is not about to end any time soon. And, as in most wars, fog and shadows, propaganda and disinformation conceal the contours of events. So we need to understand what is going on in order to confront it and to challenge it. And we need to do that now.

Eivind Berge said...

And now, Bob Dylan is of course also a sexual abuser.

The now-68-year-old woman, identified in the lawsuit as J.C., alleges that "over a six-week period" the singer "befriended and established an emotional connection" with her and ultimately sexually abused her multiple times between April and May of 1965 when she was 12.

Will people ever get tired of this war or are we just going to let it eat what is left of the world too? I used to think at some point it would get normalized that everyone is an abuser, yadda yadda so what let’s snap out of it, but no, accusing everyone doesn’t seem to have that effect. Somehow the juggernaut maintains that illusion of shock and seriousness even when geriatric women play the victim from 56 years ago. It just doesn't get too surreal ever.

Milan Horvath said...

I am glad you like the book(s). To be rather safe than sorry, it would be better to download it.
It happened in past, links that I've posted here were deactivated on copyright infringement grounds. Seems that you have some "fans" that are very serious about intellectual property.

I do not agree with everything in this book, as it seems to be written mostly by left-liberals, who want to make world a "better place".
But here we can see what word (left)liberal should stand for, instead of those petty-bourgeois hypocrites nowadays, who are supporting Victorian/Calvinist morals with fake tolerance sprinkle.

About that second book- yes, it is mainly about homosexuals, but fact, that science outcome is frequently adjusted to be in order with ideological or financial interests, is universal.

Regarding last news from Apple, I am awaiting that in few years compulsory camera in every child's room should be installed with direct connection to some NGO servers, and boys at the age of 12 (except some breeding exemplars) will be castrated as potential sex offenders.
I am just joking, but nowadays you'll never know. Everything is so surreal, that it starts to be rather comical than tragical.

When I joked about that boys castration, another article(I've recently stumbled upon) came to my mind. is 20 years old, but still interesting.
(It is in German, but G-translator seems to give an satisfactory translation.)
I cannot understand how the bloody hell this country have a nerve to lecture someone on human rights.

Milan Horvath said...

...just came to my mind
I haven't been here for a while so I don't know if you or others have noticed it.
It is more than half year old thing, but I think it is worth mentioning it here anyway.

....either they drive you to suicide or at least they screw up your life so much, that stress will affect your physical health...

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Barbara Hewson was great. I knew she died but not about that suspension from the legal profession and reinstatement after she could no longer work anyway. Just a small symbolic thing she got there at the end, but they will absolutely crush you if you stand up to any of this.

Dom Krauer said...

"In case, someone is interested (and have plenty of time) I recommend some interesting books, I am just reading:
(I do not necessarily endorse all views of uploader)"

Nice to see you back Milan. I would recommend buying (if you're not dirt poor) any pro male-sexuality book in order to help keep these books in print and reward the author's courage. However, given that the femihags will likely ban all such books as 'extremist content' soon, I guess downloading them for free is a way to ensure their preservation.

Off the top of my head, here are some other books that every Male Seuxalist should own and read and re-read :

David Thomas - Not Guilty:In Defence Of Modern Man (1993)

Steve Moxon - The Woman Racket (2008)

Russ Kick : Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong (2005)

Ernest Belfort Bax - The Fraud of Feminism (1908!)

Dom Krauer said...

Can't put into words what a sick society we live in to put an old man who has given our world so much, through an ordeal like this. As I get older and start to suffer from things like arthritis and prostate enlargement, the idea of spending even a day in prison increasingly terrifies me. I can't imagine what it must be like for somebody in their 80's, especially if they've lived for the most part a privileged life.

Former UK home secretary Jacqui Smith calls for online misogyny to be treated as terrorism. This is the same creature who passed the law in the UK which made it illegal for British citizens to have sex with U16s abroad, even if above the age of consent in the country in which they had the sex.

Milan Horvath said...

Thanks for suggestions, especially first book you've mentioned was on my wish-list for longer time. (I saw sample from it somewhere in past and it was very interesting)

Seems it is possible to borrow it at, thanks for reminding it to me.

and this is even possible to read without logging in

I have no problem to support authors,
but I want to avoid Amazon (or other of these neo-feudals) as much as possible.
And these books are incredibly hard to get in normal bookshop.
In case of used book, it wouldn't help author anyway.

Milan Horvath said...

.it will be probably nothing new, but anyway...
As I've said, what is happening now should be (classical) liberal's cause rather than mere men's right or pro-sex thing.

All things that IMO should be sacrosanct in free society are slowly? eroding.

-presumption of innocence
-strict territoriality in criminal law (except treason maybe)
-right to consume information(without limits), free speech
-proportionality of criminal law
-equality before law
-statue of limitations
-inviolability of privacy
and many other....

When media will make something a problem, it will be a problem. When they will suggest an solution, majority will accept it. Population is slowly reprogrammed.
Unfortunately we do not have any objective journalism nowadays, there is mainstream which is crafting public opinion according to wishes of shareholders and/or orthodoxies of redaction.
Dissenting voices are not tolerated within redaction.
And then we have some alternative media, which are even worse.
I don‘t know if it is an intent or coincidence (shouldn‘t be generalised) but their „work“ is degrading any possible opposition to mainstream narratives, into semi-literate paranoid fool‘s delusion.
I do not know what newspaper to read any more.

When I am observing political debates in my region, I can see that even political discourse was Americanised, there are two major camps strongly resembling present Democrats and Republicans.
(this is just hyperbole don't take it seriously):

-judeo-christian values guy,
traditional family endangered by vile gender-benders who want to adopt innocent children to possibly ritually abuse them or so...there are paedophiles everywhere now, because of that damned 1960’s and their loose morals.
Filthy sand monkeys came here to rape our innocent white maidens.
There is lack of freedom of speech, if we couldn’t screech our racist shit, but we have no problem to criminalise debating age of consent cuz that only satanic paedophiles would do .
We will also protect children against all moral decline, whether they or their parents want it or not.Rotary machine gun to every household,death penalty for every criminal.

-progressive pseudo-left poseur,
despising everyone who don’t believe in toxic masculinity, love of all sexualities (except those involving minors- which now means people up to 25)
Believe in sex equality but only when women are in disadvantage, when men are… a man!
Letting children play explorative games(between themselves) or letting them enjoy skinny dipping is abuse, but confusing their minds with trannies, gender-bender bullshit is good teaching/parenting.
We are very ecological,especially when it comes to proclamatory acts and when it is not endangering our comfort.
We should solve all third world people problems by relocating them to Europe.
Freedom of speech is important except hate speech, which everything I dislike. We pretend to believe in science, but we have no problem of using pseudo-religious narratives invented by tradcocks like "murder of soul", or (sexual) innocence.
If someone is contesting our “science” with contradictory findings he is not scientifical but fraud and should be banned for spreading of disinformation.
There should be 70% taxation.
Every tiny aspect of our lives should be heavily regulated, because our MOTHER state knows better.

It could be more elaborated, it was just what came to my mind.
..talking about poseurs... Monkey dust is probably well known here.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, classical liberalism is dead. We male sexualists are the closest heirs to the classical liberalist tradition, except it is called far-right extremism now. Even so-called libertarians have abandoned these principles, certainly when it comes to sexuality.

The mainstream is reduced to the two camps you describe, and that's not a very hyperbolic description either. Neither of them have any interest in sacrosanct rights. Well, except gun ownership in the US, which is the least salubrious right they could have stuck to. Everything else is up for grabs -- no freedom of speech, have to fear incrimination by information, no sexual rights except the symbolic LGBT, and infinite punishment for ever-expanding sex crimes with erosion of every conceivable legal principle that used to protect us. It literally feels like living in that Monkey Dust video (which I hadn't seen before, no; somehow the whole series eluded me), where moral standards we used to take for granted simply don't exist anymore. And they seemed to go away in the blink of an eye like that too, with hardly any debate. The jury in Norway -- what should be considered the very most sacrosanct liberal and democratic principle, definitely worthy of a civil war -- was removed with no street protest whatsoever.

Milan Horvath said...

Regarding all those verbal "crimes" that are plaguing European criminal lawbooks, it would be irony of fate, that only country we could speak freely would be same country where most of this shit originates. (thanks to their relatively good constitution)

Someone would be disgusted what dark times were those in past..... But in my case, only thing that came to my mind is: Aren't you selling magic version of DeLorean somebody?

Eivind Berge said...

"New York's Child Victims Act was introduced in 2019 and temporarily suspended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims. The deadline for bringing such claims ran out last Saturday and the lawsuit against Dylan was filed the previous day in New York Supreme Court. More than 9,000 civil suits have been filed in the two years the law has been in place."

