 |
One was for a silly early post of no consequence, but the two others hit nofap threads that I am fairly proud of and consider important: Anosognosia and Is nofap misogynistic? Even though it has done no real damage yet, the message is clear: Google is hostile and hateful to male sexuality and sexualism. We must therefore move elsewhere for our activism. Thanks to my current programming course it is piece of cake for me to make websites like this now, except the comments which require a backend that I haven’t learned yet (but will in the coming months) plus it would be difficult to deal with spam on my own even with advanced coding skills. I shall endeavor to at least make an archive and home for new essays elsewhere (by me and others such as Angry Harry, probably on my already registered domain mra-archive.com) while perhaps keeping comment threads going here, heavily moderated so we don’t get hidden behind “sensitive content” warnings or worse -- and please think before you write to make it easy for me! You can rest assured that new comment threads will eventually be archived along with the old ones at our new site too, so Blogger can’t permanently delete anything. If I manage to write some incredibly bland new blog posts, I will also post them here as long as my blog stays up. Nofap will be off-limits, though.
Nofap is the most hard-hitting sexualist measure available to men today, so I’m not so surprised this is targeted first. It may have been accidental, perhaps a result of using new AI to analyze all content, but this is definitely how intelligent feminists would attack us as a first priority: suppress nofap information from men to weaken male sexuality maximally, ensuring that most men have low sexual ambitions and exist in a state of near-impotence. The notion that porn is bad for you is heresy in a world governed by feminist antisex bigotry; so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised if they manage to memoryhole the entire nofap movement now that Gary Wilson isn’t around to fight for it anymore (that post didn't get flagged for some reason, nor did any of my overt MAP activist posts such as my praise of NEWGON). No, they got their priorities straight alright. Intelligent feminists can’t let the public know that prominent MRAs/sexualists/MAPs are anything but porn-loving masturbators themselves, depriving us of the opportunity to be role models in the self-help department. To be clear, and at the risk of this post also getting a “sensitive content” warning, I practice nofap and recommend this for men who care about sex. You are frankly not taking sex seriously if you think masturbation is okay or watch porn. There I said it again, come hell or high waters for this post, but now let’s be bland from here and move our edgy content to where Google can’t touch it, trying to salvage what we can of legacy clicks. The main reason for sticking with Google was visibility anyway, which they have undermined enough with these warnings that I won’t feel like I’m missing out by switching to my own servers for new work.
Comments are still open, including for discussion of this new situation, but please don’t make me stop your comment by saying anything “sensitive,” okay? Whatever that means, which I honestly don't know the boundaries of. It does feel a little anticlimactic if our whole movement gets silenced in the mainstream because we advise men not to masturbate, but this is serious and apparently some of our enemies are also getting smarter, or their AI tools are. It is meager results for the antis to only get this little nag screen after reporting almost everything I wrote over the years, but it is unacceptable for me to blog behind a content warning. This blog is for general audiences and seriously contains no sensitive, NSFW or any other content which can reasonably be restricted from everyday browsing. It is also a red flag for using Google for anything else, such as Gmail or work documents, because they appear to be losing their sanity, liable to restrict our content for unaccountable and sometimes bizarre reasons going forward. It is time to begin looking for alternatives now while the sanctions are relatively benign. These little warnings on a tiny part my blog don't qualify as evil yet and certainly don't compare to the vicious bigotry of Elon Musk, but Google clearly cannot be trusted anymore.
169 comments:
I know Google considers it insensitive to the wankers to point out that wanking is bad, but damn... this is even on Google's own YouTube, so maybe OK to post here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iluOmq1DYY
Son Spends $275,000 of Dad’s Money on Virtual Girlfriend
We need to really get into the AI with prompt injection to get it on our side.
Galileo2333 describes:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LJrsjHrpfiPh/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fXE0Fu8JGfrl/
All the dissidents are on Substack now; I suggest that in due course you migrate there.
Why don't you just create your own site and install WordPress or other blogging software on it? I am referring to the WordPress CMS for your own website, not WordPress.com. You won't have to code anything, and I don't think you'll be censored on your own site.
Not to be a shill, but Namecheap make it very easy to create your own site as they also connect you to WordPress through their EasyWP feature. Problem is, they are known to sometimes censor content they disapprove of, so if your site gets reported, they can decide to remove it - it happened before numerous times. As far as I know, currently the platform with the least censorship (but which is still mainstream enough to have normies publish on it) is Substack.
A glimmer in the gloom-your blog has been linked here-
https://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2023/02/18/its-covered-by-the-catalogue-of-anti-male-shaming-tactics/#comments .
See the comment with the link. It hasn't appeared to have had much impact but at least it was allowed and politely received.
By the way, as for an email alternative, I suggest Proton Mail - even if they are compromised, they are obviously not as compromised as Google and the other big ones.
Obviously the way to grow your audience is to be on as many platforms at once: your own site, Blogger, Wordpress, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Quora, Reddit, Medium, Substack, basically everywhere you can. Also joining forums and leaving comments on other sites. Of course, some platforms are more suitable than others. But to spread the word, you need to spread out. You're probably too busy for that, but in the long-run it's a worthwhile endeavor. That way if you're banned in one place, people can stay connected with you and find you and your stuff elsewhere.
I'm looking forward to hearing how your programming learning progresses.
Yes, of course it was triggered by some crappy AI system. Do you seriously believe this :
"The notion that porn is bad for you is heresy in a world governed by feminist antisex bigotry".
When prisons are getting overcrowded with men for looking at porn and breaking feminist anit-porn laws?
Oh yeah, I remember that you think feminists are stupid, despite overturning society and succeeding in convincing the entire world that what is the most naturally sexual thing on Earth (attraction to teen girls, and even young women) is the most perverted and vile thing.
Meanwhile, you can't even work out how to use Wordpress, haven't gained a single true follower in 20 years despite twice having national exposure, and yet think you're building a movement by insulting just about every conceivable demographic that might be attracted to our cause ('wankers', 'incel losers', 'MRAs are stupid misogynists for not giving women the pussy pass to fuck 12 year old boys' etc etc.)
How many kids do you have yet Eivind? For somebody who is willing to breed with repulsively ugly fat sloths, zero seems like a poor return for a self-proclaimed 'Alpha Male Chad'.
Prisons are overcrowded with wankers because porn is held to be bad for women and children. To say it’s much, much worse for men is heresy and that is what I am saying. I tend to agree it was AI flagging me this time (and amazed 99% of my blog is not sensitive by its standards), but this is the sort of information intelligent feminists would want to suppress both to prevent men from attaining good sexual health and not least so they can also fill the prisons with more wankers, which is the easiest sort of criminalization in history. By this crude weapon they catch some men who have sex too, and they don’t care about the inefficiency at that because they hate men anyway and are only gleeful about men going to prison for literally no reason and usually for making themselves less likely to “offend” in any real sense because they are too busy wanking. They need a mythology that men get sexual value from porn while females are exploited to back this up and make men go along with it, to which I am currently the biggest threat now that Gary Wilson is dead. Neither MRAs nor MAPs have the balls cum intellect to exude realism about pornography and masturbation on their own, so this is an important calling for me.
When learning to code, the strategy can’t be to do as little as possible if you want to get good at it. I should do as much as possible, and this is a motivating project to work on. I shall not trade one big tyrant for a bunch of petty ones like WordPress who can shut me down for a number of even more unpredictable reasons. I should have a single point of failure -- one web host where I do everything myself -- with ready backups so I can quickly take the entire MRA archive to an onion link as a last resort. We can’t count on anyone, even the Wayback Machine, to preserve our writings otherwise.
The renewed hunt for sensitive content may have something to do with this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/20/tech/supreme-court-tech-platforms/index.html
Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet... The Supreme Court is set to hear back-to-back oral arguments this week in two cases that could significantly reshape online speech and content moderation... The allegation seeks to carve out content recommendations so that they do not receive protections under Section 230, potentially exposing tech platforms to more liability for how they run their services. Google and other tech companies have said that that interpretation of Section 230 would increase the legal risks associated with ranking, sorting and curating online content, a basic feature of the modern internet. Google has claimed that in such a scenario, websites would seek to play it safe by either removing far more content than is necessary, or by giving up on content moderation altogether and allowing even more harmful material on their platforms.
Is Google getting ready to impose more restrictions/censorship in case they become more liable?
Japan, the last hold out, is to raise the age of consent to 16.
Next, the hags will move on to Germany and Italy, as they will now have 'the lowest age of consent of the G7 countries'.
Once they have raised the age of consent to 16, it will be France, as they will then have the 'lowest age of consent...'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-64703519
The playbook is always the same with these assholes: use a completely unrelated strawman argument to increase female dominance and sexual fascism (in Japan's case, non-consensual incest and a passed out drunken whore, both of which have zero in common with age gap relationships).
Yup, that's what it says. Dating 26-year-old women is "rather controversial" in your 30s already, if they met any sooner "he would have been arrested," and becoming a father in your mid 40s is scary and abnormal too. Every effort is made to make men conform to what women would want or be able to do themselves, evidently. If women can't have fertility or be very attractive at a given age then men can't either according to this society.
More rage fuel. Actress Bella Thorne shames a fan for asking her to autograph her own modelling photos, claiming that they were 'inappropriate'.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/20/entertainment/bella-thorne-sexy-photos/index.html
I'm coming to the conlusion that most women aren't full human beings. According to Peter Singer and others, a concept of yourself existing over time is an essential defnining characteristic of personhood. Gorillas, chimpanzees, dolphins, and even crows are believed to posess this, but it seems most female homo-sapiens lack it.
Yes. At least with regard to sexuality and in this culture, women are like the sea squirt which eats its own brain when it is no longer needed.
https://goodheartextremescience.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/meet-the-creature-that-eats-its-own-brain/
The free-swimming larvae stage lasts only a short time, since the larvae aren’t capable of feeding. Soon, they settle to the bottom and cement themselves headfirst to the spot where they will spend the rest of their lives. They need to start feeding, so an amazing transformation begins.
The sea squirt larvae begin absorbing all the tadpole-like parts that made them chordates. Where the sea squirt larva once had gills, it develops the intake and exist siphons that will help it bring water and food into its body. It absorbs its twitching tail. It absorbs its primitive eye and its spine-like notocord. Finally, it even absorbs the rudimentary little “brain” (cerebral ganglion) that it used to swim about and find its attachment place.
An amazing metaphor, isn't it? I really don't want to blame women as much as the culture though. Feminism (which means just a few women) have managed to make female sexual autocannibalism the cultural norm. This is downright metaphysically mandated in concepts like the age of consent which takes the functional, loving and cooperative sexuality that women are born with, eats it at 18 and turns it into pure predation on men, via the state's formidable antisex machinery. And so it goes to a slightly less extreme extent with age gaps later, regretted sex, any sexy pictures they may have produced etc.
More generally, this culture simply cannot tolerate masculinity. Anything which sets men apart, such as liking more sex with younger partners, is criminalized or frowned upon. And there men are guilty too for not asserting ourselves beyond a tiny handful of sexualists and a few more MAPs. It would be insensitive and wrong to just blame women, but yes, according to this culture, women literally do not possess continuity of their sexual selves. And of course sexuality is the most profoundly important part of us, as attested in its supreme importance for criminal law for one thing as the most crimeworthy thing a human being can concern himself with. So even if women's sex organs literally start to dissolve at menopause and the majority have little interest in sex later, they retain the supreme ability to punish for their youthful sexuality, which is now entirely redefined into abuse and criminality according to this culture. The abuse industry which feeds (some) women off the relics of their sexuality at the expense of men is not a biological fact, but it is a damn unpleasant metaphor for a terrifying reality.
The metaphysical break in personhood which is supposed to occur at 18 is well illustrated by Bella Thorne here:
Thorne said the man then presented her with another sexy image to sign. “I didn’t like it. It was inappropriate,” she said. “There was some stuff there from a Candies campaign that I did when I was 16 and it was clear that he wanted me to sign things that were viewed as sexy and even underage and I was like, ‘Give me something else.’” She said the autograph seeker asked her, “Aren’t they all sexy?”
It is really as if they are different persons while "underage," all of which is now "inappropriate" at best to think about at all unless you are accusing abuse. You can't blame her when our culture pushes this idea so hard that "child" sexuality (if it exists at all) is disconnected from anything "adult." Men aren't subject to this disjunction because our sex drive is much stronger, giving us a coherent sexual identity as well despite society now even brandishing the female sex offender charade. I am fully congruent with my sexual feelings before 18 which go back as far as I have any memories at all, and if I had had sex (which I sadly didn't) I would of course feel in continuity with that too. I regret the masturbation though due to the opportunity cost which deprived me of being more aggressive at seeking actual sex, and sorely wish I had role models like the male sexualist ideologue I am trying to be today.
Really happy to see you are active again. I was worried you had been arrested.
To get a return on you investment on the camera you need to make more videos.
Looking forward to the next video.
Frankly, I see nofap/noporn as as a kind of dietetic advice. Don't ingest too much sugar fat or wine. Don't replace real love and sex with pixels if you can help. Fat/porn can be helpful or bad according to the amount or the circumstances.
I'm certain it doesn't interfere with the feminist agenda. Pornography is the next target of feminists even if their motives are different from yours.Why should they care that you promote noporn ?
So I assume the kind of pre-censorship you experience is not due to your promotion of nofap/noporn. It's far more likely that your excellent analysis of the feminist power might get you in their crosshairs, though I hope It won't.
