Every post is just in medias res to the insane cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sexuality anyway, so let's dive right into it again.
Regarding that sentence to 20 years in prison for CSA that we just discussed...
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/sjokk-og-vantru-etter-dom-i-skakande-overgrepssak/17438298/
The Norwegian justice system and normies believe that the invisible harm from consensual sexual activity is worse than murder. Remember that this supposed harm is invisible, undetectable, mythical, unscientific and not even attempted to be documented in many of these court cases and still the culture believes that it deserves a harsher punishment than murder because the mere fact of being taboo sex is enough. And they even debate whether 20 years isn't enough and it should have been indefinite detention like prosecutors wanted and might appeal to get...
Just WHAT do they have to think with? What kind of insane "thought" process can produce these results?
I can’t identify with this culture. I stand entirely outside of it. The insanity of it is just so far removed from anything I can relate to that I can’t relate to the culture at all. My only lifeline is the people who find this blog. I know the only reason I have followers is because birds of a feather flock together, not because I am ever changing anyone's opinion, but it's better than nothing.
I can’t identify with this culture. I stand entirely outside of it. The insanity of it is just so far removed from anything I can relate to that I can’t relate to the culture at all. My only lifeline is the people who find this blog. I know the only reason I have followers is because birds of a feather flock together, not because I am ever changing anyone's opinion, but it's better than nothing.
35 comments:
Har du forsøkt å få noe på trykk i dagspressen, Eivind? Noen aviser må jo være villige til å trykke noe du skriver. Det ville skapt enormt mye oppmerksomhet, det er jeg sikker på.
Have I tried to get published in newspapers? No, and sure I should, but what are the odds? I represent a movement of one as far as they are concerned. Everyone who is visible at all is psychotically carried away by CSA panic. I don't think they would entertain the possibility of publishing anything I write and I haven't been able to get a word in sideways there since they shut down all the comment sections over a decade ago. They did that for much the same reason, you know, to make all contrarian views invisible.
I am sure you can get through with a well written opinion piece of yours in a Norwegian newspaper. Maybe even in one of the big ones but at least in one of the local newspapers. And it will probably get alot of attention bacause Its you and also the subject matter. And newspapers need clicks.
If we had been able to get an organization underway in Norway, such as a resurrected NAFP or chapter of Newgon that is more than just me, I think the newsmedia would have to pay attention to us and at least acknowledge that our position exists. I don’t think they will do the same for an individual, especially one who is not a relevant “expert.” Not since they quit interviewing me of their own accord, and even then I couldn’t get this message through in any meaningful way. And their “experts” of course won’t say anything out of the ordinary about CSA because their paychecks depend on believing in the dogma.
The idea that sexuality is harmful to minors has the same status of “truth” in our culture as the earth being round, with added taboo, stigma and literal blasphemy law against any dissension. They won’t take me any more seriously than a flat-earther and I’m not even good for a laugh because of the witch-hunt against us. It is simply beyond the scope of debate (or humor, satire) and also censored on any platforms controlled by Big Tech, which they rely on for pushing much of their content, so there goes their clicks even if they wanted to use me to get attention. In theory the Norwegian newsmedia could have me on print and their own sites. They do have the power to make that decision, at least until we get prosecuted for blasphemy, but the chance that they will want to touch this subject with anything but univocal dogmatic CSA panic is virtually zero.
Apropos the censorship exercised by Big Tech:
https://sputnikglobe.com/20250207/soros-and-cia-real-wikipedia-editors-1121546003.html
You should challenge Elon Musk to host a live debate with you, Eivind, I'm sure he would be glad to prove his free speech credentials by debating with a notorious paedophile.
I wish, but in reality Elon Musk is too scared of my voice to even let me speak to a couple of followers on X, much less give me attention in a debate he might lose.
Well, “scared” might not be precisely the right word, but he is seriously messed up. Certainly bigoted, perhaps evil would be the most fitting word, and his “free speech” is pure hypocrisy. If I were to be maximally charitable I would call him a mindless victim of cultural drift into CSA panic who can’t help himself from believing in that superstition.
It’s weird how no one is ever observed changing his opinion, yet practically everyone ends up believing in the same moral panics at the same time. Elon is even older than me, which means he had more time to be socialized into the pre-1980s world which did not believe in the preternatural badness of sexuality, yet he came to believe in that panic as much as anybody who was born later.
I am scratching my head as to how people so easily change their opinion to fit the times, yet no one is ever persuaded by rational arguments.
