"Consorting with prostitutes was forbidden, of course, but it was one of those rules that you could occasionally nerve yourself to break. It was dangerous, but it was not a life-and-death matter. To be caught with a prostitute might mean five years in a forced-labour camp: not more, if you had committed no other offence. And it was easy enough, provided that you could avoid being caught in the act."At the time I did not yet think Norway would go so far as to criminalize this, so it wasn't so much the politics -- but the scene made an impact on me mostly because the woman turned out to be old:
"It was on a dark evening, in a narrow side-street near one of the big railway stations. She was standing near a doorway in the wall, under a street lamp that hardly gave any light. She had a young face, painted very thick... I went with her through the doorway and across a backyard into a basement kitchen. There was a bed against the wall, and a lamp on the table, turned down very low. She... What he had suddenly seen in the lamplight was that the woman was old. The paint was plastered so thick on her face that it looked as though it might crack like a cardboard mask. There were streaks of white in her hair; but the truly dreadful detail was that her mouth had fallen a little open, revealing nothing except a cavernous blackness. She had no teeth at all... When I saw her in the light she was quite an old woman, fifty years old at least. But I went ahead and did it just the same."Sex with an old woman is, well, dystopian. Here it is a dystopia on top of a dystopia.
Sherley Stelfox in 1984
In the movie Shirley Stelfox is "only" 42 but she sure does the trick of looking old. Incidentally she is a year younger than John Hurt who plays Winston Smith. Middle-aged men do not typically seek out women the same age for pleasure, so we can all agree it looks dystopian, can't we? Not so dystopian as if she really had been over 50 as in the book, and she has her teeth in the movie, but still...
While doing test-shoots and improvisation for Norwegian Offspring I had the same feeling with a prostitute who is similarly past her expiration date. I didn't get the role but I participated in some of the casting and rehearsed the scene with the actress who made me feel just like Winston -- while the director didn't seem to get how discordant this looks and also mixed in other deranged nonsense that I won't bother to mention here but you can read about in my blog post about that film.
Women over 35 are officially reproductively geriatric and over 40 they are in the grandmother demographic and over 50 there is hardly any sexual appeal left. They make fine grandmothers but when you are expecting an attractive woman -- for example because you are even prepared to pay for it -- they are jarringly out of place. I suppose men manage to stay married to them by not expecting an attractive woman and mostly not having sex either, plus it helps to have an actual family to show for it.
One of the benefits of being a bachelor is I don't have to pretend any old women are sexually attractive. I can be honest like Orwell and also Shakespeare when he has Hamlet tell Gertrude:
"You cannot call it love, for at your ageOld people will still use the language of romantic love to describe their relationships, but it is not the same thing -- with one important exception. I reckon the heyday in a perimenopausal or older woman's blood is tame regardless of who she can pick as her lover and likewise from his point of view, but as a man the same age I can attest that the heyday in my blood is still perfectly lustful if I can get a young woman! A man's only as old as the woman he feels, as Grouch Marx put it.
The heyday in the blood is tame."
The silver lining in 1984 is that Winston also gets a beautiful young girlfriend half his age, Julia, played by 23-year-old Suzanna Hamilton. He flipped those numbers just like I am on a mission to do. Even in a dystopia where all sex and certainly all sexual enjoyment is criminalized you might still score a personal victory. That's what keeps me going in life despite knowing that the political situation for male sexuality is only set to worsen in my lifetime and having lost all hope of finding ANYONE who will publicly identify as an ally in Norway or help me reach the two-person minimum for registering a nonprofit to fill this complete vacuum of any kind of pro-sexual organization. The last organization to work in favor of sexuality instead of against it like they all do now was in fact dissolved in 1983, making Orwell even more uncannily prophetic. Today it is beyond the pale for anyone to even admit having been a member! What are the odds of me being so alone? We know the odds are one in five million but it is true; unlike other malcontents who are usually far less original than they think I can quantify it so precisely as unmistakably falling outside even the 68-95-99.7 rule which puts me at four or more standard deviations from the norm! I am the outlier heretic whom the normies can and do treat as nonexistent for all intents and purposes.