It's even worse than I knew. The whole point of a statute of limitations is precisely that it be final and not changed later. If we can't even trust promises made by law -- the definition of rule of law -- then we have no security ever from a legal system which is simply a gang of thugs who can do anything they want. Under normal circumstances this should and perhaps still does worry liberals, except the magic ingredient of sex makes it perfectly acceptable, even mandatory -- such is the crimen exceptum juggernaut that is antisex hysteria.

In Dylan's case, it seems the woman is treating hear youthful sexuality like a pension plan. Luckily to her, society is so gullible it believes she spent her entire working life in silent traumatization until this much needed opportunity to come forward materialized. It is also contradictory:

"It's alleged that over a six-week period in April and May 1965, Dylan — who would have been 23 at the time — abused her, provided her with drugs and alcohol and threatened physical violence, 'leaving her emotionally scarred and psychologically damaged to this day'."


"She says Dylan had his 'evil' way with her by establishing an 'emotional connection' and grooming her using his status as an enormously famous musician."

So, which one is it? Was she "groomed" (before that was even a concept, so how did she know to feel bad about it?) or threatened? Why would he need threats if his status was so attractive and there was an emotional connection? This is such a hodgepodge of feminist clichés it seems altogether unreliable, and in any case it is insane to bring up now.

Eivind Berge said...

Ah, this is why she needed to make it sound worse than a love affair reinterpreted in a feminist light, which of course would be enough to make it "rape" today:

"The lingering physical and emotional damage she has suffered have not only incurred continuing medical expenses but led to 'permanent' injuries that have 'incapacitated' her, it is claimed. JC also alleges the abuse was malicious, so entitling her not only to compensatory but also punitive damages."

Gotta put malice in there too to get those punitive damages; never mind how contrived it sounds that Dylan was threatening her at the same time she was a total groupie.

Regarding the redefinition of incel culture to terrorism and how their speech will be suppressed and even criminal to read... I wonder what that will do to people who are studying them or simply curious? Will it really be like the situation with child porn where only police end especially hallowed NGOs can evaluate this information? And will they respect the difference between incel culture, MRAs and male sexualism?

In Norway we have these goody two shoes "experts" who follow extremism without believing in it so they can write books and make politically correct statements in the media. Would they be criminal in the UK?

Milan Horvath said...

I have a bunch of pissed young guys who cannot get laid,who have nothing to lose, and as solution to their woes, they see as appropriate to ban their forum and recommend them some woke/feminist therapy.
That's brilliant, it will help for sure......they are pure geniuses

They opened possibility of possessing/viewing criminalisation with CP law, and nobody opposed (because all were cowards, nobody didn't want to look like a nonce),then they criminalised viewing terrorist content. I remember when there was terrorist attack in Christchurch,
NZ citizens were warned that if they would read attacker's manifesto, they could be prosecuted and face to up to 14 years in prison.
Last year in Czech Republic there was some bloke who had some stupid comments about this attack on FB, he was facing up to 15 years sentence for approving terrorism, fortunately he got only suspended sentence.
In Europe there is also spreading law that is forbidding to approve or belittle consequences of sexual intercourse between adult and minor. Hungary will be probably next on the list.

BTW: It is interesting history with CP law. It was always a salami tactic.
For example in Germany when first law prohibiting CP was passed (I think it was in 1985)
It was prohibiting only materials containing real persons under age of consent(which was then 14) participating in explicit sexual activities (not mere nudity), criminalised was only production and distribution .(to this point it would be OK)

Then(I hope I am correct):
2003-sexualised???? nudity
2008-youth up to 18
???-virtual persons, adults looking younger
2014-all nudity under 18, viewing/accessing

2030-everything other than nonbinary tranny/granny caviar with musicalised background of Cathy MacKinnon's lectures.

Funny thing is, that they can talk various shit about CP or terrorist content, and ordinary layperson cannot legally verify if that is true. If they look at it anyway, they couldn't talk about that publicly as they would self-incriminate themselves (statue of limitations will not be helpful soon either seems)

I am not fan of verbal crimes either, but viewing/possessing criminalisation of immaterial things is another level it is reminding me WW2 when listening exile government radio was punished with bullet in the head.
When someone is telling me that : "We live in most free times ever"
(and I hear that more frequently than I want to)
I feel strong urge to kick that person in the head.

What to say, even though I don't believe in collapse of civilisation I sometimes wish for one big restart, or to have at least some possibility to change what is happening now.

BTW: It surprised me that you don't know Monkey Dust, when I stumbled upon this show it was because of Paedofinder General MEME.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh, yes, I've seen the Paedofinder General, just didn't associate it with the name Monkey Dust. That's great stuff, and couldn't be done today because it's not satire anymore.

I wonder if nofap will be dragged along with the criminalization, though I suspect not because that would require some actual understanding of what it is about and how sexuality works. The antisex juggernaut operates mindlessly based on banal principles like a cartoonish definition of "child" and no distinction between fantasy and reality, so for once their stupidity works in our favor and it will probably be safe to promote not masturbating or watching porn for the rest of our lifetimes. If worse comes to worst, I'll be a pure nofap guru then.

Eivind Berge said...

I want to make one more comment on the DailyMail article on Bob Dyan, because I have yet to mention its most disturbing aspect. On top of these ridiculous old claims of abuse, this absurdly feminist writer Tom Leonard also reaches back into the 60s to redefine those who still remember them fondly as victims and abusers. If a woman says she was having fun, then that too is presented as yet another accusation:

The reclusive Dylan, now 80, has already been caught in the glare a year ago, after British actress and singer Dana Gillespie listed him as just one of many rock stars in those decades who seduced her when she was a teenager — in his case, when she had just turned 16.... “Gillespie, for her part, insisted she had no regrets and never saw herself as a victim, but Dylan cannot have enjoyed her revelations.

This sick society holds with religious conviction that a 16-year-old girl's only capacity is to be abused, and if she says she enjoyed it then it must be shoehorned into the #MeToo narrative, all of which shows sexual misconduct and nothing else. And even worse, it is assumed that Dylan himself “cannot have enjoyed” reminiscing about his young love life, because he too must be on board with the antisex bigotry. Can you imagine a more hateful and life-denying worldview than feminism? Well, yes, when I am also jailed for writing a comment like this and you for reading it then feminism is complete, which is frighteningly near.

Why is an “abuse” accusation inherently more reliable than a memory of good times? If we cared about taking women seriously, shouldn't these carry weight too? But feminism doesn’t care about taking women seriously or believing them unless they play the victim role; it only cares about drumming up hate and abuse and punishment, a 100% killjoy ideology.

Milan Horvath said...

Surprisingly, there is a lot of scepticism in a comment section. I wonder, what would comments look like, if they weren't frequently deleted in some (many) media.
ad DailyMail.....

Eivind Berge said...

That's good to see but the grassroots does nothing to stop the persecution. The R. Kelly trial also currently about "abusing" a 16-year-old:

"I told him I was 19," she testified. "I was 16." Pace said that day at his home, Kelly told her to walk past him and take off parts of her bathing suit, and that when she was nude he performed oral sex on her. She said she felt uncomfortable and decided to tell him her real age. "I told him I was actually 16," Pace testified.

In her testimony, Pace said she showed Kelly her state ID with her real age, and that he responded by saying, "What is that supposed to mean?" Pace testified Kelly told her she should "continue to tell everyone she was 19 and to act 21." She told him she was a virgin, and Kelly said "that's good" in response, Pace testified. She said he had her perform oral sex on him, and that he took her virginity.

Pace delivered her testimony stoically, telling the court she is now the mother of four children with another one on the way, due "any day." Kelly looked on during her testimony dressed in a gray suit with dark-rimmed glasses, occasionally speaking with his attorneys.

Oh what a poor victim who has the amazing strength to relate that horrific abuse stoically! Even lying about her age makes her no less a victim to this sick society. It passes for "aggravated abuse" even though 16 is legal in most US states. And R. Kelly is actually charged under the Mann Act too for transporting women across state lines for "immoral" purposes, that prototypically racist law from the Black Codes/Jim Crow era which is still in effect because feminist antisex bigotry trumps BLM. They are really reaching here and the evidence is decidedly underwhelming compared to the monster he was made out to be. Which is why they also need to prop it up with the "racketeering" crap. An obvious lynching of a black man enabled by feminism.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, har du læst "Heksenes forsvarere" af Jan Guillou? I bogen sammenlignes nutidens sexhysteri (specielt mod pædofile) med heksejagten i middelalderen i Sverige. Bogen er mere end 10 år gammel men er omhyggeligt veldokumenteret ud fra historiske kilder. Den findes på svensk og dansk - på norsk ved jeg ikke.