Why do you keep talking about the 'metaphysical badness of sex' and all this psuedo-intellectual crap? How do you explain PRIDE festivals amd trannies being allowed to go into kindergartens to teach 6 year olds about LBGT lifestyles and all the rest? It's not as simple as society seeing sex as bad, is it?
Oh, the drag queen story hour or whatever that stuff was called -- bizarre as it admittedly seemed and I think gone out of style already -- only got a pass because it was "desexualized." We were supposed to pretend it was only educational about lifestyle freedom and the kids were not involved or viewed at any other level than that. It was part and parcel of Gay Pride which is only celebrated in the current antisex climate because it studiously avoids sending any message against any sex law whatsoever. The metaphysical badness of sexuality is most definitely the religion of our times.
@Eivind-I agree with this. I normally refrain from giving advice, but it might be an option for you.
You're already slightly famous, especially considering that film you were involved in. I actually think there's a bit of an "edge" to who you are and what you do, that might grab the attention of the less brainwashed normies.
A letter from you would be little effort on your part, and if it isn't published on a busy news day, might be something the Editor reserves for a slow news day.
You might emphasize the White Paper or whatever you call it in Norway about lowering the AOC to 15. Perhaps aim low.
Again, I know you've been putting your real name out for years, and I don't want to come across as a prat, but have another go at writing a letter to the editor.
-Anonymous 2
You're definitely wrong about gay pride and trannies. Trannies were thrown away by the left because they started to threaten women's rights, so now they are welcomed by neither the left or the right, and tranny story hour was reading sexually explicit books to children for years with no problems until trannies became a threat to women's rights and had to be kicked out of the left. And the funny part is, the right wing is this minute saying they need to protect women's rights by prohibiting trannies from participating in society.
Again, the Taliban has taught us that women alone can do nothing and are powerless without men. Therefore, the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with weak, contemptible, spineless "men" who allow women to get everything they demand, and stab other men in the back in the pursuit of p*ssy. Which of course makes women miserable.
And have you seen a gay pride parade? Yea, they are extremely explicit, and there are many many children in the audience. But gays don't rise to the level of threatening feminists currently, so they are allowed to remain as a reservoir for dysfunctional men with a sick fetish. Which is also what trannies used to be until they became too threatening to women's rights.
Western society hates healthy heterosexual masculinity (love of young girls), because the west is controlled by women's desires and, most importantly, f*ggots who carry out women's desires. And also leaders like Elon Musk, Tim Ballard, and Gavin Newsome who use the simps and hoes to gain power without really believing in any of the bullsh*t they say.
anon69
@Anon69 I agree with just about everything you wrote. It's important to note that the Taliban don't just refrain from supporting women, they target and crush any sign of female political organization, even any sign of young girls being educated. It's really important to note this, because it's one thing to say correctly that women rely on male henchmen, and another to draw the conclusion that 'men are the real enemy' rather than women, as is often stated here again and again and again so chivalrously by alledged MRAs.. Let's say there are 5,000 full-time feminist acrivists making a real political impact on anti-male sex laws. Yes, it's objectively true that those 5000 rely totally on 100 million police etc. But, really, what does it mean from a, you know, tactical point of view? And, of course, when I say fight those 5,000 feminists, I mean shaming them and calling out the green-eyed minster, as I did, with some small success, on my blog. (AF)
No, it's not sumply about the 'metaphysical badness of sex'. To admit that butt bandits are tolerated by feminists because they don't challenge their sex laws is to admit that it's about feminists imposing sex laws against male heterosexuals to increase their own sexual power and value. If it was about sex per se, feminists wouldn't allow faggots and trannies to be openly pursuing their promiscuous lifestyles and even taking 'pride' in it. For that matter, you wouldn't have 1 in 5 young American women on OnlyFans, or a woman sleeping with 1,000 men in a day turned into a celebrity.
The core of the problem is women rationalizing anything that lowers their sexual value into abuse. Paedophiles like you calling on everybody to 'just chill out, we need to be less hung up about sex, free the teens' etc, like pedos have been doing since the 60's, wont get you anywhere without confronting the reality that women as they age lose sexual power, and hence reframe their youthful sexual encounters as abuse (for psychological and political reasons).
No newspaper, not even in Norway, would 'give a platform to a paedophile'. A TV channel might interview Eivind as part of an 'expose' on 'sickening paedophile activists', in which case they would edit it to present him in his most disgusting and depraved or perhaps most comical and cringey light (although as long as he gets to plug FertileDating, Eivind might not mind).