At my age and time I am living in a dystopia within a dystopia and neither dystopia is recognized in the mainstream outside my movement of one unless you read great literature and pay attention to what it actually says, in which case both realities reassert themselves both in flouting the oppressive sex laws and attraction to youth.
This is why I have to laugh when our governments via their NGOs put out propaganda like this....
"While the “hitting the wall” trend clearly perpetuates harmful stereotypes and actively contributes to the egregious objectification and devaluation of women, we are seeing it beyond the confines of YouTube. In incel communities, the notion of "hitting the wall" is burgeoning as a persistent and menacing ideology within male supremacist spheres whereby they place a higher value on younger women and girls. This pedophilic-type mindset can be seen on sites like Incels.is that unabashedly refer to girls as young as 12 as objects of desire. This concept is also used to undermine women’s perceived power in sexual/romantic relationship contexts, as these male supremacists ironically imbue women with supreme power/authority over men (by determining which men will be validated as masculine and sexually successful and which ones will not). Simultaneously, these male supremacists want to revoke and undermine this power as only temporary and contingent on women who maintain sexual desirability. The ‘wall’ is meant to emphasize that self-actualized, empowered, independent women are actually less desirable than young, naive, virgin girls and women."Oh, the incels invented the concept of women hitting the wall, did they? Just wait until our government-funded propagandists of orthodox thinking on sexual morality discover our cultural heritage of art and literature, but all that is willfully ignored in favor or the new cultural "truth" that only an ultra-deviant "male supremacist" or "pedophilic-type" would think anything of the sort. I would call it a female sexual trade union like the AF clique singlemindedly obsess over aside from the fact that THERE IS NO NOTABLE MALE OPPOSITION, unless you want to call me (or the AF) notable, or at least call the incels notable, which they are not as anything but a subject of derision. This is an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed, sincerely.
Have we as a culture started to "value" older women as much as we always valued nubile women? I would encourage sincere thoughts on the matter in the comments. We certainly devalue male sexuality by how it is criminalized and hunted by vigilantes too. But is there a greater corresponding valuation of older women despite the biological fact that they are not so reproductively valuable? This hypothesis could be tested in various ways. For example, if 50-year-old prostitutes are now very much in demand, that would be some weighty evidence of a profound cultural change rather than the superficial one I still think it is. I doubt it, but I keep an open mind.
One thing I am sure of is that men bear much of the responsibility in one way or another for what I alone regard as an antisexual dystopia. At the very least they somehow DON'T CARE that these are our values and laws and propaganda. As it stands now I am not so much an antifeminist as a misanthrope. I am close to giving up on activism altogether and just focus on my personal goals as noted because no one is receptive to my ideas. After 25 years taking sexuality's side I not only failed to change anyone's opinion but didn't even make anyone think, if they didn't already agree with me, which only one in a million does, all of them too cowardly to be public about it either. Ever increasing criminalization of sexuality is unquestioningly accepted by every last normie and there is nothing we can do about it, so the best we can do is shut up and break the sex laws in private like everyone else because they are hypocrites too. Nonetheless, if men go and break the sex laws and on top of this insane feminist dystopia that we got ourselves into tend to willingly choose a 50-year-old whore to risk going to the forced-labor camps for, well, then I shall stop calling them hypocrites too.
I can't pretend I am representing anyone when there is no longer anyone to represent. So if you want to be represented by a sexualist movement, speak out!
48 comments:
Orion Taraban of the PsycHacks YouTube channel still thinks men of any age prefer to date 18 to 24-year-old women...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o5SLCoizWho
He's a fresh new voice, surprisingly reasonable while keeping his finger on the pulse of our times, so I trust nothing has really changed then. I haven't seen him take any bullshit from the feminists about male psychology and present it as "truth." Not about female psychology either like the teen brain immaturity nonsense.
I am close to giving up on activism altogether and just focus on my personal goals as noted because no one is receptive to my ideas.