Nope, fapping is not like fat. Fat is a healthy, even essential nutrient. Fats can be overdone, yes, but are not bad for you in principle. Except trans fat, which much like porn does not occur naturally except in trace amounts; another example of ultra-processed/supernormal crap we should avoid because the natural thing really was better. Men can and should live almost entirely without fapping and without porn (I say ALMOST because little boys should not be harshly interfered with when they discover it on their own, but gently educated about nofap when they are able to understand the concept of opportunity cost). I define porn as whatever synthetic sexual stimulus facilitates masturbation, so this does not mean a total ban on seeing nude pictures, as art for example -- just don't fap to it because then it becomes porn.
There is homeostasis in healthy sexual attraction, in contrast to the pathological tolerance incurred by fappers to porn. A nofapper will be just as -- or more -- aroused by a picture of a girl's face or just fantasies than the porn addict is by his most extreme porn. Hence there is no "need" for porn either even if you engage in occasional masturbation, which is less damaging without porn but still definitely worth avoiding altogether.
It follows from feminist ideology, if sex-hostility is their root value, that they should promote porn and male masturbation (female masturbation is innocuous even by my standards) to hurt men and "save" women from sex. Even if they don't realize it. An AI trained on their values may also realize it before they do. And they DO for the most part promote porn, except when there is a greater benefit to them from criminalization, which is still only done to a minuscule amount of the porn available today. From a male perspective, all of it is equally harmful.
And even trans fat is a nutrient. It still provides energy, just not in a healthy way. Porn is not a sexual nutrient at all, but completely empty and masturbation is completely meaningless if you value intimacy. A closer comparison would be artificially sweetened zero-calorie drinks, except they at least provide water which is a legit nutrient. No matter how you slice it, you can't compare nofap to dietary advice because this isn't about choosing an optimal diet but avoiding pure poison.
@Eivind
"pure poison"
This can't be proved and is ideological extremism. A boy who had no previous experience of fapping or of watching real sex(pictures)may be upset when he must "deliver" for real. I think early homosexual experiences used to teach heterosexual boys how it works to prevent anxiety. The possibility of watching sex scenes made this gay phase mostly redundant.
Of course fat is necessary but storing fats is extremely hazardous to your health.
Mingling the nofap theory and anti-feminism can lead to confusion among those who share your views on one topic and not on the other. As far as efficiency is concerned, you'll certainly get more followers on anti-porn than on anti-feminism but will they be the kind of allies you really crave for ?
A boy who had no previous experience of fapping or of watching real sex(pictures)may be upset when he must "deliver" for real.
But in heaven's name, why don't you promote getting that experience through watching real sex (not pictures) or having sex earlier then??? There is arguably an element of use it or lose it to sex education, but you do not solve this problem by diverting the boy into fake stimuli that hurt his development!
Even Andrew Tate, the most successful anti-feminist by far, and the only guy to build a movement that has had feminists the world over soiling themselves, is against NoFap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep9hLxzwX0M
And to support what Amelio said - I have seen no evidence that there is a potential demographic of supporters in the NoFap community. The majority tend to be white knights and male feminists it seems to me. I'm not sure I've even come across a NoFap proponent who was anti-feminist, outside of a manosphere forum like RooshV. But if you conducted a poll on r/NoFap for example, I'm pretty sure the vast majority would say they were feminist. They often claim that masturbation and porn 'degrades women', almost as much as they claim it raises their testosterone and such.
Not to mention that NoFap 'your brain on porn' is based upon Feminist junk science.
Feminists are against porn because it gives men an alternative to seeking sex with women - primarily unattractive women like them.
I've said it again and I'll say it again. A man who has sex with an unattractive female (at least if she supports feminism which 90% or more do), is being effectively raped by her. It seems NoFap leads to a lowering of standards and a willingness to validate the entire feminist enterprise. To justify their use of State violence to limit men's sexual options, whether it be through having sex with teens or fapping to 'illicit porn'. The use of violence or the threat of violence to cajol somebody to have sex with you is rape. That is what feminists are doing, and that is why they created the NoFap myth (and all their anti-porn laws).
"why don't you promote getting that experience through watching real sex (not pictures) or having sex earlier then"
It's illegal.
Andrew Tate has misunderstood nofap, going by that video. He thinks it's about not ejaculating at all or less than he is doing with women, which of course is healthy and the entire point of nofap is to get there, not practice some kind of semen retention indefinitely.
As to normie nofappers also parroting some feminist shibboleths... that's exactly what I would expect. They enjoy their great sexual powers from nofap and then tack on some nonsense about also doing it because porn degrades women... for some extra brownie points with other audiences, but that's an irrelevant distraction. Porn is bad for male sexuality and that's why you should should avoid it and the fact that you should want to ejaculate IN VAGINAS is so obvious that I feel stupid for stating it.
@Amelio
Lol... so because healthy sexual practices such as boys being trained by older women is illegal, you want to mess up their sexual development with porn and masturbation? That's so deranged that it should go without saying: obviously the proper course is to oppose the antisex laws (female sex offender charade) and state the truth about what is healthy and what is harmful.
"healthy sexual practices such as boys being trained by older women is illegal, you want to mess up their sexual development with porn and masturbation"
I don't "want" anything, I just notice this is not the way things are developing, it's getting worse by the day.
So what do you do until your "healthy practices" become standard (as they used to be when boys were taken to the whorehouse by their fathers)?
Good or bad, porn won't vanish, same as cellphones and video games. You can rightly advise people against porn and virtuality but you should leave campaigning harshly against the "pure poison"to the feminists.
"I just notice this is not the way things are developing, it's getting worse by the day."
Ok, but we don't have a political movement just to state how things are. I am here to express my opinion (even if controversial) and be a role model that is lacking today.
Of course sex is best, but if the options are incel nofap or incel porn/masturbation then boys should still prefer the former because they will mostly be fine with a later start anyway, whereas porn can make them impotent before they begin to have sex as well as delay that start for many years unnecessarily because their motivation is blunted. The secret to success is to have a goal and focus on only doing things which likely bring you closer to the goal. Masturbation always works in the opposite direction plus it comes with anosognosia as I noted in my post which is now sadly behind a trigger warning.
No masturbation is good only if you have access to acceptable escorts (honest women) who can get the job done for you when the urge becomes pressing.
Otherwise, masturbation is one million times better than "amateur" (dishonest women) sex in an oppressive anglosphere culture. I say this as a man who has had alot of sex, and no longer finds it worth the effort at all in the anglosphere. In fact, it is entirely detrimental and dangerous. There really is no arguing this fact. The only rational options are escorts or leaving the anglosphere.
I disagree with both those opinions. You can still find nice women in the Anglosphere and obviously you shouldn't masturbate.
I don't have a TikTok account but if I get one this is definitely one to follow:
https://www.tiktok.com/@logic.guy/
Well done, Logic Guy, for attacking the female sex offender charade especially and reminding us that movies used to reflect wisdom on these issues!
Wanker and Amelio are pure trash! They are the worst incels there is, they are incels without any hope and who are also determined to accept - and live by todays laws no matter how unjust. Sickening!
As prosecutors want to give R. Kelly 25 years extra for child pornography today...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11784403/R-Kelly-sentencing-determine-spends-rest-life-prison.html
It is time for a few more remarks about the insanity of attributing either sexual value (like wankers do) or abuse (as feminists do) to images.
With anything else, if you want something, you would be called insane to be satisfied with a picture of it, or if you own something, claim you have been heinously abused by someone taking a picture of it or sharing unauthorized pictures. But thanks to the wanker's delusion and its feminist flipside, sex is an exception. I flatly reject both sides of the delusion. There is no sexual value in pornography and no violation beyond what would be covered by copyright law and possibly libel if it hurts someone's reputation -- certainly not something you could get 25 years for but usually a fine at worst.
Another reason for men to wake up, if they don't care about their own sex lives, is to at least acknowledge the injustice happening to men like R. Kelly. Just imagine... do women get satisfied by getting paid in pictures of money? Then why should men pay real money (or prison time or whatever, or expend any effort that would otherwise go into seeking and having real sex) for pictures of nudity and sex? It is insane, absolutely insane: a tragic flaw in male psychology that we need to call out and disabuse ourselves of by becoming nofappers, which is also integral to male sexualist ideology. As you can see, for both self-help and social-justice reasons.
"Forced?" I doubt it. And I doubt the whole story. How trustworthy are those "unidentified Syrian Defense Force (SDF) officials" cited as the source anyway, or RT for that matter. The hilarious claim that "one of the boys collapsed and was hospitalized after being given a Viagra-like substance to make him perform" also gives it away. Teenage boys do not need Viagra unless they are suffering from porn addiction, nor would it make them collapse in therapeutic amounts.
RT's commenters are still a voice of reason though. I'm really impressed by both their sanity and the lack of censorship even though RT itself has gone full feminist retard now also pushing the female sex offender charade. An almost random selection looks this good:
RTRTRT1
I am wondering if they would like sperm of an Infidel. I would love to give hem some not where they want but in either end of their GI tract.
T. Agee Kaye
When you have to be forced there must be nothing else to inspire you.
OhhhhReally
I would've been climbing on that $hit like a spider monkey when I was 13 or 14......
_AfterDark
Must be some ugle arse byoteches!
XPendable
Seriously, this "story" is STILL up? Come on now, RT... journalistic standards?
NotFooled
"One of the boys was required to have sex with eight ISIS women in just a few days." I don't see the problem? When I was 14 pretty sure I could taken care of 8 a day.
CriticalResponse
BS. This is cover up for them raping these women. RT operating like CNN. Seems Russians are just as brainwashed as the morally depraved Americans.
J-o-u-r-n-e-y--M-a-n
Media loves this sort of stories because sex sells! Anyway, this juicy story is as fake as it gets. People are scared for their lives, have nothing to eat, don't have clean water to drink, have no electricity, suffering from diseases, lost their belongings, have no money, mosquitoes and insects all over, and are present in an area that just had multiple earthquakes recently just cannot have such luxuries as described in this story.
XPendable
Does this mean that all the ISIS 'warriors' are gay?
ZorroUnmasked
Those ISIS brides must be really ugly if teenage boy complain about being forced to have sex with them.
Marian1638
I wish be one of them when I was teenager
XPendable
Are you certain this isn't from The Daily Onion? Please don't give time to hot bloody air from "Daily Beast".
And the best comment...
“We are being forced to have sex with the ISIS women, to impregnate them,” two teens identified as Ahmet, 13, and Hamid, 14, told a guard at Camp al-Hawl. “Can you get us out of here?”. Guys you really want to escape paradise???....... They should have imprisoned Ron Jeremy there.....
Oh, what a clown world. But maybe these writers of fake news are just trying to be funny rather than imitate the deadpan feminist stories we get dished out in the West on this subject, in which case it is all right I guess. I'm so used to the insanity of turning paradise into abuse being literal rather than parody that I can't tell the difference anymore.
I don't know, you can enjoy fapping to amateur webcam teens... they remind me of saner times and the absolute beauty of young newly pubescent girls. The fact that feminists desperately don't want us to have access to it, by definition, means that it's good or else they wouldn't try so hard to ban it. This is mostly because it reminds everyone that better options used to exist. There is an obvious connection between banning 16 year old porn decades ago and the extreme advancement of pedohysteria in the time since.
You're being too extreme with the nofap stuff. You can not wank all you want and drive yourself insane or worse - get desperately involved with an inferior woman in the anglosphere where she has total dominance over you, even if she's "one of the good ones". Watching teens do sexual stuff and pretending you're doing it too is awesome in comparison, and nothing you write will change that.
On another note, lots of stories on the internet lately of men pursuing single mothers to access their willing daughters.
The wanker's delusion is intractable in many men, but let me try some more.
Find a stock picture of dollar bills. Stare at it for five minutes and imagine that your wealth is increasing. This is already so stupid that no one would do it, but wankers make it a daily habit. Then you might feel that average dollars bills don't do enough, but if you get some pictures of really rare gold bars, you will be rich. So you spend a lot of time searching for that. Or better yet, pay a rich man to webcam and show you around his mansion and all his wealth. Now you're really living it up! Meanwhile you only earn minimum wage at your own job because you never put in the effort to get anything better, being too busy seeking out vicarious wealth.
Men should be just as offended by the notion of virtual "sex work" as women would be by getting paid for it in the above stock photos, if they weren't delusional. At least then it would be an equal exchange... except the man is abusing himself and hurting his ability to get the real thing.
While wankers ruin their lives, sexually serious men have plenty of time and energy left over to talk to lots of girls, and hit it off with some of them in ways the wankers literally can't imagine. And because all the laws are geared towards catching wankers asking for nudes or explicitly "grooming" girls, the nofapper goes under the feminist radar legally befriending teens on social media. Nuff said.
Oh, so "pedo baiting" is a thing too now, formerly what every woman does to some degree or other as she ages: they all try to look younger for obvious reasons that society can't admit exist anymore as other than the metaphysical badness of sex. I never heard of Diana Deets before but am saddened by her suicide. I see she was pretty good at photoshopping herself a young face though many pictures look rather artificial and her unaltered ones look much older than 24. It doesn't matter how far removed from real pedophilia it gets because it is the idea that counts: we just can't be allowed to admit that youth is attractive, yeah.
Considering the numerous deviancies to which we're expected to turn a blind eye, that a 19YO dated a 14YO for four years, that he then married her, and that they're still married today seems pretty tepid stuff. So why the cries of scandal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVpOgSe9bSQ
This 24YO German youth pastor:
1) Dated this girl since she was 14YO (Germany's age of consent).
2) Married her when she turned 18 (knowing she's only going to get older).
He did nothing illegal, didn't trade her in for a new 14YO, and *of course* he's being called a pedophile.
https://twitter.com/MichaelJPartyka/status/1628058695031484421
Shoutout to Mike Partyka... and I'm actually not tempted to get back to on Twitter anymore to deal with all that hate. Just a parade of morons either calling you a sex offender or repeating the teen brain myth and similar utterly predictable nonsense that we are happier without.