Eivind is not 'mildly famous',. If he was, this site would get more than 5 visitors a day and his public YouTube channel under his name would have more than 50 subscribers. Has anybody here watched 'his film'? I'm not sure even Eivind has. It was watched by maybe 20 Leftie, arty, tranny male feminist types who all had a good laugh at the cringe.
I'm in my 50's now, my parents are dead, one brother recently died, I have a genetic predisposition for colon cancer meaning I might not make another decade. Obviously, I'm thinking a lot about my mortality. I'm thinking a lot about whether I'll be proud of what I did to fight back against the feminist beasts who made my life a hell and deprived me of so much sexual and emotional happiness. Perhaps I'm really in hell? Feminist hags are constantly making laws against men seeking youthful, beautiful females, even now crimilizing and soon locking up men who merely use an 'undress app'. And of the four billion men in the world, I appear to be literally the only one who is making a point of shouting out the obvious and trying to shame them for it. I must be in hell, surely?
But anyway, you should all be thinking about your mortality and whether you'll be content that you 'did your bit' on your deathbeds. Maybe offline, one or two of you are doing a lot more in terms of resistance , just like me, but for the most part all I see here is theory after theory, with barely ever any attempt to work out a practical strategy or a useful narrative we can rally around and wake other men up with. (AF)
To make an impact we must be what they hate. The normies don’t hate those who believe the AF’s “obvious” sexual trade union theory because they can’t grasp it. Hell, I can’t even put it succinctly to myself, much less explain it to the normies. So you end up dying as someone who spouted some nonsense nobody understood. They all believe in age of consent and related sex laws because they believe the cultural superstition that sex is extremely harmful to children. The bogeyman on the other side of that is called a pedophile, which is a concept they CAN understand. I identify as that understandable concept because there is no sense in spouting nonsense to the normies. I want to sting them in a way that hurts at least a little bit -- nothing more than a mosquito to the overwhelming cultural force that is the war on sex, to be sure, but at least it is intelligible. I want to be known as that guy who does not believe sex was harmful to children. And who hates cops and other men in the abuse industry because again, direct hate can be understood but some roundabout theory which blames feminists in multiple steps is just nonsense to the normies. They don’t connect these laws to feminism anymore; that ship sailed in the last century and antisex is just the Zeitgeist now. We can’t replay the cultural drift to the normies and make them understand that feminists made the metaphysical badness of sexuality up even if it were true, which I am not denying it partly is.
And yes, of course I have seen the film. "Norwegian Offspring" is the title if anybody wants to look for it. Indeed anything like that will be designed to make me look maximally bad, but any PR is better than nothing.
To say that feminist toleration of gays is because "gays don't challenge their laws", neither explains anything nor makes any sense. So feminists don't make laws against gays because gays don't challenge their laws against them? Perhaps you mean, and likely got the idea from me, that gays were co-opted and tolerated in the 70's as reward for abandoning pederastry. But still, where does 'the metaphysical badness of sex' come into it? It's clearly feminists prioritising the age of consent so tolerating and co-opting the gay community for their support of age of consent laws. And why do they do this? Obviously because they hate men fucking younger girls. Why bring metaphysics into it?
Feminists don't generally disapprove of teen sexuality or teens having sex with other teens (other than femiservatives). They claim that older men exploit a power imbalance and all that crap, and that the teen will regret it later no matter how willing she is at the time. Bandying about words like 'metaphysical badness of sex' might make you sound like a philosopher, but it doesn't form any basis for challenging the feminist narrative. You yourself say rape is worse than death for a woman. Utterly ridiculous.
Nobody is going to be convinced by your thin metaphysical arguments. Just like not a single man will be convinced to give up masturbation because of your Ivory Tower 'metaphysical' analogy of a picture of a mountain and climbing Mount Everest. They might however, and do in their millions, give up masturbation if somebody like Andrew Tate banging hot girls tells them it was through NoFap.
The normies in the current Zeitgeist believe sex is harmful to children in a way which goes beyond the physical, mental and supernatural too; otherwise I wouldn’t call it metaphysical. If they merely meant something like voodoo or telepathy or God sending you to hell for having sex, I would leave it at supernatural. But no, they mean something deeper, something which still applies even if the harm is undetectable in all these other realms! This becomes obvious of you think about the implications of for example the verdict referred to in my original blog post here. Since there is no harm detectable in the physical or mental realm and they don’t justify it religiously either, we are left with metaphysics. They do believe mental harm is likely to manifest later via supernatural means, but that can’t possibly justify a sentence which far exceeds what you would get for murder. The only way to square this madness is to call it a belief in the metaphysical.