Eivind Berge said...

I remember Swedish author Jan Guillou was sort of famous in Norway some years ago, but I never read any of him and it seems he dropped out of the spotlight. I see his book about witch-hunts, published in 2002, is available in Norwegian and certainly looks interesting, though it obviously did nothing to stop the current one:

Heksenes forsvarere
En historisk reportasje
Jan Guillou; Henning Kolstad (Oversetter)

I 1608 fattet Karl IX en skjebnesvanger beslutning som kom til å medføre et hundreårig blodbad. Det gamle testamentet ble gjeldende svensk lov, og med støtte i Andre Mosebok 22:18 "En trollkvinne skal du ikke la leve", ble veien banet for at mer enn 300 svenske kvinner ble brent på bålet som hekser, uskyldig dømt. I sin historiske reportasje følger forfatteren sporet fra heksenes og bødlenes bål, helt frem til dagens bestyrtelse rundt påstått masseofring av barn på svarte messer, fortrengte incestminner og barnehjem som sies å ha vært møteplasser for voldtektssekter.

Milan Horvath said...

I would never ever thought, when I was younger, that world would look like this.
I imagined that society would be more relaxed and easygoing.
Now we have unimaginable modern technologies combined with morals from 16-th century and some fake illusion of permissive society.
As someone who grew up in early post-communist country, I've always thought that modern technologies and wealth are closely interconnected with cultured permissive society.

Maybe it was because people from eastern bloc, they looked up rather to W Europe than to US.
Secular society,being able to see morals in shades of grey, tolerance of nudity, porn magazines visible at petrol pumps, mild-mannered policemen,tolerated prostitution,decriminalised homosexuality,genuinely intellectual debates in TV........

Sobering from illusion (that wealth and technology means cultured nice society) came with looking to Gulf states. Countries where you have unimaginable wealth, all possible goods from all around the world,abandoned expensive cars, yet they still are chopping off heads, limbs, dicks...publicly on squares

I do really worry,that we could easily bring those barbarian manners to our continent very soon
(and not only because of immigration).
Are you sure, that, if there would be a referendum(after long tear-jerking campaign with stories of "survivors" ), whether we should publicly castrate sex-offenders- would it be rejected?
First we could start with child sexual murderers, then with.......................................................................................................harassers, rubberneckers, wrongthinkers

I know it is an exaggeration, but would anybody in 70's believe me, if I will unfold the future for him.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how they will manage castration of female sex offenders (they exist too, they are the feminists last invention)? Removal of the ovaries, maybe?

Eivind Berge said...

I fundamentally, conceptually disagree that women can be sex offenders, but that is one of the delusions that came with feminism, yes, and I am sure the only debate will be how to make castration "equal" for them too when that gets established as punishment. Since feminists believe women can rape, presumably there must also be a way to castrate them in their deranged view. I suppose removing the ovaries -- called ovarectomy or more technically oophorectomy -- would do the trick since that's where testosterone is produced in women. In reality, women have so low testosterone levels to begin with that they already would count as castrated if there were men, but that won't change the need to do something like this to satisfy antisex bigotry.

Eivind Berge said...

Historically, women could commit sexual immorality (such as incest) but not sexual offenses (that by definition consist of violating a victim). That is the "right" view, except I don't agree with morality-based sexual legislation either. Now society has gone full retard and started pretending women can commit sexual offenses, a situation contrived entirely to punish women for nothing in order to make them "equal."

Eivind Berge said...

This is just amusing because in effect it cracks down on masturbation which is actually harmful to men, but it shows the power of antisex when sexuality can't even be tolerated in the porn industry: OnlyFans bans sexually explicit content:

However, it is not because anymore cares about male sexual health, but because the payment processors are scared shitless of "facilitating sex trafficking or the spread of child sexual abuse material." So the motivation is just the usual feminist bigotry, but we can laugh because here it has the opposite of its intended effect when you discount the wanker's delusion whose flipside makes these morons believe girls can be "abused" virtually. Girls will get less money for facilitating male self-abuse and instead be more encouraged to actually put out. Luckily for men, when the "trafficking" and "abuse" happens in real life it is less of an issue to antisex bigotry.

Eivind Berge said...

Or I shouldn't say "when it happens in real life" because that's the only place it can happen! Except it usually doesn't because the definitions are also messed up, with "abuse" being just because someone is a minor and "trafficking" because someone gets paid.

Evidently I am not entirely disabused from these delusions myself and need to refine my rhetorics. I should pick up the torch after Gary Wilson and write more about nofap.

Anonymous said...

The good news is the embarrassing feminist USA defeat in Afghanistan shows how incompetent the feminist regime has truly become, and therefore its influence is in decline and should not exist for much longer. Meanwhile, the more pro-male Russian and Chinese influence is on the rise. We must keep up our advocacy while the feminist beast implodes.

Milan Horvath said...

I am no fan of USA but:

-I think, it was not defeat in Afghanistan, they've just decided to withdraw the army from there
(to possibly deploy it elsewhere I suppose, or just gain some political capital at home).
It is normal that power vacuum is filled with Taliban now, because Afghanistan is Taliban and vice versa.

-be careful,what you wish for, with PRC and Russia.
They are no friends of personal freedom, and they even do not bother to pretend they are
(like USA).

BTW they've already internalised many of Anglo-Saxon manners,when it comes to sexual criminal law(at least Russia). Strong decline of power of USA would be helpful, if that would happened 30 years ago, now it is too late.

Anonymous said...

Another one wants the payola:

Milan Horvath said...

When I think, that nothing can surprise me any more.

Eivind Berge said...

Non-sexualised photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under US law. However, Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker".

Well, like I said they attack sexuality in every kaleidoscopic infinite recursive way. Whenever you shine light on sexuality you find criminality, and in this case they also had to make up the sexuality which would never have occurred to me from that image. So the lawyer associates that with a sex worker? That's what he is into? Yet somehow he is not the perverted one?

Milan Horvath said...

I wonder if this prick will win.
I don't know if that's true, but few years ago, I read somewhere, that he was using his "fame" to attract girls (probably Nirvana fans).
Usually I feel depressed, when I am reading news (about these things), but this is so surreal that I am laughing- It's a comedy...

Seems that there will be dark times in few years for many European producers of old children's programmes/films from up to 90's. And sculptor who made Jeanneke Pis will get civil commitment as dangerous urolagniac paedophile, if he is still alive. Now everything is possible.

It is not necessary to watch Monkey Dust, because we are living it.

Milan Horvath said...

.... and in this case they also had to make up the sexuality which would never have occurred to me from that image. So the lawyer associates that with a sex worker? That's what he is into? Yet somehow he is not the perverted one?

Once I read something about COPINE scale, brutal sketch came to my mind:
How forensic experts/policemen/prosecutors are determining seriousness of CP on COPINE scale?
Forensic expert is in a room with big scale on the wall (for measuring human height) computer and lubricant.....and I'll leave the rest on your imagination.....

Anonymous said...

Eivind, any idea of what to vote in the Norwegian election if opposition to sex hysteria is the most important issue? I know FrP want a sex offender registry and are pro chemical castration, so that's a hard no, but I don't know if it's been an issue at all for any parties to reinstate the jury? Is that just a done deal that every party agrees with? That's strange, if it indeed is the case. It seems like the sort of thing which should be a controversial issue, especially since it's not long ago that it was removed.

Eivind Berge said...

The only little iota of opposition to the sex war that I've heard from any of the parties is that Høyre now wants to abolish the sex purchase law and make it legal to pay for sex again. I don't think any want to reinstate the jury or consider this controversial since they are all in agreement. It feels wrong to vote for any party that hates me, men and sexuality so profoundly and fundamentally rejects democracy since they don't want us to have the right to a jury either.

As I wrote on Facebook:

Det er valg i Norge snart, men ingen jeg kan stemme på. Jeg er den verste samfunnsfienden siden Quisling, men selv Quisling hadde et parti. Det fantes en Nasjonal Samling og skorter ikke på likesinnede i den retning i dagens politikk heller, men krigen mot seksualitet er så total at det ikke finnes et parti som tar seksualiteten sin side, bare meg alene.

Trenger det være sånn? Er det virkelig så få som er for seksualiteten at vi ikke kan ha et parti? Hvem blir med å starte Seksualistpartiet?