Is it incompatible ? (writing and living normal live). You are not installing bombs into NGO staff or prosecutor's cars or something like that(Not that I am saying you should do.). I mean, your identity is public now and it won't disappear anyway if you cease activity in this field. Your opinions won't go elsewhere either I think.
Maybe you should try to not take it so seriously.
BTW: (I am not trying to be smartass, and I appreciate what you are doing-despite different opinions on some issues ) Did you try to look at this blog from POV of not necessarily "normie" but rather person (with average or slightly above average IQ) who is starting to have some doubts about present-day society?
MH
Yeah, I'm not taking activism so seriously anymore, but when I got into Newgon I thought getting to the level where we could have an organization (which only requires two people) was within reach. It turns out no one else in Norway wants to join an organization like that, so I can't register it. But I shall soon get over that disappointment as well.
I shall write when I feel like it, but I realize writing is not the sort of thing that can do anything. Not anymore. Bloggers don't go viral because the writing was so good that somebody felt like sharing it, even if they are very good. I have no hope of reaching anything like this level in my lifetime, but as successful as you can get is somebody like John Michael Greer, who at least makes me want to share some of his work. He has written yet another post on the Situationists which is highly relevant to us. It modifies the "1984" paradigm somewhat and reaffirms what I have been saying and even Orwell shows that we can usually get away with breaking the sex laws. We just have to snap out of the relatively weak spell cast on the normies and turn our own much stronger magic on ourselves: "As every real mage knows, the most potent of all forms of magic are those that the individual works on himself." A better anti-dystopian novel would explore this kind of magic and be more closely aligned with our times.
https://www.ecosophia.net/situationism-the-road-from-raswashingsputin/
Most industrial societies in the modern world no longer bother with police state tactics in most cases. [Ioan Couliano] described them as “magician states” that maintain the obedience of their populations through methods closely akin to those of Renaissance sorcerers, manipulating the mases through symbols that conjure up desires and hatreds, luring them into thoughts and actions that benefit the system at their own expense.
This isn’t quite as true as it was in 1984, when Couliano’s book first saw print, and of course it wasn’t entirely true even then. Every modern industrial state, even (or especially) those that love to mouth platitudes about democracy, keeps the full arsenal of police state tactics in readiness, and uses them from time to time on visible targets to remind everyone else to stay in line. Most people in modern industrial nations, however, experience what the Marxists of my youth sulkily called “repressive tolerance”—that is, the regime lets them believe what they want and, within fairly broad limits, do as they like, while using control over the media and educational systems to keep alternative ideas from finding a mass following. That leaves a lot of room available for those who want to make constructive use of it...
The evidence of history and my experience alike suggest that you can get away with an enormous amount provided that you do it quietly, don’t call attention to yourself, and avoid whatever activities panic the system into police-state actions.
This basically means don't be a wanker, don't be ritually identified by thinking you have to resist identification like I explained in my last post, and you can get away with anything.
John Michael Greer is quite a surprisingly potent rebel though it is mostly understated presumably because he follows his own advice of not calling that kind of attention to himself.
Interesting reading this website, it sounds familiar to me.
Did you have it on blogroll in past? Where did I see it ?
MH
You probably remember the Archdruid Report which was John Michael Greer’s original blog (and I think I also blogrolled) from back when he was an archdruid. JMG is the world’s greatest living occultist -- a legit wizard! -- but what made him hugely famous was as a peak oil blogger. Unlike the others in that movement he predicted a slow descent over a century or two rather than the catastrophic collapse foreseen by Gail Tverberg and the others which has still failed to happen which made the peak oil movement basically extinct.