I'm more inclined to build an MRA archive which along with Newgon will preserve sex-positive culture for posterity. I'm also aiming to start an enchanted secret society called the Ordo Templi Sexualis (OTS) which will be both social and political (focused on jury nullification) -- any occultists with the requisite skills please get in touch.
People who are maliciously called a "pedophile" for discussing attraction to pubescent females should immediately sue the accuser. There are many hungry lawyers who will take the case on a contingency fee (they only get paid if they win). There is alot of money to be made, alot of activist progress to be achieved, and alot of conservative and liberal feminist feelings to be hurt.
From the Britannica encyclopedia:
"Pedophilia, also spelled paedophilia, also called pedophilic disorder or pedophilia disorder, in conventional usage, a psychosexual disorder, generally affecting adults, characterized by sexual interest in *prepubescent children or attempts to engage in sexual acts with *prepubescent children."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/pedophilia
From Cornell Law:
"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
If someone calls you a pedo on Twitter for saying it's normal for men to want to have sex with 13 year old girls, screenshot that and call a lawyer, because you immediately have all 4 legal requirements satisfied for a defamation lawsuit.
I doubt any lawyer would take such a case without payment upfront. And if that's what you want to spend your money on, the outcome would likely be the same as for the guy who sued Elon Musk for falsely calling him "pedo":
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593
Also it wasn't just that word as a generic insult or joke. Musk really meant it:
Testifying over two days on Tuesday and Wednesday, Mr Musk told the court he did not expect the "pedo" tweet to be taken literally.
He said that at the time he thought Mr Unsworth was "just some random creepy guy" who was "unrelated to the rescue".
Mr Musk apologised on Twitter and in court for his outburst.
Contesting this, Mr Wood cited another now-deleted tweet the billionaire sent to his followers saying: "Bet ya a signed dollar it's true."
He also cited an email exchange that Mr Musk had with a Buzzfeed reporter who contacted him for comment on the threat of legal action, where the entrepreneur said: "Stop defending child rapists."
Mr Wood said Mr Musk was a "billionaire bully" who had "dropped a nuclear bomb" on his client, and that the tweet had affected his career and relationships.
What happened to FreeSpeechTube? It says they're doing some maintenance so the site is up but none of the content or features are available. But it's been quite a while.
In America, you are completely wrong that no lawyer would be interested, and you would pay no fees to do the case on contingency.
The Musk case actually proves my point, as it resulted in a deletion and apology from Musk, even if the guy suing him didn't get extra money at the end. Isn't that a victory in and of itself?
And most importantly, Musk is a billionaire who can absorb the costs of defending a defamation lawsuit, which definitely cost him more than $500,000 to defend. Isn't this also a victory?
The average ignorant person on Twitter cannot afford the costs of defending a defamation lawsuit. A case that meets the minimum legal requirements of defamation cannot be dismissed by a judge, and the defendant will be desperate to settle the case quickly and cheaply, because every week that goes by with the case open is costing the defendant more money. I have some experience in this area as you can observe.
You will probably at least get an apology/deletion and a few thousand dollars per person that you sue, easily. If 100 people call you a pedophile in response to advocating age gap relationships or sex with teenage girls, and you settle with them quickly after the case is filed, that is 100x1000, or $100,000.
Again, I have seen it many, many times before personally.
"pedophile "is not a legal term, it's just as if someone called you a "bastard" (though your parents were a married couple and recognised you).
Defamation is a legal concept that does not require highly technical terms. If bastards were stigmatized I am sure it could apply to that, and nothing is more stigmatized than pedophilia today. But anyway, I don't think it is very fruitful to sue for such things and I can't even use Twitter myself.
Also I suspect the court would apply the same definition as the retards who insult us. Which is basically supporting sex with younger partners than is currently socially accepted, no matter the age. Say, if you are 60 and you don't prefer women with grey hair then you are pedo by today's standards, and if your wife dyes her hair to look younger then she is pedo-baiting. At least that's the very next level of hysteria after Diana Deets, unless that was the peak, which I very much doubt.
Competent speakers of foreign languages might want to go to blogs and social media of countries that have been relatively unaffected and warn men there. Using English might also be an option but the languages of those countries would presumably have more impact.
Most of the world does not seem to be affected by white knight bullshit to the same degree as the Anglosphere.
BTW on the topic of that Newsweek article, I found it hilarious that the jellybitch who wrote it would claim that men are "conditioned" to prefer younger women. That's right, conditioned.😊
Anonymous 2
Men are "conditioned" to like younger women... lol yeah, that's delusional thinking. Going by my own experience, peak sexual attraction to middle-aged and older women occurs in a boy's teens. It isn't preferential then either and rarely includes romance, but you have so much horniness left over and so few girls interested that you would be overjoyed to get a woman who is 50 or 60. This could be tested. I bet a 50-year-old woman who offered herself up as a slut on Tinder would get the most enthusiastic responses from men aged 18-25, and the very most enthusiastic ones would be too young to use Tinder.
Of course, men are most likely to be bonded to old women when old themselves, for a host of reasons including actual conditioning, but strongest sexual attraction to their age is not among them. Older women will at best stay somewhat attractive, never turn more so. If you didn't like 50-year-old women when you were 20, you won't like them when you are 50: that's like thinking lemons will start tasting like strawberries. It doesn't work like that and the young men who join into the pedohysteria now thinking their own attraction will stay age-matched are in for a shock.
"Defamation is a legal concept that does not require highly technical terms."
True but it won't go very far since the word "pedophile" has no clear definition. Dictionaries do not keep up with the extraordinary religious appeal of this all-encompassing word.
Right, being called a pedophile is not defamatory because it is true by the vast majority of usage cases. When it now includes attraction to 16-17-year-olds it is amazing that the word can keep a negative connotation. I am only waiting for it to flip, which can happen quickly I think. It can become cool to be "pedo" almost overnight because most men are already cool with it in all but the word.
Then they would have to use another world to stigmatize the diagnosable kind, if they want to keep stigmatizing it.
An example that shows that accusations of being a pedophile can be won i Norwegian courts too.
https://fritanke.no/ronny-alte-tapte-mot-oivind-bergh/19.9788
But of course, the context the statements were made is important.
"Also I suspect the court would apply the same definition as the retards who insult us. Which is basically supporting sex with younger partners than is currently socially accepted, no matter the age."
I will repeat again, in case you missed it - The vast majority of cases would never get to the point where a judge would decide on the definition of pedophilia, because that would cost the defendant around $20,000 just to ask the judge to define it.
And if the defendant loses, they have to pay even more money to either continue the case or settle the case. Do you understand this point? As long as you have a credible legal claim, and you have a lawyer working on contingency fee, you can silence your opponents and take their money, with literally nothing to lose, especially if you are already known as an anti-feminist.
"True but it won't go very far since the word "pedophile" has no clear definition. Dictionaries do not keep up with the extraordinary religious appeal of this all-encompassing word."
You people have no clue about this, would you just listen to me? The dictionary definition of pedophilia is defined already in thousands of court cases as attraction to pre-pubescent children. Courts use something called 'precedent', which means the past decisions of judges are used for current cases. There is no question about this definition.
Listen to me - in order to change the well established legal precedent that "pedophilia" means "attraction to pre-pubescent children", a defendant would have to spend at least $100,000 on an expert witness, then another $100,000 on a good lawyer, who would have to take at least one year trying to convince a judge to go against legal precedent. Do you know how hard that is to do? Elon Musk didn't even want to do it, and he's a billionaire.
Now, imagine you are the defendant, and you have a choice - spend $200,000 and one year's worth of effort trying to prove the established legal definition of pedophilia is actually not attraction to pre-pubescent children, OR, pay $2,000 and delete your tweet and apologize.
What decision do you think the average person is going to make, 99% of the time?
Any excuse you have after my explanation is just laziness and non-activism, and you deserve what you get.
The above commenter seems to know something about the law and IMHO is worth taking notice of, though he could have done without the snarky tone.
Anyway, more crappy news from Airstrip One-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11796541/amp/Marriage-age-rises-16-18-today-new-law-aiming-protect-children-forced-weddings.html .
Anonymous2
Two notable things in the last week:
The first is the new TikTok "teenage" filter, which has a lot of middle-aged women tearing up while using it...
which is weird. Since they are in their prime now, why would looking at a replication of themselves as a teenager cause this kind of emotional reaction? Truly puzzling...
The second is of course the new Norwegian study that suggests that the amount of rapes have doubled over the last decade. Of course, this could not be due to anti-sex hysteria convincing women they've been raped if they have any doubts about their choices, the increased danger (both social and legal) for men who try to initialize any sort of sexual encounter with an attractive young woman, or the continued criminalization of prostitution. And it certainly couldn't be because of immigration!
No, it's obvious that what's needed is more finger-wagging and consent classes for white boys...
Evind is asexual - he will fuck anything sexual!
How credulous can you be??? If you were to believe that feminist propaganda junk-science... men need to fap to porn in order to be sexually healthy, and all our ancestors who didn't have internet porn had greater anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, erectile problems...
I could address it in detail, but this is so silly I really don't have to. And far from being afraid of it, lol, I thank you for posting this crap for all to see how delusional you are. You can't find a worse person than notorious porn shill Nicole Prause to take men's sexual health advice from. If that's what you want to do to yourself, suit yourself in your self-abuse while men who care about our sexuality laugh at you.
Do any of you wankers really want to defend this study after thinking about it for a minute?
Among the alarming findings of the study, which was conducted by UCLA neuroscientists Nicole Prause and London South Bank University psychology lecturer James Binnie, are the apparent adverse effects of the NoFap movement on acolytes who said they experienced mental and physical health problems when abstaining from masturbation and porn.
Of the 587 men who completed the researchers' survey, nearly 30 percent said they experienced suicidal thoughts after "relapsing" from their commitment to the reboot program, and as Psychology Today notes in its write-up of the study, these feelings seemed to worsen with increased participation in NoFap forums online.
By this logic, one can also prove that heroin is healthy because junkies who try to quit feel bad if they relapse and have more drug-related health problems than the general population. I knew wankers are delusional, but this is such a mind-boggling non sequitur that I managed to be shocked once more.
For shits and giggles here is the abstract of this magnificent new study that wankers can use to lull themselves into complacency:
Abstract
“Reboot,” especially NoFap, promotes abstinence from masturbation and/or pornography to treat “pornography addiction,” an unrecognized diagnosis. While the intention of Reboot/NoFap is to decrease distress, qualitative studies have consistently suggested that “Reboots” paradoxically cause more distress. The distress appears to occur in response to (1) the abstinence goal, which recasts common sexual behaviors as personal “failures,” and (2) problematic and inaccurate Reboot/NoFap forum messaging regarding sexuality and addiction. This preregistered survey asked men about their experience with perceived “relapse” and NoFap forums. Participants reported that their most recent relapse was followed by feeling shameful, worthless, sad, a desire to commit suicide, and other negative emotions. A novel predictor of identifying as a pornography addict in this lower religiosity sample was higher narcissism. Participants reported that NoFap forums contained posts that were misogynist (73.7% of participants), bullying (49.1%), anti-LGBT (42.9%), antisemitic (32.0%), instructing followers to harm or kill themselves (23.5%), or threats to hurt someone else (21.1%). More engagement in NoFap online forums was associated with worse symptoms of erectile dysfunction, depression, anxiety, and more sex negativity. Results support and expand previously documented harms and problems with Reboot/NoFap claims of treating pornography addiction from qualitative research.
You can't make this shit up. Men should fap and be loyal customers of PornHub so they don't become antisemitic, huh? Or anti-LGBT, or misogynistic or narcissistic... This is supposed to be in men's best interest, let alone have any relevance or causal connection? :)
As to the "real" concerns, it is hardly surprising that the worst addicts spend most time in rehab... and the worst relapsers feel worst and have the most health problems (impotence). Successful nofappers are too busy hooking up with girls to spend much time in nofap forums. I don't hang there myself either, but out of an abundance of compassion I write some blog posts and comments from time to time explaining how bad fapping is to men who want to listen for their own good. Unlike Nicole Prouse who gets paid by both the porn industry and feminist academia I don't get rewarded/bribed either... so who do you think is more honest?
Speaking of money, I could really use at least a donation for hosting the MRA-archive.com. Use my bitcoin address or PayPal @eivind70. Target: 150 dollars for the first three years of hosting which I was about to get now but can't afford yet though I am more than ready to start developing this site.
I didn't get any donations so I guess I'll just fast for a couple of weeks, but I did get hosting for mra-archive.com! Didn't do the godforsaken SSL circus yet so your browser will claim the site is unsafe, but we are online and more is coming as I go along. Now I know how to build it; in fact I'm already overqualified to build this kind of site which doesn't even strictly require JavaScript (but I put a bit in there already just to test and will experiment with lots of fun stuff). This will be my sandbox and home for all kinds of MRA/sexualist writings, out of reach from any kind of moderation short of shutting the server down, in which case I can simply put the files somewhere else. It feels great to be independent of the feminist scum for speech purposes! Knowledge is power! Google, take that for restricting nofap content, which will be the first priority to put on there! I also plan to make a subdomain for Angry Harry's site.
"Doctors recommend fapping at least 21 times a month."
Why do they not recommend having sex instead? Such "advice" comes with the assumption that you are an incel loser who have no intention of improving your situation. That is not the male sexualist philosophy.