Plattformen er alt jeg står for på bloggen, formulert i et manifest som må inneholde et spesifikt, fullstendig alternativ til sedelighetslovene, som jeg også holder på med. Og like viktig som å endre sedelighetslovene må vi kjempe for å gjeninnføre juryen. Kort sagt partiet for seksuell frihet og mot overdreven kriminalisering. Alle offerløse seksualforbrytelser slik som sexkjøp og lavalder må avskaffes, og de gjenværende slik som voldtekt må defineres fornuftig, ikke slik feministene gjør det.

Hvis du ikke tror vi trenger et seksualistparti, så les The War on Sex og se om du får øynene opp.

So how about starting a party for the next election in 2025? Of course it will have no chance, but at least we will be at the level of Quisling rather than a total outcast from society, with the little bit of legitimacy it lends to be part of the official system. We need 5000 signatures to get a party registered and I don't know if that is realistic, particularly if they need to be physical signatures. But we can try. Who wants to join the effort of starting the Sexualist Party?

Anonymous said...

Erna Solberg also brags about her influence on the "Dark Room" cases (look at the recent party leader debate in Arendal), where notably, a policeman was arrested merely for possessing written erotica. Høyre is not a very good party to vote for if you're against anti-sex hysteria in other words. It is rather insane that our options seem to be between parties like this and parties that wish to further increase Muslim immigration - which will undoubtedly increase the rates of actual rape. Not that those parties are any more sex-friendly, with their clear feminist profiles.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, there comes a point where the "lesser evil" approach to voting doesn't work because I can't hold my nose long enough to select a ballot in the stench of antisex bigotry.

Milan Horvath said...

I am not Norwegian citizen or resident.
But generally speaking I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have "de-moralising" of sexual criminal law as part of some struggle for classically liberal values/permissive society, rather than as an issue on it's own.

However, little demonstrative political party could be way to gain some publicity.

Eivind if it is not too much private thing, I wonder what are your political stances on the other social issues (other than sexual criminal law)-i.e. taxation,drug policy,hate speech,immigration, privacy/surveillance.........and so on

BTW: If someone here is unfamiliar with , there is possibility of online borrowing books for free if you'll sign up there (I've discovered this option only recently).
I found there pieces like this

Eivind Berge said...

The problem with not making a special deal out of sex laws is the other parties -- with the possible exception of the overt Christians in KrF -- already think of themselves as socially permissive. We need a Sexualist Party because others already claim to be liberal but mean it in symbol only, like gays can get married and gender is a matter of preference. Voters wouldn't know we are any better if we didn't make sexual freedom an explicit issue; indeed we would come across as less permissive if we didn't buy into all the wokeness.

If I did manage to get into politics, then sure I would need policy for other areas as well. My background is libertarian thinking, and I still generally feel that way, but am more aware of its weaknesses now. Since I am aware of ecological limits, resource depletion and imminent collapse, I don't think the free market sacred anymore and would support a good bit of regulation and taxation to promote more sustainable behavior. Which I don't really believe is possible since Gail Tverberg seems right there is no hope anyway, but we can try. This doesn't mean I support naive "green" agendas like shut down the oil industry and build lots of windmills, which will lead to even faster collapse. As I see it we have a short time no matter what we do, and the best way to make it meaningful is to resist the war on sex so there is at least less persecution; these other things are just theater since we are going to collapse anyway and a prosperous future is certainly impossible.

Drug policy, I support an end to criminalization there too. That doesn't mean hard drugs should be legal products; they should be regulated with no worse punishment than confiscation (except for personal use), including of any profits and maybe some fines. I think government is entitled to prevent social infrastructure being used to deliver harmful goods, and therefore can regulate drugs and other consumer products, but you should be the owner of your own body and not be punished for whatever you do to yourself.

Hate speech laws: I am horrified of these and totally oppose them.

Privacy/surveillance: I am all for privacy except as balanced by national security. It is reasonable to be looking out for terrorists and such to some extent, but it needs to be limited by an absolute right to possess information. If they can’t punish us for digital “material,” whether sexual or otherwise, surveillance isn’t quite so dangerous either, is it?

Immigration: I am generally positive to immigrants, but realize it’s not going to work to have totally open borders.

Milan Horvath said...

Seems, that we have +/- similar opinions(which isn't surprising).
I will elaborate it eventually, when I have time.

.I am curious (as I am not much into collapse theories), if Gail included into her calculations a possibility of nuclear energy.

.When it comes to surveillance I think, that not only possessing laws should be abolished,
but also some centralised databases(e.g. health records without possibility to opt-out),
data retention law and face recognition system for public places.

Good old manners should be reinstated: you wanna track someone? get an judge's permission!
....anonymous sim cards,higher or no limit on cash transfers etc.....

Eivind Berge said...

Speaking of surveillance, this is absolutely astonishingly frightening, truly the next level, so far only in Autstralia:

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 gives the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) three new powers for dealing with online crime:

Data disruption warrant: gives the police the ability to "disrupt data" by modifying, copying, adding, or deleting it.

Network activity warrant: allows the police to collect intelligence from devices or networks that are used, or likely to be used, by those subject to the warrant

Account takeover warrant: allows the police to take control of an online account (e.g. social media) for the purposes of gathering information for an investigation.

What makes this legislation even worse is that there is no judicial oversight. A data disruption or network activity warrant could be issued by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a judge's warrant is not needed.

When presented with such warrant from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Australian companies, system administrators etc. must comply, and actively help the police to modify, add, copy, or delete the data of a person under investigation. Refusing to comply could have one end up in jail for up to ten years, according to the new bill.

Required hacking activities could include: altering, copying and deleting data; intercepting and modifying communications; surveilling networks; and changing account credentials.

Politicians justify the need for the bill by stating that it is intended to fight child exploitation (CSAM) and terrorism. However, the bill itself enables law enforcement to investigate any "serious Commonwealth offence" or "serious State offence that has a federal aspect".

So it's not enough to have total surveillance anymore. If I were in Australia the cops could just go in and edit my blog posts if they didn't like them, huh? Is this for real?!

And of course they justify it with antisex, plus what used to be called "CSEM" has morphed into "CSAM" since the E for "exploitation" wasn't demonic enough so they had to categorically change it to A for "abuse."

Eivind Berge said...

If this becomes a common police method, we can no longer trust our social media histories. Anything can be secretly modified by police to serve their agenda. So from now on we at the very least need to keep that possibility in the back of our minds when we read anything. I can't be sure if my old blog posts are the way I left them anymore, and of course this can not only be used to suppress information, but also to incriminate you by putting whatever they want to find in your online profiles.

Governments get nastier as we get closer to collapse, until they can't keep their grip anymore like just happened in Afghanistan. Gail explains how it was due to the energy problem:

"The way energy limits play out is not at all intuitive. Most people assume that we will run out of oil, leading to a spike in oil prices. We will then transition to renewables. As I see it, this understanding is completely wrong. Limited energy supply first leads to a need for simplification: Stepping back from Afghanistan would be one such type of simplification. It would save energy supplies and reduce the need for greater tax revenue or added debt."

Eivind Berge said...

Unfortunately, relying more on surveillance and using technology for what it's worth in order to control people are also ways to simplify. Free speech is more complicated, so it won't be tolerated anymore now that government power is so precarious.

Milan Horvath said...

Seems, that my previous comment(from 30.8.) was lost/not sent. I thought, that you are just busy.(probably some technical difficulty)

Briefly, I wanted to say that, that I have quite similar opinions, except that collapse part.
On the other side I am not saying, that there won't be problems with overpopulation and natural resources overconsumption.

Anonymous said...

Another charade episode with a tragic end:

Anonymous said...

Oscar De La Hoya Says He Was Raped By an 'Older Woman' When He Was 13:

Anonymous said...

Når skal du på TV, Eivind?

holocaust22 said...

Good news. The supreme court in colombia just ruled that 14 year old girls can marry older men. Everything is impermanent. The number 18 won't last.

Eivind Berge said...

Also, Apple had to delay their malware:

OnlyFans cancelled their ban on sexual explicitness, and The Atlantic has a long article exposing the new puritanism:

However, I will believe that any of this indicates a reversal rather than a temporary setback to feminism when I see some real changes that get men freed from prison -- or for example R. Kelly not convicted because juries don't take the bullshit fake abuse anymore.

Anonymous said...

That is truly great news that Colombia maintained its stance on 14 year old marriage. Latin countries seem to be much better on youth sex. As the US influence declines in the world, I would imagine that Latin America will only get better culturally speaking. We should all go there!

If you want to start a political party, its name should be the youth rights party because it needs to be something positive. The sexualist party is a terrible name as it sounds disgusting.