He thinks the AI craze is another bubble which won’t save us from collapse either, which will happen slowly and steadily taking us into another dark ages without industrial civilization. If he is right, the good news is it won’t get really bad in our lifetime -- we will still have electricity and such unlike what Gail thinks -- but we can forget about something like AI improving our lives either and there will be crisis upon crisis like we are seeing with all the smoldering wars and political corruption. AI is not solving the energy problem, so nothing has really changed; we can just delude ourselves that the future is looking brighter for a few more moments. But it IS looking brighter insofar as totalitarian governments won’t have as much power to surveillance and control us as we fear either, because they won’t have the resources or technology. So instead of hoping for some kind of utopia or fearing an invincible dystopia either we should practice as much magic as is real to have the best lives now, for which JMG is a great teacher whom I have been following for about 12 years now. I now do believe in magic, properly defined as the art and science of effecting changes in consciousness in accordance with will. When applied to your own consciousness it is the same thing as the pickup artists used to call inner game, which we know can in turn effect changes in others’ consciousness too and help us get what we want. And it is unbelievably powerful against the police since most of their power is predicated on people believing they will get caught.
So Ecosophia.net is pretty much a continuation of the Archdruid Report. If you loved the Archdruid Report you will love Ecosophia too and it does, I think, show the limits of how popular a blog can be these days. Which is very if you are such a good writer as John Michael Greer and don't say anything which will overtly get you cancelled -- but that still leaves room to be spectacularly subversive for those who take time to digest your essays.
But it IS looking brighter insofar as totalitarian governments won’t have as much power to surveillance and control us as we fear either, because they won’t have the resources or technology.
Question is how much is "as much".
Even present-day surveillance technology without AI is pretty scary to me, if it would be used to it's full potential.
We've discussed something like that in past, but I cannot grasp how exactly some collapse (that could destroy surveillance state) should happen.
Except some advanced AI (which is allegedly power consuming), surveillance systems seems quite undemanding of resources, and system of repression could be reformed to be less financially burdening.
Major problem IMO is that,knowledge of such technologies already exists.
Regarding this, my hope (however unlikely it is) that some natural/physical conditions would change, so these systems won't be able to work-which could result in other ramifications however.
MH
Yes, it’s hard to imagine that our technology will go away. Just like the ancient Egyptians probably thought they would be building pyramids forever and the Romans couldn’t imagine that they would quit building or maintaining aqueducts. But the fact of the matter is our advanced technology is no more “alive” or self-sustaining than pyramids or aqueducts. Despite the wet dreams of true believers that it’s right around the corner, we have no clue how to make AI autopoietic. Even if it attained the motivation, it cannot replicate itself in any more than a superficial way of how it runs code at best, and there is no evidence that that leads to much improvement either. AI has no control over the physical basis for its existence and none of our non-biological technology replicates itself. Getting to the next generation of NVIDIA chips requires as much human labor as building a great pyramid and it cannot be done without that huge input all coming together via a functional economy which believes in growth and supplies all the energy and raw materials. You should think of your smartphone as more like a great pyramid than a cheap disposable device because you can’t get a new one without such a megaproject. Sure, progress can be scaled back and we can go on with something resembling the current level of technology for a long time for those who can afford it. That’s precisely what John Michael Greer’s long descent consists of. Major innovation will become unaffordable for anyone since it requires a megaproject but there will still be our level of technology hanging around for at least the elites for a century.
It is still scary in many ways, but when I see how obtusely the authorities go about wielding their high-tech power -- by preferentially persecuting wankers, for example, and the fact that I am still able to publish these ideas in the mainstream -- I think “repressive tolerance” is really a better way describe the regime we are in for than a full-on 1984 dystopia. Also I still think there is a chance the descent will be much more rapid almost like Gail Tverberg envisions and governments will be hard-pressed to keep up their repressive tolerance either.
I accidentally came across this academic study, it's kind of interesting: https://ijip.in/wp-content/uploads/ArticlesPDF/article_8e4f32b7ef733784ae2b822eaae85bba.pdf
I've only skim read it but it looks like they basically constructed a "pedophilephobia" scale and the authors also seem to suggest that correlates with homophobia. And interestingly they find men score higher on the pedophilephobia scale than women (40 vs 28 or something like that). So men are actually worse.