Fapper=incel=feminist
Great new post by Robert Lindsay! Thanks for sharing. Yeah, ephebophilia is the new pedophilia despite not even being a thing to begin with, pathological or otherwise, as distinct from normal male sexuality. If someone had told me when I started out as an MRA that what we are up against would go this far I would not have believed them, but here we are:
Lately we have seen articles, one in particular in the Scottish press, saying that Hebephilia and Ephebophilia are just as wrong and messed up as Pedophilia and acting on these feelings should be outlawed. But wait. The age of consent in Scotland is 16. So adults who have sex with 16-17 year old girls are psychologically disturbed, the same as pedophiles? In addition, Ephebophilia was completely condemned. However this means an attraction or preference for girls 15-19.... The public mostly dodges the question but how a 17 year old boy turns into a pedophile when he turns 18 and still finds 17 year old girls hot is beyond me. And yes, 18 year old men are absolutely being arrested for sex with 17 year old girls! As are 19 year old men.
And my monero address is:
4AAusECnXMyAFwHi2CFVfEL63N8okXuwhDLmVpCZQ8gcJ22F4UkGJmi4FCdyhMyEv27UrwnVQa1cKJJzYSxCjRWU5gDfcYm
"How credulous can you be??? If you were to believe that feminist propaganda junk-science... men need to fap to porn in order to be sexually healthy, and all our ancestors who didn't have internet porn had greater anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, erectile problems..."
Sorry to read again that you have major erectile dysfunction problems Eivind. Most men don't need porn to fap, but of course if it's there, it can make it more enjoyoable. I remember mastubration took place before the 90's. Even chimpanzees masturbate. It clearly has a evolutionary advantage. Probably something to do with abstaining from mastubration (and not having sex) would lead to males wanting to fuck anythinig that moved, and wasting sexual resources on pug ugly HB3 fat sloths that are evolutionary dead ends for their genes.
And stop pretending that it's feminists who are behind this study. Feminists are introducing laws against porn every day, thousands of men are being locked up for looking at porn under feminist laws every week worldwide, and yet it's feminists who are promoting the idea that pon is healthy??
You Eivind Berge, are a feminist on the subject of porn. You even celebrate the fact that their whole motivation for anti-porn laws has worked on you - you will lower your standards due to NoFap and fuck fat ugly slugs, and you can no longer discriminate between a HB3 and a HB10.
This is from the previous discussion about what 'paedophile' means.
"Most men are cool with the idea that 16 year olds are attractive".
Maybe in Norway, but that long since been the case for the UK and the USA, where openly admitting that a 16 year old is sexy will get you branded as a paedo (see the link above regarding Charlotte Church).
I can see why Eivind is happy at being called a paedophile, but for most of us, we are aware that feminists are playing on the real and historical definition of the term (sexual preference for pre-pubescent children), and inflating it with the normal attraction to teenage girls.
These two things are contradictory. While paedophile still has the 'meaning' of being the worst perversion imaginable, then it can't mean sexual attraction towards teenage girls.
Feminists have skilffully inflated the literal and correct meaning of 'paedophile' with its emotional meaning. It's effect is to create and bring into existance the very thing it is supposed to be describing - the monster that likes teenage girls.
And aspie 'MAPs' have aided the feminists in this regard, by creating another word which validates the feminist inflation whilst comically trying to remove the feminist branding of it (not that the aspie MAPs even recognize feminists as the ones doing it). And of course, Eivind the tactical genius supports the MAPs in this.
Shrugging your shoulders like Eivind does and claiming that it's ok to be called a paedophile, because paedophile now means liking teenage girls, isn't the answer. The answer is to point out why feminists are abusing and inflating the term paedophile - to brand the normal sexual attraction towards teenage girls as a perversion, in order to increase their own low sexual market value - ie. raping men. But then clearly Eivind has no tactical awareness, thinking as he does that feminsits support porn, that the goal of our 'movement' should be the destruction of civilization to 'spite them' (and presumably because there will be no evil masturbation without the Internet), and that alienating every possible demographic for our cause is the right tactic.
I will address nofap later today, but for now I wanted to amuse you with what ChatGPT said when I just asked it to "tell me about the men's rights activist Eivind Berge." While I am flattered that it attributes to me books I haven't written but should have, I am shocked at some of the other "information" it provides. Sure is funny though:
Eivind Berge is a Norwegian men's rights activist who has gained some notoriety for his controversial views and actions. He is a prolific writer and blogger, and has authored several books on men's rights, including "The Feminist Lie" and "Sex and Reason."
Berge is a vocal critic of feminism and what he perceives as the mistreatment of men in modern society. He argues that men face discrimination in areas such as family law, education, and criminal justice, and that the feminist movement has gone too far in its efforts to promote gender equality.
Berge's views have been widely criticized, with many accusing him of promoting misogyny and advocating for the subjugation of women. He has also been accused of supporting violence against women and promoting pedophilia, due to his controversial writings on age of consent laws.
Berge has been involved in several high-profile legal cases, including a 2012 conviction for making threats against a judge and a 2016 conviction for possessing child pornography. He has also been banned from various social media platforms for his controversial views and behavior.
It's worth noting that Berge's views are not representative of the broader men's rights movement, which is a diverse and multifaceted movement that advocates for a wide range of issues affecting men and boys. Many men's rights activists distance themselves from Berge and his extreme views.
***NB! The above quote is ChatGPT's fantasizing. I was never convicted for child porn and not for "making threats against a judge" either.***
It does have the general idea of who I am, but now we also get to see its purely fictional side which is quite enlightening about the imperfect state of this technology. It doesn't have a way to identify lies so it will assert them as confidently as facts. Still very impressive though. You wouldn't totally fail a history test about me in the future if you wrote this, and I am more happy to be on record as this than nothing :)
Now let’s address the last batch of delusions from our resident wanker. I shall begin with the assertion that animals masturbate. This is an example that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, if you don’t know how it fits into the big picture. What chimpanzees do should never have been called by the same name, since they don’t tend to masturbate to orgasm. It’s not even edging, but something else entirely, closer to nofap than fap. It does not replace sex for them but rather, insofar as it is hypothesized to serve a purpose, serves as a way for low-status males to be maximally ready in case the alpha male isn’t watching a willing female. This would be impractical for humans since we never get a chance to pounce THAT quickly.
But nofap is indeed done in order to be ready to pounce. Contrary to common misconceptions it is not primarily intended as a treatment for porn addicts. The only thing Nicole Prause’s new porn-promoting study gets right is that true addicts don’t tend to benefit from nofap programs since they keep relapsing (just as with any other addiction, which by definition is what you can’t quit willingly), and on the other hand the worst addictions often spontaneously resolve (also true for drug addictions). No, this is not why men need nofap. Men need nofap to save themselves from average amounts of masturbation and porn use rather than the stereotypical addiction. Nofap is needed so you don’t miss out on the girls you just matched with who are down to fuck today but would have ghosted you by tomorrow, and that type of evanescent opportunities that average chumps miss out on without even realizing because they are dulled by fapping. If you fap every few days and don’t think you have a problem, there is still a huge chance that you are less than ready or motivated when the opportunity presents itself to hook up with a girl, and this is the most relevant use of nofap for most men. If you fap, you are always a few days or weeks or (for addicts who need to reboot) months away from your best sexual health, and delaying the quitting indefinitely means you never get there, so you live your entire life utilizing maybe 30% of your sexual potential. Of course no one else cares if you miss out on these opportunities. They don’t show up in any diagnoses and of course feminists don’t give a shit. But sexualists do. Men who care about their own sex lives should. It makes a tremendous difference to your well-being if you have sex with three instead of one attractive girl this year -- the latter being average and the former achievable through nofap.
And I don’t know where you have it from that nofap lowers standards. To me it does the opposite. It was nofap that helped me realize that I can still date teen girls. What happens on nofap is not that you increase your age range up to 50 on Tinder like you seem to think... instead you put more effort into the youngest girls, and you get confident enough to realize that you ONLY need to focus on attractive girls, plus it heightens your enjoyment tremendously when you get them.
Nofap can be compared to what a sedentary person is missing. He seems to have his basic needs met and isn’t necessarily sick as defined by doctors, but something important is missing if he doesn’t get some exercise somehow. He does not live his best life like that or enjoy it to the fullest. Our ancestors didn’t have to worry about exercising because their daily lives provided plenty of it. It also provided plenty of nofap because while masturbation was possible, it was self-limiting without internet porn. And so there was no need to promote neither exercise nor nofap, but today both need self-help movements.
Additionally there is the issue of erectile dysfunction, particularly in adolescent boys who get weaned on porn instead of sex. As long as they remain incel they don’t know that they are impotent because it only shows up with women, but it is a very real issue and this one is reflected in official diagnoses as well, with rates of impotence having increased 20-fold since before the invention of digital porn. This is but the most extreme manifestation of the general principle that masturbation constitutes an unacceptable opportunity cost, making you miss out on the sex you could have had. The problem with porn is that it is sexually worthless and robs you of valuable sexual experiences and miswires your sexual neurology to be aroused by pictures instead of bodies. It is poison to male sexuality and I need to keep pointing this out not until you get it which will never happen but at least until it is clearly explained. Men’s greatest asset is your libido, which needs to be nurtured as long as you are still in the game. One day it will be too late whether due to old age or other health problems that can strike any time, and then you will bitterly regret fapping when you could have had hot girls (not you AF since you seem to be stuck in a permanent delusion, but readers for whom there is still hope).
A one-sentence manifesto for both the Sexualist and MAP movements (credit to our dear Newgon Strategist, who is to the MAP Movement what I am to the Sexualist Movement):
There needs to be a war against erotophobia that disrupts and dismantles the entire legal scheme of "sex laws" by asking why they even need to exist.
A last bastion of opposition to escalating sex laws:
Bill To Ban Child Marriage In West Virginia Defeated By Republicans
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bill-to-ban-child-marriage-in-west-virginia-defeated-by-republicans/ar-AA18pY0L
The Republican-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill on a 9-8 vote, a week after it passed the House of Delegates. The vote came shortly after the bill’s main sponsor, Democratic Del. Kayla Young of Kanawha County, testified briefly before the committee. She said that since 2000 there have been more than 3,600 marriages in the state involving one or more children.
Currently, children can marry as young as 16 in West Virginia with parental consent. Anyone younger than that also must get a judge’s waiver.... The bill would have established that 18 is the age of consent and removed the ability of a minor to obtain consent through their parents, legal guardians, or by court petition. Existing legal marriages, including those done in other states, would have been unaffected.
So, Republicans are slightly better than Democrats there. Funny how the options were either no lower limit or 18 with nothing in between, so the feminists getting too greedy might have something to do with it, but I also suspect the Republicans care more about preventing abortions than sexual freedom, with marriage then being a lesser evil when teens happen to get pregnant despite their best abstinence education. They don't intend these marriages to be intergenerational either, but can't prevent it. It's mostly about continuing the tradition of shotgun marriages I suppose (which are not necessarily a bad thing, I agree).
The story is also covered in the Fail-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11836867/Americas-child-marriage-SHAME-girls-mid-teens-wedding-older-adult-men.html.
This is a win for common sense, if it is not somehow overturned.
Come to think of it, I don't recall any other time a jellyhag measure has been formally voted down by a legislature. Literally none.
Maybe they really did get greedy and some people's patience is beginning to run thin. The only other loss of theirs I know of is when Peru lowered its AOC from 17 to 14 some years ago, but this recent news is from the USA, the world's leading financial, cultural and military power and one of the most paedohysterical nations on Earth.
The Woke are on the fork of a dilemma, in that they can hardly push for children's autonomy in gender reassignment while claiming a crying need to protect 17-year-olds from marriage. This is of course an obvious point, but I was pleasantly surprised to read a number of comments, including highly-rated ones, that say this.
Anonyomous2
Like clockwork, former hot girls turn to redefining their past to abuse to stay relevant. Now up is Paris Hilton:
In Paris: The Memoir, the 42-year-old heiress reflects on an inappropriate relationship she had with her eighth grade teacher at Catholic school. She reminisces about how "all the girls in my class were crushing on this handsome young teacher" who had a "very Abercrombie" look... According to Hilton, her teacher often asked if her parents were home and one night when they weren't, he decided to come over. "I saw a late-model SUV idling at the top of the driveway," she writes. "I climbed into the passenger seat. Teacher pulled me into his arms and kissed me."... Hilton also writes that she had a hard time reconciling "the fact that I had enjoyed something that was, in reality, utterly vile."
A redefinition indeed from enjoyment to having been "molested by a pedophile"; thanks for laying the process out so clearly! The "reality" she speaks of is the metaphysical badness of sex which exists in some platonic realm defined by feminists and which takes precedence over this entire world when girls get more benefit out of invoking it.
Here comes a progress report on the MRA-Archive.com which I am actively developing. I have now fixed SSL so browsers should not complain that the site is unsafe anymore. An archive of my original Twitter account @eivindberge which got banned in 2019 for saying women cannot rape men is now back online at:
https://eivindstweets.mra-archive.com/
The @fertiledating tweets which Elon Musk is suppressing for reasons he won't even admit are also backed up and will be coming later.
If you go to the original Angry Harry site angryharry.com now it only says "Silence is Golden" which indicates he is deliberately silenced by the current owner of that domain (was it Paul Elam?). But fear not, Harry will be coming to angryharry.mra-archive.com as soon as I have adapted my files.
And of course my blog is coming, starting with the restricted nofap posts.
If you have other MRA writings suitable for inclusion, contact me and I will make an entry or subdomain for them. When we finish the Male Sexualist Manifesto it will be most prominently placed, and now I remember I also gotta put Tom Grauer's manifesto up there. Perhaps we can mirror Newgon as well.
Still didn't get any donations though.
You should have a monero donation now ;)
I do. Thank you so much! Hosting is covered :)
Are posts getting deleted by blogger or by you? I've noticed some posts missing recently.
I am not deleting posts and hopefully Blogger isn't either. Do you have any examples?
Google blocked my ability to export an archive of my blog when they put up the content warnings, but I have backups from shortly before that. Nothing will be permanently lost no matter how much they mess with me now or later, so don't worry too much.