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree about the name and still prefer the Sexualist Party. The war on sex is so much bigger than an attack on youth rights, and I oppose all of it. I want to signal in no uncertain terms that I am taking the side of sexuality, not hide behind a more palatable name. If you think “sexualist” sounds disgusting then that means you have been affected by the antisex propaganda yourself and can’t see sex as something positive. No, it won’t be easy to get any supporters no matter what we call it when sex is so absurdly demonized, but I certainly want to be openly and avowedly pro-sex come hell or high water.

The Sexualist Party will resist all bad sex laws, everything from age of consent to prostitution laws and the feminist definition of rape. We are also anti-masturbation, or more generally put anti-supernormal-stimuli. We seek to protect men from supernormal stimuli (porn) so they can enjoy sex. I don’t know a better name than sexualism to describe sex-positivity all the way like I stand for.

Eivind Berge said...

This is a weird departure from the "brains don't develop until 25" meme. Teens suddenly got very responsible. So responsible, in fact, that they can even override their parents -- when it comes to covid vaccines.

"Parents and doctors slam government over decision to vaccinate all over-12s but to give CHILDREN - not parents - the final say on whether they get Covid jab or not."

Milan Horvath said...

I had problems with publishing here last two weeks, just trying if it is OK now.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it worked now and I just checked my moderation queue and found a bunch more comments that are now published! Sorry about that. I hadn't received email notification for these comments (except the very last one) for some reason, perhaps a Google shadowban on you.

Eivind Berge said...

So to address the delayed comments...

"I am curious (as I am not much into collapse theories), if Gail included into her calculations a possibility of nuclear energy."

Yes, she believes nuclear energy will not save us. One problem is it takes many years to build these power plants and we are already too late, another is the cost of (extracting) the fuel plus all the required safety measures mean nuclear energy won't be cheaper than renewables anyway. We will not be able to pay the price, which means they can't be built and fueled. In practice this works out as too low prices just as with oil being the proximate cause of collapse. Collapse of society is deflationary -- even Max Keiser has realized this:

Right now electricity prices are spiking which gives the impression that we can pay a lot, but that is a false hope. What happens is economic activity fueled by expensive energy simply goes away, and the price goes down again, even if it is too low for producers. The inflation-adjusted cost cannot keep up when the EROEI is too low; this is a limit of physics not just economics.

Someone asked when I will be on TV? Don't know yet, sometime this fall or winter.

Eivind Berge said...

We are looking at electricity prices up to 30 kr/kWh in England now, and it could be coming to Norway as well since there is a new cable connecting the markets:

Not saying it will be quite so dramatic so fast, but we can use this to conceptualize how too expensive energy shuts down the economy and leads to deflation and collapse rather than high prices to finance all the cornucopian wet dreams. 30 kr/kWh is 30 times the current price in Norway. Imagine if your electric bill went up 30 times... you would likely have to spend 100% of your income or more on electricity. Obviously, something has to break. You can reduce some consumption, and maybe your employer raise your wages, but that would in turn lead to more inflation in the energy prices as well. We either don't get the energy because we can't pay for it or drive up the price even more which has the same result. It is simply impossible for prices to keep up with a very high actual cost of energy production. For now, producers can live with less, but not if we are going to finance all the renewable infrastructure and nuclear power plants and lower quality fossil fuels. So we get deflation and collapse, unless a mysterious new energy source appears that is actually cheap to produce, probably requiring an EROEI of 50. And that is not going to happen.

This is also why Gail thinks global warming is nothing to worry about, because we won't be around to produce all those emissions that the models naively assume we can. There won't be much more emissions because the economy simply can't produce them, and that collapse will be an unimaginably greater horror than climate change would have been.

Milan Horvath said...

Thanks for response.

.I don't know what happened, maybe it was just some technical difficulty, but Alphabet
(Facebook, Twitter etc) is known to be forcing their (false)morals up to everyone's throat, so it wouldn't surprise me, if it was by intent.
We are here just small insignificant group of people, to be concern for anybody, but you'll never know.
If I wouldn't be able to publish here, sooner or later I would notice you some other way. Question is whether some occasional commenters would do the same?

Aren't you considering (in long term horizon) moving your blog to another platform/own web?

.These collapse theories seem to me "viscerally" implausible, but I am not expert, so it could be right (hopefully not).
If I could give you some advice: When you'll be in TV (I suppose it will be NRK), try to avoid these things, as they will probably want to paint you as some fool, and these collapse theories (even if they could be right) won't be very helpful.
I don't know how important is this issue for you, but it could hurt "sexualist" cause.

Eivind Berge said...

The NRK documentary is already filmed; I'm just waiting for them to edit it and fit it into their schedule. The last I heard was they were deliberating what the title should be and consulted me with suggestions that I really didn't like because they were so prejudicial to the entire concept of men’s rights. So I am expecting a negative angle, but no, I didn't mention collapse, which I agree would be an unnecessary distraction there and probably weaken my credibility since I have no public basis to be any kind of expert on it. They should interview Gail directly.

I certainly would move my blog when necessary, but need to get the internal links updated on the new system, be ready to handle comments and spam and so on. It is a huge job for which I don’t yet have all the requisite skills, but I am aiming to develop them, hopefully in time for when they would be needed. There might be some downtime if I get cancelled here, but I will be back. It does not seem like we are specifically targeted yet, since we are so small that there is absolutely no fear that we will make a difference to the course of politics. Your problems were likely technical glitches or having to do with the reputation of whatever networks/email services you were using. I see you didn’t use your Google account, so they will be more restrictive with such anonymous channels that spammers can also access.

I think collapse will be more intuitive to you if you learn more about it. If it’s obvious that we can’t continue with fossil fuels for long, consider if renewables are really up to replacing them. There is a nearly 1000-page report just out from Finland which basically agrees with Gail and even cites her:

Or if you prefer an 8-page summary:

For example, best case is we have enough lithium to make ONE generation of cars. But they won’t be made because we hit financial limits first. And these limits will be intuitive to you if you consider the physics involved.

What is really weird when you think about it is how we can have "jobs" that enable us to dissipate so much energy. It's all thanks to fossil fuels. There were no jobs in the stone age and won't be any after collapse except on farms at best which will be feudalism not jobs. The entire concept of a "job" will go away since any "money" we could earn would be powerless to get us any of the goods we think they should buy. We can be peasants except we can't go seamlessly back to that technological level, so most will die off.

Milan Horvath said...

I was never fan of renewables as main source of energy,or accumulator cars.
My bet as solution for present day problems (as layperson without further expertise) was something like:

. prefer nuclear power for all applications that can use electricity straight from grid(without need to be stored),

synthetic fuels for combustion engines, made from nuclear power.. something like this

. rethinking globalisation, more economical isolationism,less unnecessary transportation
I mean, not in way that little countries in Europe will lock themselves up against other, but rather whole EEA/EFTA against other economic blocs (especially PRC)

But again, I was never much interested into these things so it could sound naive.

Anyway I will look up to these things, as it seems to be interesting.

Milan Horvath said...

I am just reading part from Regina Kunzel(WAR ON SEX).
I didn't know that Georgie MacKinnon (daddy of our beloved Cathy MacKinnon)
was author of local (Minnesota) law that helped to persecute homosexuals and indefinitely lock them up(and torture them with aversion "therapy") as psychiatric patients without due process.

Representative George MacKinnon, sponsor of that 1939 Min-
nesota sexual psychopath law, shot down Karpman’s suggestion that a man’s
perversion might be his own business. Although the imperiled child was the
privileged subject of community outrage and media reporting on sex crimes
and has been characterized by historians as the instigating motor of ­these
laws, MacKinnon responded to Karpman’s criticisms by referencing not the
murderer of children but rather, and revealingly, the person who “is a constant
menace to society, particularly to younger boys and young men.” That person,
not identified explic­itly as homosexual, presumably ­because the equation of
homo­sexuality and predation was so familiar, was particularly dangerous,
MacKinnon insisted, in contexts of hierarchical relations among men such
as the military and the ­labor force: “They go around and they may not force
them, but the fact that they may have a superior rank, they may be a chief petty
officer where the boy is in a subordinate capacity; and the same thing exists
out in the ordinary, everyday life where somebody may be an employer. . . . ​

and this

The virtue of the Miller Law, in
the eyes of its proponents, was in criminalizing such acts of “social menace”
that would not have been captured by existing criminal law but ­were newly
understood as indicative of dangerous sexual psychopathy. ​

It sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, that unequal position in any kind of hierarchy (plus of course age) makes sex abuse is a standard feminist trope which all by itself incriminates the better part of sexuality. Give them the power to make laws and they will take full advantage, have done so already. And the saddest part is they have brainwashed so many men into accepting this principle too.