And no, I don’t believe rape is worse than murder to women… this is another of your distortions as far removed from what I actually said (which is that it can be worse than just the physical violence and into the mental realm for evolutionary reasons having to do with female selectivity) as your AI BBW porn fantasy.
The normies don’t believe sex is always metaphysically harmful, for example if there is no age gap or “power” difference or anything else of value is exchanged, but once you start thinking about what harm for example an age gap creates you are left with metaphysics again, because it is believed to apply no matter how happy the younger person is with the relationship. It is the combination of sexuality and age gap or numerous other taboo conditions which creates the supposed metaphysical harm; I shorten this to the metaphysical badness of sex for brevity and because sexuality is the unique common denominator which must always be present for this special witchcraft of our times to manifest in the normies’ imagination.
And yeah, gays have abandoned the idea of doing anything with the age of consent. The feminists already made laws against them and they simply accepted it, which is how “gay pride” is compatible with the antisex Zeitgeist. Because gay pride is so insubstantial as to be meaningless, and I do count the drag queens in that too because ostentatious as they may be they are total wimps against the sex laws and don’t get any special passes for what those laws actually criminalize.
A metaphysical truth is something which must be true regardless of how things could have been otherwise. For example, mathematics does not give us metaphysical truths, at least not beyond tautological facts like 2 + 2 must be 4 given axioms in a formal system which makes it so. It is not given that numbers refer to anything real at all in some kind of platonic realm which must exist. It is fine to be a nominalist or fictionalist about numbers. I happen to be a nominalist, and that’s not a heresy these days, more like which flavor of ice cream you prefer. You don’t have to believe in numbers and you can get along just fine. But CSA is different because CSA presupposes metaphysical truths. It is heresy to be a nominalist about CSA, which I am, realizing that CSA is constructed by axioms that you pick and choose like you can for a mathematical formal system, and there is no underlying metaphysical truth for preferring one age of consent over another, or an age of consent at all. There is no reality to the “abuse” which that axiom constructs. So I can’t get along with society at all; I am criminalized just for denying the metaphysics of CSA, as that can be construed as what Norwegian law calls “fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn.” These kind of heresies which I write here all day long are literally heresies by our blasphemy law which upholds the metaphysical badness of sexuality. So I exist in this liminal state of criminality which is currently not prosecuted because they haven’t gotten around to it yet, but it can happen any time. It is hell, but it is the right thing to do because it is worse to ignore this insane state of affairs and try to pass as a normie. I am always mindful of Chesterton’s insight that heretics are actually the very first one should prosecute if one believes in the normie morality, and wondering how long it will take them to wise up and quit their silly preoccupation with preferentially prosecuting harmless fools such as the wankers they spend most police resources on.
"They all believe in age of consent and related sex laws because they believe the cultural superstition that sex is extremely harmful to children."
I question this statement because the evidence doesn't support it. The people who have been the loudest champions of the sex hysteria have also been caught doing everything they are supposedly against. The majority of 'males' who support this crap are sexually jealous of other men, and also don't want problems from their fat, loud, old, disgusting wives who are empowered by the law. Most of the 'males' would bang a hot 12-13 year old in an instant if it was legal or possible to do so without consequence.
anon69
Most of the 'males' would bang a hot 12-13 year old in an instant if it was legal or possible.
Right. I should qualify the meaning of "belief" in CSA panic to just enough so that society functions as if the normies believe in it.
No doubt most men will do this in their personal lives when given the opportunity without obviously getting caught. And then they will go to work the next morning and do their duty as a policeman, judge, therapist etc. to make sure the abuse industry can catch as many other men as possible for doing the same thing. Some will have a hobby as a pedo hunter too in addition to the hypocrisy.
This is functionally the same as everything I've said.
I find it almost tragic that someone like you Eivind, with your high skill in writing, philosophy and your obviously high intelligence, dont use it to write opinion pieces in Norwegian newspapers instead of wasting your energy at replying to trolls like the AF and others in this comments section. It could lead to economic opportunities too.
Trump does one better than the waitress comment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyXKzkF_8AA
Begin watching at 31:28. In light of the crowd he is addressing, makes me go hmm, is there a real MAP agenda going on?
I really hadn't expected this. He goes out of his way to include the girls as well as the women.
It is finally cool again to be a dirty old man and perhaps even a MAP :)
Perhaps even more remarkably I can’t find any outrage to this. This time it is more direct too, no praeteritio and the little girls were right there visibly admiring him back too, dressed appropriately for it, some as cheerleaders. And he can’t plausibly deny this was a sexual comment the way he led up to it. Is the Zeitgeist in the process of shrugging off the sex panic, or what?