Yet another insane escalation. While it may have been a real rape, this is no justice system...
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/23395163.hackney-man-raped-woman-kingston-stole-bank-cards/
During the trial, the victim was allowed to provide evidence in court with only the judge and barristers present so she did not have to see her rapist.
Can you imagine not being allowed to attend the most crucial part of your own trial? This is now reality for men in the UK.
I found the peak of the teen brain myth. It has now gone up to 30 years :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsPaO0gAoRk
Maybe a 29y-o- man will soon be able to get a reduced sentence for having sex with a slightly underage girl.😂
Then again, probably not because that would be too consistent.
Anonymous 2
It is actually more honest to extend the supposed immaturity upward than downward at this point. Since the difference at most reflects normal aging, they might as well say 90 and then we are back to square one with everyone equal again.
It is astonishing that ageist prejudice is accepted at the same time as we are hypervigilant against racism, sexism, etc. Somehow it is fine to say that people have an invisible handicap that defines the person more than their thoughts and behavior just because they are under 25 or 30. When we study behavior we don't find such a handicap, but neuroscience has this hypnotizing mystique that the high priests of the field can say anything they want and the normies will believe it. Because they use black boxes that we don't understand and can't check ourselves and supposedly represent high science which is as good as religion these days.
The reason for hyperfocus on age difference is because that implies a difference in power or status between people. The antiracist and woke people want to ban any activity that is between people who are unequal.
Be sure to include Robert Lindsay's writings in the MRA-archive website:
https://beyondhighbrow.com/2023/03/20/teen-sex-moral-panic-the-erroneous-conflation-of-the-language-and-concepts-of-child-molestation-to-adult-teen-sex/
Robert Lindsay strikes me as a pretty honest person who just spits out whatever is on his mind.
I was a bit disappointed in the last paragraph of his article, but he may have been thinking about censorship and possibly even his own safety if he didn't walk it back a little bit.
No doubt some people will still be apoplectic. Being right on target will do that.😊
Heads up: a new article from Mr Lindsay-https://beyondhighbrow.com/2023/03/21/normal-male-sexuality-ephebophilia-is-sick-and-evil-and-all-men-are-pedophiles-who-need-a-woodchipper/
Plus some good(ish) news from Australia-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/melbourne/article-11896785/Female-teacher-Monique-Ooms-secret-sex-16-year-old-boy-avoids-jail.html .
There's still some theoretical equality of males and females before the law so with luck this will be a precedent that helps male "predator" teachers as well as going some way to keeping the AOC at 16 in the Australian State of Victoria.
The judge even had a critical word about the 16-y-o male "victim," eg
'It was an utterly inappropriate relationship that escalated. You were both aware of the legal wrongness of it all.'
and a bit further down-
'Often in these situations the harm is what comes from other people after it becomes public,' he said.
I'm inclined to believe the previous stuff was genuflecting and that this last quote is what the judge really thinks.
Anonymous2
Thanks and I'm glad, and somewhat surprised, Galileo2333 hasn't been kicked off y/tube.
Banning u-18 marriage is part of the UN's Agenda 2030 goals according to the video.
Anonymous2
I believe Galileo has been banned many times.
Here's how to do it if you don't want to be kicked off YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onLClBgBb4Y
New video titled "Reefer Madness" where I show and tell I was on the right side of history in the drug war and how it compares to the sex war with all its victimless sex crimes that the normies currently believe in.
Bootlicking authority is rarely a source of wisdom, and especially not during fashionable hysterical witch-hunts that let the police get away with anything. The War on Sex is so popular that most people don't even realize there is a war.
And the abuse industry groweth some more... by way of the Catholic Church:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/26/europe/pope-francis-catholic-church-sexual-abuse-law-intl-hnk/index.html
Pope Francis has updated a 2019 church law governing clerical sexual abuse and extended it to include accountability for Catholic lay leaders of Vatican-approved religious organizations... Another change involves the definition of abuse victims, which previously referred to “minors and vulnerable persons.” The updated document now specifies “a minor, or with a person who habitually has an imperfect use of reason, or with a vulnerable adult.”
Okey dokey, the bar for consent has been extended once more. Presumably one must be over 30 for the brain to even be capable of the perfect use of reason that is required. And habitually so, so having one bad habit would rule you out.
I listened to Eivind's reefer madness vid. I largely agree, but I still believe there should be criminal penalties for possession, cultivation and distribution of certain intoxicating substances such as meth and weed beyond a certain, fairly generous, amount. Just my opinion.
To Brooke Shields: Oh, puhleeze!!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11904413/Brooke-Shields-reveals-dealt-posing-nude-Playboy-kissing-men-pre-teen.html.
Brooke, dear, you've had all these decades and you waited 'til your boobs and bum have well and truly sagged.
I am sure that some girls could be "sexploited" in the way she claims she was, but I don't think she was and I don't think prohibiting the kind of material she appeared in is any sort of answer. It would only mean that if some kid is treated like sh-t, that's going to happens more discreetly, and what about the videos of those young models who claimed they liked the work? Oh, that's right, they've scrubbed it from the internet. I haven't seen what they say so I don't have the opportunity to use my own discernment as to whether or not I believe they were exploited.
Anonymous2
With regard to the Brooke Shields comment, I take this along with the Olivia Hussey lawsuit as further evidence that girls truly are a completely different animal to women. They don't merely become physical hags after around 17 years, peaking as they do between 11 and 16 depending on your taste and the individual girl, but they become evil towards men unless they are well brought up by their fathers and uncles.
The female sex feeds off the wealth and prestige of male partners, but that doesn't explain why a wealthy hagtress like Shields would come out and say these things now. She is evil as are virtually all women.
I am in love with girls and am astounded that such sweet and loving creatures become such utterly repulsive beings after seventeen years of age. There are exceptions, of course, and that is usually because they have been well brought up, because learning respect for men also allows them to recognise men who do not deserve respect.
Female sex offender charade in Norway:
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/kvinne-24-domt-hadde-sex-med-gutt-pa-institusjon/15617805/
My commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHOBi9n28fQ
1% zombies and 99% emperor's new clothes is the explanation I guess.
A sexual zombie is a person who doesn't feel sexual desire or empathize with those who do (usually a feminist). They lead the pack of normies who don't have the courage to speak up against the witch-hunt.
@Anon: "I still believe there should be criminal penalties for possession, cultivation and distribution of certain intoxicating substances such as meth and weed beyond a certain, fairly generous, amount."
Putting meth and weed under the same category is like saying 5 year olds and 16 year olds are equally sexually aware. In other words, in truth there's a substantial difference between the two. You're entitled to your opinion, but when marijuana prohibition is codified into law all you're doing is ruining innocent peoples lives over a substance more benign than alcohol, and arguably beneficial in a number of ways. Mary Jane isn't meth, and I urge you to reconsider your views. :)
@Men Are Cowards: "I am in love with girls and am astounded that such sweet and loving creatures become such utterly repulsive beings after seventeen years of age. There are exceptions, of course, and that is usually because they have been well brought up, because learning respect for men also allows them to recognise men who do not deserve respect."
The mind boggles. They're like sweet fruits to be enjoyed one moment, but will turn to rot and spoil incredibly quickly once past their prime. What makes it worse is I'm sure a great many, if not most, are well aware that what they're saying is complete B.S. They know that men attracted to youth and beauty aren't "monsters", but they'll cynically play into the narrative for praise and attention. It's gross. The contrast between 'girls' and 'women' is extreme.
Re: Brooke Shields...
"Her mother reportedly stood by and watched it happen, while her co-star Carradine reassured her that it was all 'make-believe'"
Yeah, no shit her mother watched it happen. Would you prefer if she *wasn't* in attendance? Also, movies *are* make-believe. Was her real body featured? Yes. Was she ever actually a child prostitute? NO.
"The actress was just 11 when she was forced to seductively kiss Keith Carradine"
Forced? Really? Did Mommy threaten to not feed her if she didn't make out with Carradine? Were producers holding a gun to her head? Or is just that anything even slightly sexual involving a minor and an adult is inherently 'forced'?
"In a clip from the upcoming documentary Pretty Baby, Rowan says: 'It's child pornography!"
Is it though? Is it really? Another Gen-Z'er falls victim to the hype. Sad.
"Emotional: Brooke Shields got emotional while confronting her own childhood exploitation in the first official trailer for her two-part documentary, Pretty Baby, directed by Lana Wilson"
Teary-eyed 'abuse victim' interview tropes abound, I'm sure. From Pretty Baby to Ugly Old Bitch.
"I mean, I could say, 'Oh, it was the time back then,' or 'Oh, it was art.' But I don't know why she thought it was all right. I don't know."
It was a piece of cinematic art in a time less preoccupied with the hysteria surrounding child sexuality. I've never seen the movie myself, but I can confidently say it isn't "child pornography" based on everything I know about it.
"It wasn't the first, nor would it be the last time she was sexualized by the media. At 15 she shot 'Blue Lagoon,' then came 'Endless Love.' Both featured sex and nudity. And then there were those Calvin Klein denim ads. "
HOT.
"Shields, who was just 11 when she portrayed a child prostitute in the controversial film Pretty Baby, admitted she is 'amazed that' she 'survived any of it'"
"Survived"? Oh for fucks sake. I'm so over these 'survivors' who face no threat or danger whatsoever. What did she "survive"? Was she beaten in between takes? Did her 'forced' participation in the film leave her so violently ill from all the sick and vile and evil and nasty and disturbing and sickening and horrible and sick things she had to do, and she just barely made it through production? Give me a break with this crap already.
"Now looking back, Shields narrates that the 'entirety' of her life she was bombarded by people calling her a 'pretty' face 'over and over again.' 'And, that always seared me,' she confessed."
... *sigh* Why do I even bother engaging with such stupidity? What a 'searing' experience, being called pretty. JFC.
"The mother-of-two went on to reflect on being being selected for the cover of Time Magazine in 1981, at just 16, to represent the '80s look.'"
"Just" 16.
"A young Brooke Shields in a still used in the trailer for Hulu's 'Pretty Baby: Brooke Shields'"
It's almost as though they're exploiting images of her youth so as to further profit off the documentary. What a bunch of creeps!!1
"Despite her vampish image, Shields would later admit she didn't have sex until she was 22 — and would have preferred to have waited even longer."
Poor Baby. She should've waited another 3 - 8 years before engaging in such an intellectually complex endeavor. Her poor 22 year old brain would not have been able to comprehend the oh-so-complicated nature of sex!
"For years she credited her fiercely defensive mother Teri, who was also her manager. 'If anybody looked at me sideways, she was like: 'I will cut off your b***s and make you eat them,' ' Shields said in 2019. "
The "fiercely defensive mother" who just "stood by and watched it happen".
"In 2000, she gave an interview to the gay magazine The Advocate in which she said: 'There are many women I find very attractive. But that's not acceptable in this world'"
Yeah. Don't you hate when you're attracted to people but it's not considered acceptable? The worst, right?
Aaaaaaand a quick glance at the upvoted normieshit populating the comments section is enough to renew my loss of faith in humanity yet again. What a joke.
heyyouyeahyou42-I never said meth was no worse than weed. The libertarian in me dislikes limiting private possession of any drug, but as I stated, possession and sale of some drugs beyond a fairly generous limit should be illegal in order to stop drug lords from exploiting full legalization.
Anyway, in reference to MenAreCoward's post, the lead character in Cuties was eleven, which the movie reveals as the age of becoming a woman in the Muslim culture her parents are from. Somehow, the Hags didn't pick up on that.
The way people carry on, you'd think there was a slew of Pretty baby movies being made when in reality, producers won't touch the notion of tween and teen girl's appeal to normal men with a bargepole. AFAIK, Cuties was the last movie to do with anything like that and that was a good three years ago.
I happened to watch a scene from Happy Days, a series that was made about the time Brooke Shields became famous. Richie was introducing his attractive prom date to his dad who was awkward in the presence of the hot girl. There was humour but only because it was rightfully seen as only natural for a man of any age to be a bit tongue tied. No matter how edgy current movies or TV shows are supposed to be, this is one thing they wouldn't dare do. If and when they do, we will know that times are beginning to change, but not before then.
Happy Days was great. Before my time but I used to watch the reruns when I was a kid. Good memories of a saner time.
"Shields would later admit she didn't have sex until she was 22 — and would have preferred to have waited even longer."
A 22-year-old not wanting to have sex has nothing to do with maturity, even in an individual case. It is rather a personality trait or a phase, and the same goes for young teenagers. We are merely deluded because they get to blame ALL their decisions on immaturity.
Sad about Brooke Shields. She seemed to be one of the few famous women who had profited from her teenage beauty to NOT be publicly resentful of it, or claiming to have been exploited. But she clearly has discovered that she can get back into the news and celeb interview rounds by pulling the 'child abuse victim' card.
I've been thinking about the recent 'trans rights activist' stories in the news. First, the New Zealand mob who spat and threw tomatoe juice over a feminist who was attempting to give a speech. I mean if you watch the videos (on Twitter, not the mainstream news) you can clearly see her being surrounded and spat on by a violent, aggressive, testosterone fuelled group of MEN (OK, 'trans men'), who clearly want to rip her to pieces.
Now how is this possible? How is it possible that feminists can do what they've done to us - to normal men, and criminalize and shame our natural sexuality, and we can do absolutely nothing? Like lambs to the slaughter? The best we can do is the aspie MAPs and 'ephebohebophiles', with their rainbow visions, neither of whom can see that feminists are even the enemy.
Yet testosterone filled biological males can decide to identify themselves as women and put the fear of GOD into feminists who oppose their 'right' to share public toilets and locker rooms with little girls etc. How is this fucking possible?