I was distraught to read on Facebook even Aubrey de Grey is accepting this self-hate as he is ousted from his foundation:

"Now that the relevant portion of the independent investigator's work is finished, and especially because her report quoted the full text of the email in question, I am at last in a position to apologise - which I gladly do publicly - to Laura Deming for my email to her in 2012, about which I had forgotten until the investigator reminded me of it. As STAT reported three weeks ago, I consider that that email would have been a mistake even if she had been five years older, because we were in a mentor-mentee relationship. I categorically deny Laura's current (though, as she made clear on August 10th, not contemporaneous) view, shared by the investigator, that I sent that email with improper intent - but my email does not become OK just because improper intent is now being misread into it. It's also no excuse that I had interpreted the email from Laura to which I was replying as light-hearted, rather than as expressing "concerns about mentors doing stuff like that" (as she wrote on August 10th), and allowed myself to be emboldened by it. Laura: I unreservedly apologise."

This bizarre idea that sex must be purged from any kind of teaching or mentoring or supervising relationship (plus even equal positions in the workplace according to the most extreme "sexual harassment" policies) is one of feminism's greatest achievements in terms of how much sexuality they managed to taint as crime or misconduct and how compliant men are in self-abnegation. Why are even men who are completely cancelled unwilling to consider if maybe the most hysterically hateful feminist position shouldn't be the universal principle? Why does the male view count for exactly nothing?

The report is here:

Basically Aubrey told one girl (who horror of horrors was "underage" too at 17) she was attractive in an email nine years previously, and about 7 years ago he vaguely, perhaps drunkenly at a dinner if this even happened, suggested to another woman that she should use her feminine charm to entice rich men into funding aging research more. For this his life work is gone.

I will try to find some realistic expectations to nuclear from Gail and others, but it's very clear that it is not getting scaled up in time even if it theoretically could be, which I doubt because it has never proven profitable, which tells us the energy accounting probably doesn't work out either, at least if we care about safety.

Milan Horvath said...

Yes, yes this "penance" thing is interesting.
Such a strong effort to be again accepted in "decent" society.
Sometimes cowardice, sometimes necessity, but always moving boundaries towards more totalitarian society.

Anonymous said...

Aubrey de Grey at least didn't say that his email to the girl was wrong because she was 17. He could even be interpreted as implicitly saying that it was not wrong (because of her age).

If instead of trying to save billions of older people's lives, Aubrey had dismembered a woman alive, he would have been getting 17 year old girls writing to HIM and giving him sexy compliments.

Anonymous said...

"The good news is the embarrassing feminist USA defeat in Afghanistan shows how incompetent the feminist regime has truly become, and therefore its influence is in decline and should not exist for much longer. Meanwhile, the more pro-male Russian and Chinese influence is on the rise. We must keep up our advocacy while the feminist beast implodes."

I agree with Milan Horvarth regards it being a mistake to consider Russia or even China to be pro-male, or at least pro-male sexuality. Russia now has mandatory life-sentences (in some of the worst prisons in the world) for any 'sexual abuse' of a minor, and China is currently going through a MeToo hysteria. No doubt their age of consent (of 14) will be raised before long.

I'd go further and say it's a mistake to consider 'feminism' to have been defeated in Afghanistan. If you're into 12 year old dancing boys or if you're into marrying your in-bred female cousin for life and never being able to so much as look at the uncovered skin of another female, then yeah, Afghanistan is an anti-feminist utopia. I know some 'Male Sexualists' would think so. Perhpas Eivind will move there. Only don't try to chat up any females or you might find yourself beheaded pretty quick. Not that you would be likely to find any unaccompanied females to chat up anyway.

Feminist USA will only be replaced by a new American Conservatism, which for male sexualism is little better.

There is no 'return to the past', and certainly not a return to the (male) sexual freedoms of the 1960's and 1970's. Women will not allow this. Society is controlled by woman and always has been. If any of you left were ever MRAs, you would understand the idea of the backseat driver. It's either Islam or puritanical American Conservatism (which is pretty much what Russia and China have in a truer form). Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

I agree too that Eivind's obsession with collapse theories is a bit loonish, but that's the way he is. If he represents Male Sexualism, then Male Sexualism is a bit loonish. In any case, I'm pretty certain they are going to put Tom Grauer's statements into his mouth and present him as a real psycho. Eivind hasn't even got the sense to move to another platform before the shit hits the fan.

Eivind Berge said...

I said I didn't mention collapse on TV because, yes, it would look loony to bring it up without the proper background information. If collapse happens, it will happen regardless of how loony or not I am, and I simply note its likelihood here so we can be aware of it. I have no ambition of being a prominent energy expert since I have no credentials as such.

Anyway, this is a high-value production where they can't "put words into my mouth" that I didn't say, since that will not match the format of filming people who are talking. What they can do is edit it to distort the context, and having several hours of footage to work with I don't doubt they will do this, but there are limits and I am happy to get attention even if they do their best to make me look bad using the material they got. None of it is catastrophically bad.

Good point about Aubrey evading apology for "underage" attraction per se, but I am still disappointed about how faintly he did it and how he is sucking up feminist norms in the workplace.

Milan Horvath said...

It is interesting fact? that many phenomenons, which about conservative busybodies
(and other prudish totalitarians) are complaining now, are in fact unwanted by-products of their acts in past.

.hypernormalisation of homosexuality nowadays-as a consequence of their nasty,nasty persecution of these people in past. Without these events I doubt that homosexuals would demand things as marriage, adoptions and other "privileges" of majority.
There were countries where "sodomy" was either legal or considered as petty crime, and I believe that without exporting American cultural wars, there would be hardly
(in these countries) things as gay marriage and adoptions some issue.

Reading through WAR ON SEX, I realised that they came to conclusion that this "busybody, war on this-war on that" society cannot be changed so easily, and only way to help themselves was to leave camp of "untouchables" and to become full members of "respected" society.

Lancaster writes, “When, as the price of entry into the ‘properly
po­liti­cal sphere,’ mainstream gay rights organ­izations promote a hypernormal image
of homo­sexuality, maintain silence about sex offender registries and ‘child safety
zones,’ and . . . ​avoid discussions of age-­of-­consent laws, they reinforce a dynamic
that Lee Edelman has described: every­one wants to offload the burden of queerness
onto someone else; no one wants to be holding the stigma.”

.vulgar sexual culture,
Is IMO just product of culture, where sexuality(and nudity) is seen as something forbidden, harmful, and indecent.(dirty this,naughty that, instead of having fun, making love, enjoying etc.)

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it does not bode well that the homosexuals gave up fighting for what really matters. They are something like 2% of men and hold at least that much of the wealth and power, yet they can only fight for symbols and to be respected while looking away from all their friends who are persecuted. The "burden of queerness" didn't go away, just got diffused out to a larger and more draconianly criminalized sexuality.

Am I taking on the burden of queerness with my sexualism? Even though I am not queer. Well, so be it.

Eivind Berge said...

This is a refreshingly forceful petition against a further expansion of the abuse industry which cheered me up as far as it goes (58 have signed it so far). Certainly changed my image of social workers (whom I hadn't really given much thought before) to predators, which seems to be a general feeling among parents now.

We have heard that social workers are to be embedded permanently in schools in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and possibly Scotland. This represents a monumental danger to the human rights of children and families across the entire UK. Over 20% of children in primary school have been subjected to a liberty-curbing investigation of their private family lives, conducted by social workers. We also heard recently that a young girl was subjected to an intimate physical examination by a social worker, simply based on an unfounded allegation by another child. Following these investigations, some children are removed from their families forever for adoption, based simply on the "crystal ball method" of the "possibility of future emotional harm". What people do not realise is that social work and removal of children causes far more emotional and physical harm than anything else. Would you want your child to be removed forever based on some unfounded allegation? Would you want your child to be subjected to an in-school intimate physical examination by a social worker? Would you wish for your child to end up in a children's home, where they may be abused by rapists masquerading as those who "care deeply" for children? Then stop this abuse right now and sign the petition, so we can keep our schools for the purpose they are intended and focus on education.

Eivind Berge said...