Guess this kinda contradicts to some extent what theantifeminist says that the whole problem is women. That said, it's still conceivable that there are a small number of really insane women (radical feminists) who push vindictive laws whilst most women are less bothered by it. And quite frankly that does seem to be the case.
They also found pedophilephobia correlates negatively with education. Which makes sense since most if not all pedo hunter men are men of low educational status.
Another thing I'd add on this I have read anecdotally in MAP communities occasionally someone say something like "women seem to be generally more open to me coming out whereas I tend to get more negative reaction from men".
Thanks for posting this study on pedophilephobia. It's a bit of a weird article with spelling errors which led me to suspect it might be fake, but I looked it up and found other links to it which convinced me it is real. It is a study conducted in Ukraine and published in an Indian psychology journal in 2017. Not the most prestigious kind of publication but I agree it is a scientific data point for the impression I have too, that men are at least as pedohysteric as women, if not more so. They first tested 40 individuals and then 400 more which is not a bad sample size and the questionnaire is probably just as reliable as measuring homophobia, which I agree is similar.
Well theantifeminist posted a reply to my comment on his blog (https://theantifeminist.com/british-women-against-sex-with-older-partners/comment-page-1/#comment-645053) and he sounds disappointed. But I will confirm it is me not MH that posted this.
Anyway my point isn't to completely invalidate the STU argument but I think Eivind is on to something that there maybe a bit more to things than purely STU. I accept theantifeminist probably does a fair job at having an explanation that people can get behind (STU) and it does seem to have a significant dose of truth hence creating some level of following. However, we have to entertain the idea it may not be the whole story as that kind of activism has so far failed to yield real results.
He does raise a good point though:
"Thirdly, you must have the intelligence to see that a male questioned about attitudes to paedophilia will be more likely to be thinking of his own safety in giving his response than a woman. Hell if somebody with a clipboard came up to me in the street and asked whether paedophiles caught having sex with 9 year olds should be executed, I’d probably say yes."
To some extent this is probably the behaviour that he himself created a word for - paedocrisy. It's not inconceivable the reason men hate paedophiles more than women is because men often are paedophiles and fear of being caught makes them more aggressively criticise/punish those they perceive might be paedophiles.
The other argument he made though which I don't agree with is that this is in Ukraine and so "most respondents to that survery would see paedophilia similar to how it used to mean in the West before it was inflated by feminists – ie. sex with real children under the age of 12"
The implication it seems being therefore they are more "righteous" to be against pedophiles. However, for one, paedophile wasn't even a concept throughout most of human history - it's like no one really cared. It was only coined as a term by some Richard Krafft-Ebing in the late 19th century. I expect there was never much correlation between age of attraction and sexually motivated violence against anyone. Maybe those who were interested in 8 year olds in 1600s tried to groom them but then if they weren't interested they sort of gave up and married a 14 year old rather than raping the 8 year old? Heck even The Guardian published an article basically agreeing with what I am saying: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light (yes I know, the The Guardian that paedohysterical UK mainstream feminazi newspaper... Yes that one... Though I think the article may have been snuck in just before the former editor Alan Rusbridger left and was replaced by a radical feminist). As one final point on this, if sexual relations with under 12s are so harmful then what do you make of Charlie Johns who married Eunice Winstead when she was 9 and they also went on to have nine children together and never divorced?
Sorry should have added the link to Charlie Johns and Eunice Winstead wikipedia page so you can see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_Charlie_Johns_and_Eunice_Winstead
It has directly nothing to do with sexual politics, but I was just looking at this document and find it interesting.
https://youtu.be/Yn9BvNAUvcU?t=4256 (1:10:55-1:15:25)
MH
Well done by the Guardian in 2013 there! They are are tackling the CSA hoax itself!
Sure they had to go back to 1976 to quote a fully sane view:
n 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."
But they even say:
There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.
And that's present day! As I've been quoting them myself, experts like James Cantor and Michael Bailey admit there is no good scientific evidence for "CSA" harm in the metaphysical sense that sex itself is harmful like the normie religion goes.