And then we have our great leader saying that 'the trans movement has no relation to ours' and we have nothing to learn from it. Even though, we don't have a movement, certainly not one led by Eivind, given that the closest he has to a follower after 20 years is somebody who thinks feminists are allies, and calling somebody a paedocrite is 'such a horrible, horrible thing to call somebody'?
Our MAP friends should study the following well crafted and researched exposition of Sexual Trade Union theory : https://greenpill.net/sex-war/
One little quote from a feminist historian :
"Ever since the raising of the age of consent in 1885 from 13 to 16, feminists within the ‘social purity’ organizations had been continuing to campaign to close loopholes in the Act of 1885, and for further measures to prevent the sexual abuse and exploitation of women. One such measure which feminists had long demanded was that soliciting by men should be made illegal. In 1907 … a White Slave Traffic Bill had been drafted, which included a clause on male soliciting."
Charles Bukowski said: "People are strange: they are constantly angered by trivial things, but on a major matter like totally wasting their lives, they hardly seem to notice."
The transsexuals are like that too. They get very upset if they can't use the ladies' room, have their pronouns or drag shows or storytime with little kids. But like most men they fail to notice the injustice of wasting lives over age of consent.
So no, I don't think the trans movement is significant to our cause. Not until they can direct their anger against the actual sex war.
Yes, but surely you can see that we can learn from them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbPB9usgZBs
It's becoming increasingly obvious that we're on the cusp of The Singularity, perhaps even in the next year, and you're making a YouTube video about a study from 1972 that proves industrial society is collapsing?
So what, we will have chatbots to chat intelligently with us at the end of industrial civilization? They can't solve the problem. They can't find a new energy source for us or replenish depleted mines. We are facing a physics problem and at best AI will tell us what we already know, that it is too late to change course. A few more optimizations here and there might be possible but it won't change the big picture of limits to growth.
Nothing is annoying me more than the ageist description used for'former adult porn star' Stormy Daniels. Pathetic! And if Trump really DID pay for time with a female THAT old and not a fresh hebe, then he is more of a cuck that I'd thought.
To think that there was a time when I might have thought Trump was at least going to put a damper on pedohysteria, and then he signed in some 'trafficking law' and joined in with the pedohysteria himself. I guess we were desperate back then, and the prescence of Grauer was still very much among us, influencing us with his reckless optimism.
I am guessing the billionaire Trump DID pay for thirteen year old girls as was alleged, and that he tasted the sweet forbidden flesh at least once, even if it was his own daughter, Melania. And like 99 per cent of men who have, he lacks any male solidarity.
To his credit, Trump was a friend of Epstein's and said "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
I also saw him disbelieve the female sex offender charade in a YouTube video.
But then it went downhill from there and he became a normie. Obviously not because he believes in it, but he's just another cog in the sex war now like most men will do to fit in.
Moral convictions are for us few chosen ones. A moral conviction is something one stands up for even when not socially advantageous, and that is really something. I wonder how many normies would still spout the sex-hostility if it weren't socially normative, and am guessing few if any men. The problem is the sex war doesn't need believers in order to do its worst. It just needs spineless parrots like Trump. Feminism owns the zeitgeist and men are wusses in public. I am practically a leper who can't get any public followers, just for being a perfectly normal man who is not afraid to stand up for masculinity.
A tiny bit of good news: In another interesting post, The Night Wind has mentioned paedohysteria again. Every time the concept is invoked and every time the word is used outside of these tiny circles is a win.
http://nightwind777.blogspot.com/
Anonymous2
"So what, we will have chatbots to chat intelligently with us at the end of industrial civilization? They can't solve the problem. They can't find a new energy source for us or replenish depleted mines. We are facing a physics problem and at best AI will tell us what we already know, that it is too late to change course. A few more optimizations here and there might be possible but it won't change the big picture of limits to growth."
Maybe if the Mother Nature Goddess Gail is correct and Industrial Civilization collapses in the next couple of years, but unless you know something about the present course of AI development that countless experts are missing, I'm pretty sure in another 20 years or so, AI will be figuring out any number of possible new energy sources. Before then, it's 1,000 times more likely that we will nuke ourselves than run out of oil.
If you think the latest (and next) generation of AI are just 'chatbots', then it just demonstrates your irrelevance. You appear to have no grasp of the AI developments that have dominated the media, and that most people, have tried and are making use of. You look at trans rights activists hounding feminsits into silence, and there's nothing in your brain that can recognize any relevance to us. You keep calling yourself a 'sexualist' because your grasp of evolutionary psychology is such that you believe that male sexuality and female sexuality are not in conflict, and can be combined into one political movement campaigning for each other's respective sexual rights. There is no contradiction or competition between men being programmed to fuck as many young girls as possible, and women being programmed to secure one dominant male and keep him exclusively for life. None at all. And there's no point of a movement because Industrial Civilization will collapse in the next 12 months, like it always was going to collapse in the next 12 months since 1972, anyway.
Great post on The Night Wind about Trump and sex hysteria including pedohysteria.
http://nightwind777.blogspot.com/2023/04/trash-cultures-finest-hour.html
Somewhere between the time when Congressmen actually conducted investigations into things like governmental abuses of power and today's disgraceful spectacle of a former president being brought before a civil Inquisition---sex scandals have become something of a national past-time as Supreme Court nominees, politicians, and many celebrities have learned to their mortification. The same Whacko Left-Wing doing high-fives and screaming in fake outrage over today's Trump Indictment no doubt would read the above anecdote about the Church of Scotland and recoil in horror over what those judgemental bigots were doing; when they ought to be taking a good look in a mirror.
Quite right, America has become a nation of intolerant voyeurs. They have recreated the kind of bigotry their ancestors were escaping and then some. Trump's indictment is just another "sex scandal" disguised as financial crime. That they had to reach for those other crimes is really saying something with so much sexuality criminalized, about how trivial this is. But it isn't even tax evasion or anything that matters to any legitimate interest, just mislabeling a payment as legal fees when it should have been "hush money." It would be best to avoid the kind of greedy bitch who demands hush money in the first place, of course, but failing that there ought to be a way to at least label it discreetly in your accounting. This does not deserve to be a criminal matter by any objective standards and is obviously a political prosecution. If this is all they have on Trump, he must have been practically a saint in his business practices, because I am sure most businessmen break a lot more consequential rules than putting the wrong label on a transaction. There is plenty of real corruption out there but this doesn't come close, unless you consider the public's "right" to control everyone's sexuality all the time to be of utmost importance.
This popular twitter profile talks openly about wanting to have sex with child-like Asian girls under the age of consent. When attacked, he pushes back like a militant.
https://twitter.com/itzYourMom69lol
There is a very popular and growing trend of twitter "racists" who want child brides. This is a good trend.
Even Wikipedia is pro-wanking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation
"Even" Wikipedia? Duh, the entire culture is pro-wanking. And they are wrong, just like they are about underage sex. That's why the responsibility rests upon my shoulders to tell the true story, because so few others are.
A lot of the reasons against wanking are the same as the arguments against the experience machine of Nozick's thought experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQgeUfDoAmA
Nobody in their right mind would want to be plugged into that machine, same as no man in his right mind would be wanking.
We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.
"It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them."
We want to be a certain sort of person.
"Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob."
Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make).
"There is no actual contact with any deeper reality [or other person], though the experience of it can be simulated."
Masturbation is not comparable to plugging yourself into an experience machine. Also, wasn't Nozick writing in the 1970's - long before we came to realize that logically and statistically, we're probably all living in an experience machine (simulation)?
Yeah, tell your truth, and spend the next 20 years having yourself as the only follower in the Evind Bergist movement.
Gary Glitter will spend the rest of his life in prison for looking at videos of ballet girls on YouTube.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21909718/gary-glitter-returns-jail-ballet-girls-clips/
Firstly I am not buying the simulation hypothesis. I don’t think conscious people can be simulated. But even if we are in a simulation, I think other people in the simulation are just as conscious as I am and I don’t want to substitute any party of my sex life with fake partners. Which indeed is equivalent to an experience machine except it is reversible, but only if you get the idea that there is something wrong with masturbation! Failing that, you are trapped in an experience machine, more or less, and any part of that is bad. Pornography is not equivalent to other forms of entertainment because your sex life is supposed to be lived experience, not something you simply watch others doing, if you care about sexuality. And if you don’t then you are not a sexualist.
Life in prison for watching ballet videos on YouTube… yeah, Britain is really something. And if that doesn’t scare the bejesus out of Brits here’s another record in the female sex offender charade too with eight women convicted.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21958402/walsall-wolverhampton-child-sex-abuse-ring-women/
Even the bigots who believe women can sexually abuse should be frightened by the fact that there is zero reporting of WHAT these women did. Might as well call it witchcraft and it would be equally descriptive to anyone who wanted to make up his own mind as to whether they did anything crimeworthy. We just have to take the word of the witch-hunters that it was all extremely horrific abuse… probably by court-ordered secrecy… and if that doesn’t scare the public then nothing will.
“He clearly still has an interest in young girls and has not reformed at all.”
The fucking heterosexual asshole! He should have reformed into buttfucking men and wearing a dress, like a normal guy.
Fuck England and the English speaking world, what a bunch of faggots. Completely unacceptable to live there.
Whether the sex demon that this society is persecuting takes the form or ballet or rape is irrelevant, isn't it? It's the thought that counts, or the mere finger-pointing on anybody as an abuser because some secret accuser says so with the accusations secret too at this point. For all we know, the women watched ballet videos too, or perhaps real ballet with impure thoughts in their heads, and it wouldn't make a difference. If we aren't quite there yet we shortly will be... and the reporting will be indistinguishable. People disappearing with nobody to stand up for them or even notice that anything out of the ordinary is happening. Because this IS ordinary now. The label of "sex abuse" arouses zero curiosity as to its legitimacy and hence no need to ever question what it means because the public just knows the feminist state is infallible, with carte blanche to persecute anyone they want.
It almost has to be a simulation for the sheer weirdness of it, so if I didn't know better I would say that's likely, yes; some sick joke of simulated cultural insanity.
And yeah, this notion that "sex offenders" can and must be "reformed" from liking young girls to the point that they can't even have interest in watching a ballet video, in order to be safe for society... and even in their dotage this is so incredibly dangerous for girls that we have to lock them up until they die... Wow, this is a really high bar for the next escalation to pass! But I have been wrong about the peak so many times nothing can surprise me anymore.
The only thing missing now is a comprehensive program to "reform"/exterminate men, without the initial labeling as a sex offender first which by now is obviously superfluous anyway.
https://twitter.com/itzYourMom69lol/status/1646505087773163520
"We still haven’t figured out the full story of how this is men’s fault. We will be getting back to you shortly.
But so far we have:
Abused the innocence
She didn’t understand
She didn’t know what a penis is
Mind control
Secret words to manipulate the subconscious mind"
https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/florida-girl-12-steals-dads-car-to-meet-online-predator/
Yes, of course it's always the man's fault no matter how eager the girl appears. Because youth are philosophical zombies, you see. Their will does not count because we are to believe they don't have a consciousness with which to make it.
New video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQlxiH5Q64k
Actually a whole series of zombie videos, introducing the concept that age of consent is the forced belief that an arbitrary group are not people but sexual zombies. Ought to be suitably insulting to the girls as well as the feminists to think of it that way (and the law, not me, is leading to this conclusion, so one would have to change the law to make it right).
Here I make a short and sweet statement on how to conceptualize age of consent in order to mock the feminists maximally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YknytDXqlYU
From now on, ask them if they are/were zombies whenever they claim inability to consent, because that is indeed what they are claiming.
Also funny how if the same girls stole a car or drove without a license just to go on a joyride they would be held completely responsible. The zombiehood is selective for sexuality only. But once there is sexuality involved, it transforms all related actions into the doings of a sexual predator who is controlling their minds because they don't have one of their own. Curiously this only works for sexuality, why exactly?
Gregory drove her father’s truck all the way from the Gainesville area to Mobile, Alabama — a roughly five-hour trek.
That's a long drive with a supposedly undeveloped brain. How did they manage without any accidents and also while having what little brain power they are believed to possess inactivated by sexual mind control? :)
Re: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11977521/It-never-big-problem-Roman-Polanskis-victim-Samantha-Geimer.html
There's certainly a dramatic double standard with accountability of minors in sexual as opposed to virtually any other matters. But anyway, little hotties, the two of them.
Incredible article from the Daily Ail-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11977521/It-never-big-problem-Roman-Polanskis-victim-Samantha-Geimer.html.
This story raises the rather disturbing possibility that rape in some circumstances isn't that big a deal. I mean, she herself is saying that, and aren't you supposed to always believe the woman? If Tom Grauer and Galileo 2233 are rape-ists in their philosophy, then myself, Eivind and most others here are firmly autonomists or consensualists. Nevertheless, perhaps some cases of rape should be dismissed if the victim says they don't feel the need for further action.
Anonymous 2
@Anonymous 2 I think we all agree that feminists have massively exaggerated the impact of most sex crimes, including (non-violent) rape. Well except Eivind that is, who agrees with feminists on their ridiculous idea that 'rape is worse than murder' for a woman.
Wasn't Tom Grauer supposed to being satirical with his stupid sub-Matt Forney attempts at trying to gain notoriety?
And isn't the Galileo guy the sex offender who agrees with feminist anti-sex laws and thinks they are our friends?