Shocking new post at TOC about some Dutch crimes that are, shall we say, futuristic?

a. denying and/or downplaying the harmfulness of sexual contact between children and adults, and/or
b. the glorification of sexual contact between children and adults, and/or
c. presenting children as sex objects/sexual beings, and/or
d. removing barriers and supporting or nurturing the belief that sexual contact between children and adults is something good, and/or
e. creating a subculture/community in which sexual contact between children and adults is considered normal/acceptable/beneficial, and/or
f. the pursuit for oneself and/or for others of being able to have sexual contact with children

But even more depressing is this comment by Kit about the death of free speech:

"At the same time, I wonder if we need to accept that free-speech rhetoric is no longer a strategy that commands a lot of respect these days (at least outside of the United States). This is not just the work of intolerant millennials on university campuses, even if this is where the shift is seen most obviously. Over the last two decades the bottom has largely fallen out of the free market of ideas, and the idea that speech is or should be a special and protected domain of human behaviour where anything (in principle) goes is beginning to look less and less credible to many people.

I don’t really want to get into whether or not this is inherently a bad thing. Regardless of how undesirable it might be, I think we do need to acknowledge that there is a kind of epistemic shift going on (that is, a shift in what kinds of statements are regarded as true or even meaningful). Gone is the idea that good and true notions will always win out in the end by a sort of Darwinian (or Popperian, or Thatcherite) logic – we are now increasingly expected to exercise moral responsibility in the way we speak and in what we choose to say.

I think this is bad news for the idea that we can simply rely on scientific discourse to tell us what is true, or even that science is better at telling us the truth than literature is. Scientific enquiry, like political speech, is no longer defended by a cordon sanitaire. So simply pointing to Rind and Gieles and saying, “this is science!” won’t cut it anymore. Scientists are revealed to be as implicated in politics and society as literary critics are. Any perusal of the pages of the august Journal of Child Sex Abuse should be enough to illustrate the problem.

So given the shift in what is sayable, at least in many public forums, I wonder if we need to adapt our rhetoric accordingly. Rather than saying over and over again, ‘this is the objective scientific truth, and other people are wrong,’ I’d suggest we need to adopt a different strategy.

Milan Horvath said...

Would you wish for your child to end up in a children's home, where they may be abused by rapists masquerading as those who "care deeply" for children?

Petition may be not bad idea, and there are many rightful demands,
but I don't like way it's done.

In my region, few years ago, there was big outrage about Norwegian Barnevernet
(besides many domestic problems with child welfare), which removed child custody from
CE European immigrants for dubious reasons
(usually, there was allegation of sexual abuse at start).

Yet people, instead of seeing real reasons behind that
(abuse of generous funding,laws that are enabling this and last but not least paedohysteria) were creating various crazy conspiracy theories about child sex rings and human trafficking.

I think, that with such ideological allies you do not even need enemies. These people are using oil as extinguisher, and then they are wondering why it is so hot there.

BTW: How is Barnevernet perceived among ordinary Norwegians?

Speaking about that intimate physical examinations, there was some excerpt from David Thomas' book Not guilty at theantifeminist's site in past.
It was something about, how girl who was sexually abused by relative was not horrified by abuse itself (as it was done in non-violent way), but instead she had trauma from intimate physical examination that was done by forensic paediatrician. I can't find it now.
Instead of it, I will show translated excerpt from book:
Uncle Sam's Sexualhölle erobert die Welt.

The Los Angeles practitioner Dr. Bruce Woodling, who was a specialist in sexual offences there, found "certain" signs of abuse in the children on the basis of alleged abnormalities in the anal and genital areas such as slight reddening or tiny fissures, which are actually found in all children. For example, before the investigation, Woodling revealed to one of the girls interrogated in this trial, little Tricia McCuan, that she had been abused and, when Tricia contradicted him, attacked her with the words: “This investigation will show who is right and who is who is wrong «; Against her will, he examined her genitals, inserted glass tubes into her anus, and then confirmed his preconceived diagnosis of abuse - according to a much later statement by the girl, "the worst event that has ever happened to me." In any case, there was never any medical or material evidence in this and all subsequent, similar proceedings, since all the allegations were fabricated.

In conclusion: isn't forceful forensic intimate physical examination, of supposed victim itself a form of abuse? This is not same as ordinary medical procedures or checkups, because they are done for medical reasons, but these are done for judicial reasons instead.

Eivind Berge said...

It is simply not a defense anymore that a statement shouldn't be a crime because it is true, even a very well established scientific truth :(

First the arts fell starting a few decades ago and now science. We have lost respect for the very concept that there is anything noble and free about intellectual inquiry. Laws are blunt political instruments that can crack down on scientific truthseeking as well as anything else.

Activists must probably retreat into allegory.

Milan Horvath said...

Oh. I was writing while you posted this... yes that is sad reality in many European countries, and that's why I've said early, that it will be irony of fate that we could soon speak freely only in USA.
What is however most depressing, that it is Netherlands which another on the list.

Eivind Berge said...

About that petition, I don't particularly recommend signing on such sites, which are mostly vehicles to get you signed up for spam. But I liked the sentiment, except for the part that implied a sex abuse conspiracy on the other side, yes. I guess they just can't get away from that boogeyman. No matter where they look and from every side, the enemy is always a pedophile. But it's certainly true that social workers commit iatrogenic abuse as in your example.

"Against her will, he examined her genitals, inserted glass tubes into her anus, and then confirmed his preconceived diagnosis of abuse."

Yeah, no kidding they will find abuse if they make sure to create it themselves.

Milan Horvath said...

I will say something to that sad news(for everyone who cherish free speech) from Holland,
when I will breath it out.

I am not into kids, nor I am doing this because I want to bang teenagers or so,
it is a principle thing for me same as many other issues as drug policy, privacy due process etc....

geeez I am pissed off. I will not fall asleep tonight.......

I wonder if Pim Fortuyn would allow this if he would be still alive?

From purely practical POV I wonder if someone operating website in USA jurisdiction, will have liability to cooperate with European police forces, in case that American laws weren't breached.

BTW: isn't freespeechtube operated in Dutch jurisdiction?

Milan Horvath said...

There is question, why they are doing this? I mean, any relaxation of sexual criminal laws is supposedly widely unpopular, so:
-is it some cheap populism to gain some political capital?
-is it some fanatics' effort?
-is it opening gate for other new verbal crimes?
-are they have to fear of something?

Problem is, that we do not have (in Europe) protection of free speech, and since WW2 we have stupid precedent in form of holocaust/hate speech laws that are even not protecting society against such atrocities.
Neonazis are only gaining popularity with this , as they are getting into position of martyrs.

I wonder how many people know how worthless are our basic documents

as example we can look up to ECHR article 10

Freedom of expression
1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2.The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Basically it means that you have freedom of speech unless we decide opposite.
Credo of these new mutaweens are: Shut up and pay taxes, we will decide what is good for you.
Adult citizen is now reduced to little child whose only freedom of decision is whether they will have Nesquick or Kellogs' for breakfast.

It is possible that we will be forced to start movement for freedom of speech as prerequisite to our cause, in future. It will be needed anyway.

Even though I don't agree with hate speech laws, they still make much more sense than this.
Reasoning behind them is that society under some populist rule could outgrow to some genocidal atrocity as majority won't care about some ethnic minority, and this could be perpetual.
But in case of age of consent laws, this is different because almost everyone have children regardless of ethnicity or political views as this is way how we are reproducing.
There will never be interest in majority of people to knowingly accept anything that would be harmful to next generation, and if that accidentally occur it will be immediately reverted.

That part about science was interesting.
When COVID pandemics started, I was arguing with my brother i.l. about objectivity of scientists. I was astonished, how naive could intelligent people be.
Science is now taken as religion, problem is, that scientists don't live on Mars, they are ordinary people placed within hierarchy with background ideology and various
financial/social/political pressures placed on them.

There was a sarcastic joke in communist Czechoslovakia:
Yes, we have freedom of speech, but what we lack is freedom after speech.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, we can say anything we want as long as it doesn't offend the "public morals," which means anything whoever is in charge wants it to mean. Good point that if something truly offends the public moral and you want to make a law out of it, then that moral should be enough to stop the law. That will be the case for real pedophilic child abuse, so there is no need to stop the speech.

I like the idea of a movement for freedom of speech, but it won't be long before that too goes against the "public morals" at this rate.

Milan Horvath said...

Ehm, I found this nice smiling fella
isn't he cute?

Sad things is, that after all problems what these cretins caused, most of them, were able to continue their careers. Be it up to mine, best job they could find would be toilet attendant.

Speaking of these Californian clowns, here's some old NZ men's right site, where they are describing Americanisation of CSA discourse in their country:

This is funny:

There are speaker after speaker who could be classified as the very worst of the "child savers" . One private correspondent (from America) has suggested to me, tongue in cheek, that the best thing that could happen for this congress, would be if somebody leaked information to a terrorist group that Clinton was on the same plane as that which may be bringing all these overseas "experts" to New Zealand.