I will have no part in the CSA superstition. I cannot go along with a view that someone like Eunice Winstead was harmed when there is absolutely no real reason to believe so. So no, we cannot go "back" to a "real" definition of pedophilia worth panicking over because there was never such a view in the first place before the CSA panic and the word itself only dates back the 1880s, before which we didn't even feel the need to label the orientation.
All we need to know with regard to sex and children is don't rape them, don't hurt them and don't harm them. They have a built-in mechanism to let us know they are in pain called crying, you know. It's really not difficult unless we make it so for bullshit reasons.
The clip posted by MH shows Heinz von Foerster talking about the metaphysics of cosmological theories. A fascinating figure I had not heard of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_von_Foerster
I would agree that physics is mostly about metaphysics these days. They are done figuring out the useful stuff and now spend their days arguing about the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics and speculating about the origins of the universe. Still haven't figured out quantum computers or fusion power, but I think they never will.
By the way, next year in 2026 we get to definitively falsify a wild prediction of Heinz von Foerster. To his credit he made it jokingly though:
A 1960 issue of Science magazine included an article by von Foerster and his colleagues P. M. Mora and L. W. Amiot proposing a formula representing a best fit to available historical data on world population; the authors then predicted future population growth on the basis of this formula. The formula gave 2.7 billion as the 1960 world population and predicted that population growth would become infinite by Friday, November 13, 2026 – von Foerster's 115th birthday anniversary – a prediction that earned it the name "the Doomsday Equation."
Ah, the good old "population bomb" that I grew up with which has by now turned into the opposite problem, lol.
By the way, I think the Singularity and artificial superintelligence rely on similarly crazy assumptions that we can simply extrapolate current trends that will look ridiculous in retrospect.
I was reminded of this Emily Dickinson poem today and it strikes me how well it applies to how to get from the CSA hoax to truth:
Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —
Yeah, we must take it gradually and strike a balance between too much and too little. James Cantor tells all the truth here for example:
https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2024/03/behold-james-cantor-leading-witch.html
But he slants the truth to his audience and wouldn't say the same to the normies directly as he does to a forum of boylovers.
But there are limits to slanting that I can get behind. For example Prostasia and Narsol don't even tell a slanted truth but just indulge the hysteria; Newgon on the other hand gets it right when the first order of business is to lower the age of consent to 12, and the AF crowd perhaps do all right with the number too but then indulge too much hysteria when they want to completely distance themselves from "real" pedophiles.
I was searching for something different in that book, but I stumbled onto it:
Sexually appropriate behavior is a socially constructed phenomenon,
the definition and limits of which vary greatly among different societies,
and this is especially true where children and young people are concerned.
Perhaps a billion people alive today have been subjected as children to
some form of genital mutilation or circumcision, which is demanded or approved by religious consensus, is virtually never regulated by secular law,
and is never mentioned in literatures on sex crime or ritualistic abuse. Nor
is there a natural age of sexual consent. Although a biological imperative
dictates restrictions on the behavior of prepubescent children, no universal rule determines that sexual readiness properly begins at twelve or sixteen or twenty-one; before the 1880s, the age of consent for girls in most
American jurisdictions stood at the alarmingly low figure often years.15
Anthropological literature shows huge disparities in attitudes toward
sexual contacts between adults and children or adolescents, both in contemporary preliterate cultures and in the Christian societies of preindustrial Europe. European parents in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
treated infants and toddlers with a playful sexual frankness that today
would be not just wildly inappropriate but criminal. At the start of the seventeenth century, the child who later became King Louis XIII of France
lived in a family environment in which adults frequently touched and
played with his genitals. After the age of seven, Louis was expected to
conduct himself with greater sexual reticence, but he married, and consummated the marriage, at fourteen. Child-rearing practices in this case
were unusual only in the detail with which they were recorded, and similar behaviors still prevail in many parts of the globe.
It is not self-evident that a sexual act between individuals of widely differing ages constitutes immoral or criminal behavior, that it causes grave
harm to either participant, or that it involves a compulsive psychological
condition.