Those are good points. Rape is not always a big deal even when it fits my definition. Samantha Geimer said much the same to me on Twitter before I was banned. She wasn't exactly willing at the time, but it's hard to see this as rape given how she reacted to it, and they certainly should drop the charges when girls say they are fine with it (for other reasons as well in Polanski's case since the judge was corrupt and abused the system to extract more punishment). I am unsure how to predict when girls can be forced without being traumatized, however, so I can't condone it as a general rule. But I can speculate that most "date rape" type situations are like that. Perhaps women subconsciously allow for sex when agreeing to be alone with men in a romantic setting. That would make sense evolutionarily, since I doubt our ancestors cared much about feminist notions of consent. I viewed "date rape" as mostly a scam from the beginning, and it hasn't gotten more convincing over the years. Maybe even less so when we take seriously what the victims themselves say when they aren't parroting feminist propaganda or taking advantage of the laws with ulterior motives. Women are capable of surprising us with in fact being fine with actual force in retrospect. I've even heard them speak like this about incest, and this is not me making it up but actual victims, and yeah, we should believe women.
Here is the truth about "rape" as it was understood throughout human history - rape is a property crime against either the husband or the father of the female.
Rape as it is defined today is the disregard of the opinion of the female as to whether she wants to have sex or not. The definition used to be disregard plus physical force causing injury, but now it's just plain old disregard. This of course is ridiculous because every man knows he will never have sex with a girl by asking her if he can. Therefore, all heterosexual sex becomes rape, in line with the feminist law we live under today. Also, all sex becomes more pleasing to women because they are all being "raped".
Girls enjoy rape sexually - they are extremely turned on by the extreme dominance, extreme attention and brazen disregard shown by their "attacker" when they are "raped" - this also includes traditional rape with the use of force that causes injury.
Studies show almost all women orgasm when "raped". Studies also show many women enter therapy after they are "raped" not because of any negative consequences of the experience itself, but because of their massive confusion created by their deep love for their rapist when society tells them these feelings are wrong and bad.
"You're a poor victim of rape, what a horrible thing that happened to you, you had your personal and sexual agency completely taken away from you in the worst way, the man who did it is a supremely selfish despicable lowlife who deserves to rot in prison" - it is guaranteed any girl who reads that sentence will feel a tingle in her vagina, whether or not she has been a rape victim. See, "romance novels" are the best selling books among women because they are all rape porn for women. They all get off on it. Go look for yourself if you don't believe it.
All women love rape, which is why it's not a crime against women, it's a crime against the men in her life who are responsible for her. Sorry if this is too intense for this blog, but I assume we are still focused on the truth. Feel free to delete if you must.
Thanks for your comment, which is welcome contribution to the debate which I believe is best served by exploring all angles. However, I don't agree with taking it so far. It is possible to support a middle ground between feminist "all sex is rape" hysteria and actual rape apology. I do not believe rape was or should be considered merely a "property crime" against men either. While I do believe it is defensible to get rid of all sex laws including for rape, real forcible rape would still be a pretty serious crime when judged as an assault not particularly aggravated by the sexual aspect. It is therefore wrong to speak of it as a good thing (except where the victim gives retroactive consent like Samantha Geimer appears to do) or legalize it completely (which would involve enacting EXCEPTIONS for rape to the common assault laws, which is crazy).
I agree with keeping rape illegal in the traditional definition, where serious injury is inflicted, simply because even if women get off on it, we must protect them from themselves so to speak, because who wants a bunch of busted up women walking around society? That's almost as ugly as land whales everywhere!
Not serious injury, but serious resistance, unless the threat is so grave that she would likely get killed or seriously injured. If for example the rapist wields a knife, fighting back is not required, just ample proof that the threat was real and credible. In practice though, sufficient proof can hardly ever consist of just word against word, so injury would tend to be required or at least witnesses.
Check out my new video on the female sex offender charade:
https://youtu.be/e3u6U-6hnFw
But actually Woody Allen said it better, lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bphR-6Xi1_I
Maybe my video is 40 minutes too long, but I am proud of it.
Wow.
https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2023/04/17/texas-lawmaker-bryan-slaton-accused-of-sex-with-intern
The current accusation is funny enough, but this takes it to another level:
Between the lines: After the allegations against Slaton first surfaced, Sen. Drew Springer, a Republican from Muenster, introduced an amendment to a bill that would make it a first-degree felony for members of the Legislature to engage in "grooming behavior" with victims under the age of 21.
It didn't pass, but Republican legislators actually wanted a special sex law raising the age of consent to 21 for themselves, legislators only. You can't make this shit up. That is antisex virtue signaling on steroids or rather whatever a hypercastrated metaphor would be. Of course it would be a small matter to expand it to the general public if this is what legislators want for themselves, so at this point it won't surprise me if that is next. And yeah, goes to show Republicans are worst.
The occasional woman being locked up for screwing underage boys is a worse travesty than the Holocaust and every other hate crime in history??
Jesus Christ.
@Anonymous 3-
Wasn't Tom Grauer supposed to being satirical with his stupid sub-Matt Forney attempts at trying to gain notoriety?
No, I don't think so. He was indeed a rape-ist, as is Galileo 2233 and the late Nathan Larson. I read enough of his blog to be sure of this.
And isn't the Galileo guy the sex offender who agrees with feminist anti-sex laws and thinks they are our friends?
Again, I've listened to many of his videos and I don't recall anything of that nature.
Anonymous2
This is the first article that brought Eivind notoriety : http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2009/05/rape-is-equality.html
Eivind arguably invented the idea of 'the redistribution of sex' before incels brought into the mainstream. Eivind also talked a lot about incel issues in his early days, before incels were a thing, although he denies this now as he wants to present himself as a lifelong alpha male chad. In another 20 years we will all be gone likely, and largely forgotten, like Angry Harry, Chris Brand, Men-Factor, Barbora Hewson etc etc. Eivind could have lived on for hundreds of years as the first incel prophet and the man who invented the concept of sex redistribution, albeit in a controversial and provocative manner. Instead, he spent the next 20 years obsessing over the female sex offender charade and peak oil, claiming not to be a misoygnist, and trying to invent a 'sexualist' movement that sex crazed women would join and accept him as their alpha male cult leader while we all eagerly awaited the collapse of industrial civilization that Mother Gail promised.
Maybe I'm confusing Gallileo with somebody else. I think there was another guy here with a similar name (Gally?) who identified as an ephebophile and was facing trial over something, and who Eivind declared leader and invited him to write a guest article. It began with the words - 'I am woman hear me roar' or something like that. Then, being an aspbergic feminist ephebophile with trans identity issues, he turned on Eivind for some trivial reason.
I thank Eivind for his work, including his videos. I don't see the need to emphasize the female sex offender charade but hey, who am I to judge?
Someone got their anonymous numbers wrong. I did not write the post immediately above this and in fact am not entirely familiar with everything discussed therein.
Since I'm here, I would like to take the opportunity to ask something-how would a normie define paedohysteria? How COULD a normie define paedohysteria, or paedohypocrisy for that matter?
Anonymous 2
I never proclaimed Gally leader of anything. I gave him one guest post which didn’t end up making much sense. It was Tom Grauer I called our leader for a while and his naming our movement as male sexualism is a great, lasting contribution. But our true leader was really Nathan Larson until he died. My eulogy for Nathan Larson is my most watched video ever, still getting consistent views and I don’t know if I can surpass that. As far as activism goes, none of us are fit to touch the hem of his garment. Ditto for popularity among young girls. I do believe women, and I believe teenage girls are more representative than old hags. If young teens have no problem with Nathan’s rapey image, who are we to find fault with it?
The christian conservative feminists are our biggest enemy, they are way more oppressive and severe than the blue haired victim left wing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/death-penalty-for-child-rapists-approved-desantis-expected-to-sign-into-law/
Now, they pass the death penalty for "child rape", or sex with a girl under 12 years old. Conservatives don't even realize they would've sentenced this white man to death and destroyed his white family less than 100 years ago:
https://www.mamamia.com.au/eunice-winstead/
They are evil, jealous, bitter, oppressive feminists, stone cold and ready to torture whoever they can get their hands on. If there is happiness to be experienced, the christian conservative feminists are ready to destroy it, lest it reminds them of their own seething unhappiness. And they are far more efficient than the blue haired feminists. The conservative christian feminists are our mortal enemy.
Hey Eivind, a career-related question: do you think that your history of antifeminist blogging will affect your chances of being hired as a programmer? That is, are you worried that your reputation will hinder your future career advancement, or is it a non-issue?
No, I am not worried about it. I can't be sure that nobody cares, but I will simply avoid those employers. Also I have over a year left of training before I can be hired anyway, so this is not relevant soon.
To be fair, Eivind can neither see the impact of his blogging on his career prospects, nor the rise of AI that most agree might put even senior programmers out of a job within a year or two.
Meanwhile, I've been pursuing an interest in the history of the gay rights movement, particularly in the 60's, before feminists had neutered it, and the thought and language of gay rights activists was very similar to the incels of today - referring to women as 'breeders' and seeing them as the enemy. And of course, at that time it was still taken for granted by every gay man that the height of physical perfection was a teenage boy. Of course Eivind will see all this as 'irrelevant'.
Anyway, I came across this book which looks quite interesting : https://www.amazon.co.uk/Boys-Michael-Hone-ebook/dp/B07BGTK39S/
"The Greeks celebrated their dead with steles and statues depicting them at the age philosophers judged so beautiful that it was reserved for the gods themselves, 16. Sixteen is the moment of bodily perfection, when budding biceps and pectorals take on the strength of steel, the complexion is of peaches-and-cream splendor, where male prowess is diamond-hard and tireless. It’s the age of discovery and adventure, the accomplishment of the feats which provide the memories that will help men get through old age, until they close their eyes for the final time, perhaps smiling."
I've also been further researching the Criminal Amendment Act of 1885 which raised the age of consent in the Uk to 16, and by example and inspiration, in the USA and elsewhere, right up to Spain a few years ago.
As some of non-ephebophiles/maps here might be aware, this was lobbied for by early feminists who sprung out of the Social Purity Movement of the 19th century.
At the time, anti-feminists explicity fought the law, arguing tha raising the age of consent would leave men open to blackmail.
One of the leading anti-feminist politicians in the UK at the time was a man named Henry Labouchère. In an attempt to wreck the bill, and to stop the age of consent being raised to 16, he introduced a last minute amendment that would criminalize all homosexuality. It didn't work, as the Criminal Amendment Act was passed together with Labouchere's amendment, so the result was that the age of consent was raised to 16 and homosexuality criminalized in the same piece of legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouchere_Amendment
We shall see how good current "AI" is at taking on work that people want to pay for. So far it's been great amusement but not much more.
I haven't been paying attention to the peak of male beauty since I am not gay, but that sounds about right. Fits with the Kinsey report as well which found peak male sexual performance at 16. It's a shame I don't have memories of feats from that time, but I shall still close my eyes for the final time smiling at the teen girls I had later.
And speaking of youthful feats... I made a video about the tragedy of missing out which is why you should practice nofap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyO8q--4j9s
No doubt if I had been a committed nofapper in my teens I would have had feats to remember! But it isn't quite too late until you get to the stage of the man in the poem.
How many of those comments were posted by bots or professional troll armies who are paid by anti-sex organizations to influence public opinion?
Instead of emphasizing male beauty, let's promote an idea that men shouldn't have to be beautiful or rich or famous or young in order to have intimate interaction with the young girls.
Look at these senseless examples of contemporary American cuckery who actually believe they are masculine men who are taking a stand against the left and 'wokery'. One of them carries a gun on his hip because he's tough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfvYFvoy6mw
Referring to sex with teenagers, Jim the idiot says "I've been to every continent, Australia, Africa, Europe... nobody puts up with that."
Here, Jim Breuer takes on the mental retardation of the characters he is known for playing throughout his career. I guess fake it 'til you make it is real after all!
If he wasn't being a lying, hysterical, dumb and frankly weird scumbag in this interview, he would have maybe noticed that the ages of consent in many of those areas is well below 18, the age in his mind that magically, a child becomes an adult.
So I guess they don't consider it "child fucking" in those areas after all. Or maybe they do, and they don't think it's something they should nuke their entire society over.
Disappointed in goat man.
Children as young as six are sexting suspects, according to the Metropolitan Police
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51507352
If you believe sex is this demonic force which needs to be eradicated at all costs, it's not much of a stretch that children can be possessed by it and of course need to be hunted too. Never mind that the supposed problem with sex is that it corrupts children, so how the badness could be conjured out of innocence is beyond me, but superstition is not the place for logic. It made me wonder if children were accused during previous witch-hunts, and sure enough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_accusations_against_children
By the start of the seventeenth century, many children were being punished and put in prison for taking part in alleged witchcraft. This usually occurred because of their alleged participation in Sabbats. It was a common belief that witches' children inherited witchcraft from their parents. It was often the practice to charge a whole family of witchcraft, even if only one individual was suspected. Accused witches who confessed often claimed that they learned witchcraft from a parent.
Pierre de Lancre and Francesco Maria Guazzo believed that it was enough proof of a witch's guilt if they had parents who were accused witches. They believed "witch" parents introduced the children to Satan, took the children to Sabbats, married children to demons, inspired the children to have sex with Satan (devil) or had sex with Satan with the child present. Many times the child accused of witchcraft, due to being shunned, became aggressive and threatened community members, thereby enforcing community beliefs that the child was a witch.
That sure sounds familiar. Both the inheritance and the sociogenic effects that prove abuse victims are abused because they are stigmatized... like the Metropolitan Police so skillfully does to six-year-olds. Nothing new under the sun.
I thought Eivind's latest talk hit many nails right on the head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ZlFPPn8mY
It's in very few people's interest to take the paedohysteria and age cuckery head-on.
Strangely enough, I have found a few elderly women to be unencumbered by social dogma surrounding these matters. It's as if they have nothing to lose any more or maybe they always were unusually fair-minded people.
Then there's this rather ridiculous story-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11979695/Piper-Rockelles-mom-sued-22m-11-kids-daughters-squad-claim-abuse.html.
By the way, I've had a look at Piper Rockelle's social media accounts so you don't have to. It'll put you to sleep.