Milan Horvath said...

...... it's nothing new
There is narrative spread by various traditionalist totalitarians (aka.conservatives), that present-day gay/trans tolerance and erosion of "traditional values" will inherently result in tolerance/legalisation of sexual encounters of adults with children. Such notion is absurd, regarding fact, that society nowadays is much less tolerant of these things than it ever was in modern history.

Politicians (or rather their marketing advisors), don't care what is true, or what is reasonable any more, they just want to gain political capital at any price.
However, there are less-visible structures that are determining public discourse, via lobby and media. It would be interesting to know more about these people.
Their motivation, their personal connections, financing.
It is probably not some homogenous group of people, rather it is convergence of interests of various groups.

I have some suspicion that these new paedofinder laws are instrument to further protect people in abuse industry from criticism.
Whatever absurd demands they will have, whatever atrocities they will commit,
it will be even more risky to stand up against them, than it ever was.

I think, that free speech activism in Europe is now needed more than ever.
Problem is that this issue is frequently usurped by various "patriots" who care only about certain parts of freedom of speech rather than for principle.

Besides many new hate speech laws, there are also many "antiterrorist" laws, which ordinary people thinks are aimed towards Muslim fundamentalists, but they can be used (and are) against anybody who is out of line.

One example is ban on face covering; it was presented as measure against Muslim women maltreatment, but in fact it is just measure that is preventing anybody from protecting his anonymity in public.
Also cash transfer limits, anonymous sim card ban, data retention law, KYC-AML,
deployment of face-recognition systems, end of anonymous bank accounts ........and many other "niceties" that will make 1984 novel look like fairy-tale.

Even prosecutors and judges sometimes think that it is too much.

5-15 years? For some stupid talk, without any impact on society?
And people have no problem with that?
Of course, they have no problem, they are like cattle-while you feed them, they don't mind that sometimes few of them disappear to abattoir.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, it is horrifying. If I were starting out now, I would not have chosen to be an activist. Anyone who speaks out simply does not belong in society under current laws and will be removed. So your choice is life in prison to speak at all. And even if you accept that, there they can censor your every letter so you reach no one at all and whatever you managed to publish before you were imprisoned will be purged and criminalized as well to make sure you have no readers. We are looking at the perfect totalitarian state -- or collapse, which now looks very appealing.

In the news today is the UK risks blackouts soon because a fire has put a cable to France out of order. That's how thin the margins are and you might think it will be fixed and more capacity added when they get around to building more windmills or whatever, but think about it: this is exactly how it looks to be living inside collapse. Every isolated problem looks fixable, but the trend is downward into darkness. That's how it must have seemed inside the collapse of Roman civilization as well, except this one will be faster because the energy needs are so much greater. First rolling blackouts then lights out for all before long -- no electric grid at all within ten years according to Gail. Every step of the way we can always find some reasons for optimism, but collapse happens nonetheless.

Milan Horvath said...

Interview of David Hamilton for Swiss newspaper Le Temps, ca. year before his death:

About year ago I listened radio interview with photographer Jan Saudek, it was interesting, but it shocked me when he told moderator, that since those murders in Belgium in 1996
(case Dutroux), he do not photograph children (acts) any more, because he don't want to hold responsibility for such crimes.
(as photographs like this, supposedly are causing/helping this, he suggested)

And now question. Is he so dumb/brainwashed, or coward/opportunist? Huh.....

Don't these moral crusaders feel any shame, to use brutal sexual murders of young women and little girls, for their idiotic propaganda?
I think, we know the answer....

Milan Horvath said...

However, there are less-visible structures that are determining public discourse, via lobby and media. It would be interesting to know more about these people.
Their motivation, their personal connections, financing.
It is probably not some homogenous group of people, rather it is convergence of interests of various groups.

To amend this, I know that there are feminists, traditionalists, opportunists and so .....
I meant to know more unknown details about these processes.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is a link to that:

"If we don't start to remedy the situation, we are going to be facing blackouts this winter," Catherine Newman, chief executive officer of Limejump Ltd., a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, told Bloomberg on Thursday. "If things don't start to reverse soon, we will see the industry getting turned off across the board."

Europe will probably have to burn more coal this winter:

And perhaps that will briefly help, but if the idea was to transition away from fossil fuels it should be clear that's not happening when we can't even keep the electric grid supplied, which is just a tiny bit of all the energy needing to be replaced. We get a little bit more civilization out of coal, oil and gas (but much less than the mainstream assumes, because the market can't bear the high prices needed), and then we get collapse.

It's amazing how long it can be denied though. At no point will humanity admit defeat to collapse and give up the "green shift" too. There will be no moment where everybody agrees it is over like General Lee surrendering at Appomattox, even though our situation is just as hopeless. He didn't have to surrender either, you know. The South could have engaged in guerrilla warfare for a long time. Which is how it will be against collapse, with first more false hopes as long as they can be kept up and some preppers holding out the longest.

A stressed society will be less tolerant to dissenters, so this is really not a good time to be an activist for idealistic causes. But once you are famous like me, that can't be undone so I am not going anywhere until they forcibly remove all traces. It also fits the energy pattern that Norway is the most free-speech-tolerant country left in Europe now, still allowing voices like mine. We alone have plenty of oil and hydroelectric, though that is wearing thin too now with talk of possible rationing next spring:

MIlan Horvath said...

I am not sure, whether there is straightforward causality between freedom of speech and energetic safety, in case of Norway it may be however fact, that it is not fully integrated within EU structures, and it have commodities that are valuable for others (which is yes, energy) so they are not dependent on others, but others are dependent on them.
They have so-called upper hand, when it comes to negotiations.
EU, while they improved intra-European business, and travel, they have grievously damaged personal freedoms in it's member states.
For example, law that is criminalising apology of terrorism
(I've mentioned earlier) is implementation of some EU directives, law that is criminalising possession of sinister data is also implementation of EU directives
(although it was also enforced in other countries through propaganda)

Only thing, by which is possible to blackmail Norway is IMO defence.

I do not deny, there will be serious problems,maybe catastrophe,even collapse of civilisation. But I cannot grasp, how exactly we should go back to pre-industrial times. Knowledge that was gained last centuries, will be forgotten? How exactly?

There are many solutions to shortage of energy that are not very democratic or market friendly but could work.

Eivind Berge said...

No, not straightforward causality but rising tensions mostly subconsciously, and one of the ways they manifest is in tighter control by governments if they can. Especially when the energy shortage also hits the elite, which blackouts inevitably do, and that's just the early stages of collapse.

All the economy is driven by energy. Energy is the ability to do work, and if you don't have it you get to do the work, whether that is heating your house or producing food. Not affording works the same way as not having. No one will magically put wealth into people's hands if they can't afford energy products and the goods made with them. Governments will try, but that will drive up inflation which drives up energy prices as well until you hit this limit that strangely only Gail Tverberg is raising awareness of. There will simply be less to go around of everything until no one gets industrial products at all because they can't be made anymore, which require a whole working infrastructure. Yes, governments might even try some extremely undemocratic means, but it will break anyway as physics has the last word.

And no, we can't go back to an earlier stage with so many people. All of that is gone to the point that it can't even support the population that existed back then. There will simply be no way to keep more than a tiny bit of the population alive.

Milan Horvath said...

Strangely I am more afraid of continuation of this civilisation rather than end of it.
Frankly, if it will go the same direction as it is going now, there is not much to cry for.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree. I will take collapse over the tyranny we are on track for, even if Norway is lagging somewhat on the speech part. Glorifying crime including terrorism is not yet criminalized here (only incitement), not even pedophilia unless your speech counts as pornography. But that might change if we got any genuine pedo activists like they have in the Netherlands. Since I only advocate for teens I don't think I will trigger it myself, but if they do make any new laws they will probably use a definition of "children" up to 18 and male sexualism will be banned too.

Milan Horvath said...

♫ Isn't it ironic, don't you think? ♫

“It took me years in therapy to even admit there had been any kind of victimisation on my part,” she says. “I would always say I was consenting, and then I’d be reminded like ‘Hey, you were 15, you’re not consenting at 15.’ Now I’m like, ‘Oh yeah, they’re all paedophiles. It’s all statutory rape.’”

Just another spoiled showbiz princess, who cannot cope with ageing, so she is playing victim, to gain sympathy...if I had penny for everytime.......

Unknown said...

For long time i couldnt find word for myself.. `desperate ` `virgin` but incel i am!!
and why society wants us to suffer i dont know..

alanis morisette.. easily brainwashed.. by the loons

kate winslet is different, she had relationship at 15 with 27 yr old, with no regrets . (except, he died)..