It is a self-conscious display of out with the trannies and in with wholesome men who are not ashamed to say they like women AND GIRLS. Wow! I guess the trannies weren’t the ones “corrupting” little girls after all. We do that so much better ourselves. Look how much more respect Trump’s direct approach gets than Biden’s creepy ways too even though both are MAPs.
So the POTUS effectively publicly declares that it's normal to find these underage girls 'beautiful', but that men wont admit because it could 'end their careers' (ie. paedocrites), AND whilst giving a press conference announcing an end to the worst insanities of identity politics...
and what you see is Trump validating the MAP and 'ephebophile' movement???
Yeah, what more can you ask for? Besides ending the criminalization, of course. Whether we call it MAP or ephebopbile movement or normal men, the attraction is vindicated by the POTUS!
When validation that young girls are beautiful finally arrived at the highest level, it was not by adding more letters to LGBT, and indeed it was when getting rid of some. That point is well noted. Does that mean the end of the MAP movement? Of course not. We still have plenty of work to do because the laws still haven't changed. I never believed identity politics was a silver bullet anyway. I had foreseen a P maybe being added but with the disclaimer that it was all about "accepting" them as long as they promised to be celibate. I never had any use for that route and haven't advocated it. But I find value in the MAP movement as a force for legal reform. So I continue to identify as a MAP unless Trump is really so successful with this inclusion in standard sexuality that it is redundant to use another label.
I couldn't ask for anything more. Only for 'MAPs' to now maybe realize the only 'special' identity they have is acute aspergers.
Before we claim victory, let's wait and see shall we if Trump doesn't soon want the death penalty for pedophiles & "traffickers".
It is only a question of time before another (rare) murder of "an innocent little girl" happens. In such a case we know how Society reacts: the murder proper gets forgotten and sex exceptionalism kicks in in full force. I doubt Trump would pass on the opportunity.
Quid pro quo I guess. He's done something for women so they'll concede something back.
He doesn't have to worry about his career because he's ancient, he's the President and he doesn't draw a salary.
The fact that he nails it so clearly means the paedocrites and jellies don't have any room for manoeuvre. I mean, what are they gonna do? They could outright deny his assertion but that would only spread it further in the process of repeating it, and they'd never do that because they know it's the truth.
-Anonymous 2
Death penalty for someone who murder a child is unproblematic, Jack. Why dont you kill yourself, Jack.
Pretty sure any idiot can see that Jack was referring to the fact that rare child murders are exploited to justify draconian new punishments for 'paedophiles'. That's how paedohysteria took hold in the UK and the sex offender registry was justified. It was the same in Europe with the Belgian psychopath. Jeez, Jack has actually donated to Eivind and yet he lets his pedophile readers say something like that. (AF)
The problem with Eivind is that he mistakenly thinks that anybody other than a handful here look behind the surface of his words. Just like he expected there to be readers who would understand his 'first person realism' article, he thinks people will somehow know that his identification as a MAP is 'political'. It doesn't even make any sense anyway. It's like a tranny claiming that every woman has a dick and that his or her identification as a tranny is merely 'political'. And surely now it's obvious even to autists, with the blowback against trannies, that hoping to become the 'next sexual minority' to be adopted by the Left is pure risible fantasy.
The whole point of coining the word "MAP" was political. And it succeeded at being political if nothing else. It struck the fear into people like Jordan Peterson and other politicians who are still in the grips of CSA panic because it indicates we are organizing as a political force.
Now if Trump's verbal minor attraction is indicative of a trend and society is snapping out of the sex panic, that may well mean "MAP" and "pedophile" will simply be synonyms for normal or otherwise acceptable kinds of sexuality. There is no reason we must keep these as bad words like the AF is attached to, and I think that most likely won't happen. We don't have to go back to only "real" pedophiles being stigmatized because that, too, is a minor cultural blip in the scheme of things. Perhaps someone else entirely will be the new scapegoats. I hate to say this, but transsexuals and homosexuals seem more likely candidates the way things are going at the moment. There is more precedent for stigmatizing them than pedophiles if you look at history. Even if pederasty has also been normalized many times and places, adult male homosexuality perhaps less so.
I anticipate that when we snap out of the CSA panic, murder and other violence against children will indeed cease to be associated with pedophilia. Right now, with Trump, it could go either way if there is a high-profile child murder.
Post a Comment