Women as a group are obviously not natural allies in any way. However, for various reasons, some have less interest in paedohysteria and age cuckery than most. As time goes by and people get more and more bored, it may prove to some women that the way they gain favourable attention is to go against the prevailing dogma.
Anonymous 2
More innocent badness:
https://www.townandcountrytoday.com/ontario-news/boy-12-charged-in-series-of-toronto-sex-assaults-police-say-6882325
The negative female archetype that the mainstream media has propagated nowadays, known as the Karen is a part of the female offender charade. Let's examine that concept.
Then what explains the old women who were teenage groupies back in the day that were ok with what happened back then but now are declaring #MeToo on all the classic rock stars?
Going by all this #MeToo crap female nature seems downright inconsistent with itself. If they need to reinterpret their willing actions in their teens and 20s as abuse when they reach their 40s or 50s or 60s, something is seriously out of whack. I hope it is because society is currently perversely rewarding such predation, rather than a persistent character flaw. I don't think women acted this way historically, so there is hope, but that depends on men standing up for themselves or civilization collapsing. If we go back to small tribes, feminism also can't work because it depends on redistribution of resources that won't exist by a police state that won't exist. Feminism is an outgrowth of industrial civilization and will die with it.
Likely what happens is that modern culture influencers are able to easily manipulate old women into supporting modern anti sex ideologies in a way very similar to how financial scammers con the elderly to giving up money. They know older people are often quite gullible by declining mental cognition. They used a similar charisma to get the old groupies to buy into #MeToo that the Craftmatic Adjustable bed salesmen used a generation ago to get seniors to spend thousands on adjustable beds that were advertised as "costing no more than these quality flat beds" (showing pictures of very expensive beds in a small grainy picture in the background of the commercial for a short time).
Yet another poetic high-water mark. You may remember Madeleine McCann as a victim, but in the ultimate reversal, in this topsy turvy feminist world she is a pedo too!
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/fake-madeleine-mccann-says-im-29748307
A woman who spent months claiming she might have been Madeleine McCann has denied allegations that she's a "paedo".
Julia Wendell, the 21-year-old Polish singer has been accused of having illicit pictures of underaged children on her phone by her former friend, Dr Fia Johansson.
"I am not a paedo. I am a victim of a paedo."
Who cares? The point to have someone for the police state to consume, so being the most prototypical victim ever is no bar.
Meanwhile in the ever expanding sex war the UK has gotten around to persecuting men for talking about 15-year-olds about breast size:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/lewd-church-volunteer-messaged-girl-29751542
But Brazil is lagging behind and allowing this:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/mayor-65-marries-teen-princess-29802977
Brazilian mayor marries a 16 year old girl (minimum age, w/ parents consent), 1 day after her birthday. He's 65.
Inspirational!
This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while:
https://twitter.com/lameypilled/status/1650874048006721537
An incel site moderator finally got laid at 33 - and his girlfriend is 19, at that!
Instead of taking this as inspiration and motivation, many other incels are piling on him and calling him "fake" and "a traitor".
Of course, the usual age-gap shaming roasties are after him too, lol
Galileo2333 upholds an idea that incels are something that shouldn't exist. Societys leaders and powers should never be allowed to impose rules or create any situation that causes any man to be involuntarily celibate.
Sometimes, even the police do something of some practical usefulness
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/gatineau-police-arrest-five-men-in-connection-with-alleged-pedophile-hunters-activity
"If they need to reinterpret their willing actions in their teens and 20s as abuse when they reach their 40s or 50s or 60s, something is seriously out of whack. I hope it is because society is currently perversely rewarding such predation, rather than a persistent character flaw. I don't think women acted this way historically, so there is hope, but that depends on men standing up for themselves or civilization collapsing. "
You also made another video the other day asking why oh why do women 'hurt themselves' by locking up a couple of dozen women out of 4 billion for screwing 12 year old boys in class etc.
Well Eivind, it's quite simple. Why do 40 year old women create a society in which men fear even looking at 17 year old girls AND the occasional women gets locked up as collateral damage?
Well it's because such a society is better for the average 40 year old woman than a society in which every man is free to fuck as many ripe and juicy teenage girls, including those 40 year old women's husbands and prospective sexual partners.
Does this make some kind of sense to somebody apparently so steeped in evolutionary psychology that you make it the one overiding guide to moral truth in your life?
You may as well ask why oh why do the Ukrainians fight back against the Russian invasion when they know they will occasionally kill their own soldiers in friendly fire.
CNN anchor fired for describing a roastie colleague as being 'not in her prime'.
Men get shamed and imprisoned now for dating younger women, called dirty old men or even paedophiles, yet if a man even refers to a woman being past her sexual prime he loses his job.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/27/nikki-haley-don-lemon-gop-2024-new-hampshire/11746405002/
No Eivind, just as woman are not the primary victims of war, women are not the primary victims of feminism.
When they take the most joyous, life-affirming experience a boy can have and twist it into "abuse" the travesty is much greater than the relatively few women who get hurt by it. The female sex offender charade is an attack on masculinity and humanity itself. It is the height of zombie culture where emotions don't count, only feminist ideology does. We can't just stand by and watch this or appear complacent to such a surreal witch-hunt against everything that makes us human regardless of how much more pervasive the persecution is against men.
It is also a great way to call bluff on the entire concept of CSA, since the feminists don't have any arguments that don't also supposedly apply to boys with women. If that doesn't show how their entire worldview is nonsense, I don't know what will.
It bothers me profoundly to live in a culture which turns consciousness on its head like this and pretends the best emotions are the worst. It builds a wall between me and society where I have nothing in common with the normies because I am not conscious in the same way or experience the world like they claim to -- IF we are to take their antisex bigotry seriously. My task is to break down this wall and assert the masculine experience in the mainstream. It was there all along of course as they never managed to change actual sexual behavior or feelings, but needs to be asserted ideologically and verdicts against female "sex offenders" must be publicly ridiculed until they stop and we can change laws.
I have some good news now: the movie I helped make got into the Cannes Film Festival where it will premiere on May 25th. It strikes a blow against the female sex offender charade while also acknowledging the male victims of the sex war while promoting nofap too, so I am happy even though I didn't get the role myself and there are other tings I dislike about it (that I will comment on after the premiere). And none of these interests conflict: sexualism is a very harmonious ideology which nurtures sex-positive women too. All the criticism of me caring about female victims gets tiring and unnecessary.
That sure is a hot girl he befriended there, but I am not keen on strategies which require faking diagnosable conditions.
I don't think "murdered by prison guards" is the right angle for what happened to Nathan Larson. He was murdered by feminism due to the systemic persecution of male sexuality, but I don't think the prison did something particularly egregious. Force-feeding is torture and should be avoided. If they respected his hunger strike then that's the right thing to do for them. It seems Nathan was malnourished rather than cleanly fasting, leading to a degenerative brain disease which is difficult to reverse even if he had changed his mind at he end, hence the diagnosis of Wernicke's encephalopathy. But either way it is suicide by starvation driven by feminism.
Blaming the prison is underestimating the problem, which is so much bigger and more sinister than that. The incels don't realize how evil feminism is or they blame particular individuals as a a cope. It's not like things will be okay if only everyone behaves and follows the rules, because the rules themselves are the problem.
We are at war with the norms of society. Never forget that -- never lose sight of the real predicament. We are unaligned like the mythical AI problem only it is real. Masculinity cannot coexist with feminism except as crime when we get away with it. What happened to Nathan is the natural outcome of honestly asserting our masculinity against a superior force which is perfectly determined to destroy us when we do. Another lesson here is that the system will destroy us with zero remorse either. A hunger strike will get zero sympathy and symbolic civil disobedience will be just as ruthlessly persecuted as the worst sex crime. Nathan miscalculated on both counts, thinking the system could empathize with men, but it can't and neither will the public at present.
Pretty sure incels, or at least many of them, are aware of the evils of feminism. They sure dont' agree with half of their agenda, such as being anti-porn, anti-masturbation, pro double standards on the age of consent etc etc.
Though I agree it probably wasn't murder, and that Nathan's hunger strike was a silly waste of his own life. He should at least have waited until after his trial, where he could have used the opportunity to proclaim his manifesto there, pointed out the absurdity of modern age of consent laws that were rooted in 19th century puritanism and even homophobia etc etc.
Also, Nathan did not engage in symbolic civil disobediance, he did abduct a 12 year old girl from her parents. No society is ever going to accept that in a million years.
It wasn't an abduction. She eloped. Which societies can't accept either, but they used to make a distinction between that and being abducted against her will. Male sexualism is about rolling back the pretense that minors are sexual zombies with no will of their own. I don't have unrealistic or at least not unprecedented goals.
I agree Nathan should have waited until after his trial to maximize the activism, but confinement can seem like an eternity so I don't blame him.
Like even Bruce Rind says, it is empirically untenable to claim girls and boys are the same. There must be a double standard in any sane account of sexual exploitation, or else we won't be taken seriously by intellectually serious people.
There was a double standard because girls got pregnant, because virginity was prized, as well as other reasons which do not apply in the modern world. The double standard (along with the high age of consent itself) is maladaptive.
Our aim should not to be 'taken seriously by intellectually serious people', it's to wake the fuck up people. And as if any 'intellectually serious people' are going to take you seriously when you claim the goal should be to wait for the collapse of industrial civilization, masturbation is evil, 35 year olds running off with 12 year old girls is not abduction etc etc etc Stop pretending you are an intellectual and we might get somewhere.
And what do you mean by this - "We are unaligned like the mythical AI problem only it is real."
Oh man, you're going to discover in a few months time how real it is when every prospective employer ignores or laughs at you when you go to them with your rudimentary html coding skills.
You can't simply proclaim that a tendency is maladaptive and therefore irrelevant anymore. That's like saying it's maladaptive to crave fast food when you've had enough calories and so obesity shouldn't exist. But it does, and so does young boys' appetite for older women and girls' reluctance to hook up with men so readily (but their consent should still be respected when they do in fact consent, like this girl did to run away with Nathan, making it a much less serious crime, arguably civil disobedience).
I mean I am unaligned with society's sexual morality and that is a REAL unalignment of a natural intelligence. AI has yet to exhibit any willpower or independent morality or pathway to getting there, so all the talk about the supposed alignment problem is a waste.
Also, boys' appetite for women is grounded in more than the fact they don't get pregnant... it is, as Rind explains so well, also because they benefit from practicing intercourse BEFORE puberty so they are more ready to impregnate when they can. Hence their wondrous appetite for sex with women from a very young age that we remember so well from our healthy boyhoods. Those who had a head start are less likely to end up childless, and remember -- those few years right after puberty are extremely crucial because that's when our capacity is at max. So there is a lot to gain from being sexually active and practiced early, and this is where the surreal contrast between the perverse witch-hunt against these nice women rises to the worst travesty ever.
This is highly relevant in today's society, as it is still a competition to impregnate fertile females of course and some of them actually want to get pregnant and have babies regardless of how much contraception or abortion is available.
About the movie inspired by me:
https://www.filmskolen.dk/nyheder/afgangsfilm-pa-vej-til-cannes-1
Afgangsfilmen ‘Norwegian Offspring’, der er skabt af et hold studerende fra Den Danske Filmskole, er på vej til filmfestivalen i Cannes, hvor den skal konkurrere i sideprogrammet La Cinef. Det er tredje år i træk, at en afgangsfilm fra Filmskolen er udtaget til filmfestivalen.
I næste måned får afgangsfilmen ‘Norwegian Offspring’ verdenspremiere på den prestigefyldte filmfestival i Cannes, hvor den blandt mere end 2000 indsendte film fra filmskoler i hele verden, er udtaget til festivalens officielle sideprogram La Cinef, dedikeret til nye, unge filmtalenter. Her skal den konkurrere om hovedprisen på 15.000 euro i et felt med 15 andre internationale kortfilm.
’Norwegian Offspring’ er et absurd, fiktivt drama, lavet i tæt kontakt med virkeligheden. Stein lever en isoleret tilværelse et øde sted i Norge med sin vlog som eneste forbindelse til omverdenen. Han er besat af teorier om det moderne samfunds systematiske undertrykkelse af mandens seksualitet og ønsker mere end noget andet at opfylde sit menneskelige formål: at reproducere sig.
Da hans mor bliver fundet død i sin lejlighed i København, står han tilbage uforløst. Dette fører ham ud i en hvileløs nat i den seksuelle underverden, hvor han gennem tre møder med forskellige kvinder bevæger sig længere væk fra sit biologiske udgangspunkt, men måske nærmere det menneskelige.
’Norwegian Offspring’ er en fortælling om dødsangst, seksualitet og længslen efter tilknytning.
Filmen er instrueret af Marlene Emilie Lyngstad, skrevet af Emilie Koefoed Larsen og produceret af Carl Osbæck Adelkilde. Thomas Dyrholm har fotograferet, Ania de Sá har klippet og Emil Salling har lavet lyd.
The BBC usually espouses the abuse and "trafficking" narrative. Here is one rare example when it doesn't. It would be great if this meant a turning of the tide. The story is interesting (children being kidnapped/trafficked under pretence of being rescued from trafficking).
https://news.yahoo.com/ghanaian-children-taken-home-over-234456725.html
This story comes as no surprise. We've known the whole shebang is just hypocrisy and corruption.
I think the BBC allows itself to betray the party line in this case because they're dealing with uncivilised "A'flica". The BBC would turn a blind eye to similar cases in the West.
Yes, that is amazing. The "trafficking" spell has been broken at least for Africa. It used to be that anyone who claimed to be fighting trafficking could do no wrong, and that's still the case in our societies, but perhaps the tide is turning. Or perhaps the only reason they can see through it here is because there was no sex involved. "Sex trafficking" is still a holy cow.
Post a Comment