MORAL PANIC Changing Concepts of the Child Molester
in Modern America
Philip Jenkins 1998
MH
Looks like a fine book! Surprisingly highly rated at Amazon with 4.5 out of 5 stars:
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Panic-Changing-Concepts-Molester/dp/0300109636
Presumably because nobody reads it anymore and those who do already agree CSA is a moral panic. It would be nice if something like this could change opinions, but I don't see that happening. You either see it or you don't and this to us extremely persuasive evidence of social relativism is just noise to the normies.
Book is written in "morally-compatible" language(well, not this excerpt), one should not read his moral conclusions, but rather the information it contains.
MH
correction, I deleted space by mistake, and that 15 is just mark
jurisdictions stood at the alarmingly low figure often years.15
jurisdictions stood at the alarmingly low figure of ten years
I was "fishing" some old stuff and found this Salon article from 1997 instead, it is three part (you must click to next page always -fortunately all three parts are archived)
https://web.archive.org/web/20060219014632/https://www.salon.com/feb97/molested970228.html
It seems most of such things were purged out of internet.
MH
Eivind Berge
Tanks for posting this harrowing experience of the abuse industry from the point of view of parents of "abusers" and a "victim." It shows complete insanity. It is staggering that they can get so much mileage for the police and "therapists" out of something so inconsequential all while caring nothing about the lives they destroy and how sex is twisted into this dogmatic badness to the point that none of them can have normal sex lives anymore.
But this is the system the normies want, and continually want to make worse. I am surprised it was already this bad in 1997, but noticed the prison time was nothing compared to what one expects these days. It's hard to imagine how the "therapy" can get worse but they managed that too with civil commitment.
But even in that account by a normie who got to taste the antisex hysteria on the receiving end and was thus converted with regard to her own sons, I am disturbed by how she still looks down on men who are only slightly more "guilty" of sex offenses in any objective sense:
A convicted child molester comes to speak to us one Wednesday. He is 32 years old. He was a teacher, and he tells us he has had dozens of victims. "Kids loved me," he says, simply.
There is something odd about him, the way he holds himself, the redness in his face as he explains. He cries off and on, describing his own parents' grief, his prison term, his suicidal fantasies. This compulsion to touch children haunts him, constantly tugging at his thoughts. His honesty is like a slap, an unexpected needle, and I find that I'm a little afraid of him.
He looks at the teenage boys in the room. "You're all about the age of my victims," he says. The boys shuffle their feet and look at the floor. I'm glad he's not my neighbor. I would worry about both my children.
So after going through abuse-industry hell because her sons engaged in some harmless play she would still "worry" about a homosexual who only used love to "abuse." Which is to say she can't let go of the CSA hoax and she now worries that her teenage sons will be seduced by a pederast, even after making it so painfully clear that their homosexual tendencies come from within. Although the goalposts have changed to not include her own sons contrary to what the system says, she still essentially believes in the CSA concept. Belief in the metaphysical badness of sex is so deeply entrenched in our culture that most people will be driven to suicide by the abuse industry before they let go of the dogma.
I am thinking of a poem for this too, the phenomenon of the most downtrodden to still find someone to oppress by the same logic, namely the "Siphonaptera." It is a delightful poem for a somewhat depressing reality:
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
The AF faction is also very much like this despite being miniature fleas themselves. But it stops here on my blog. I realize that I am the tiniest flea, with no one under me to bite, at least with regard to consensual sex offenses.
I forgot to mention that I am also disturbed by how she describes this lesser pedophile's attraction as a "compulsion" even after sitting through all that bullshit therapy to get rid of the exact same compulsion in her own son. Which is to say the therapy worked to instill its dogma for everyone else with the slightest more inclusive criteria than for her own son whom she can tell is not a predator. The dogma goes that pedophiles are disordered and haunted by intrusive thoughts rather than being real individuals with loving desires like everyone else. The dogma goes that the pedophile is ego-dystonic and deep down agrees with CSA dogma and hence needs "therapy" to get rid of his thoughts and fall in line. I find this erasure of both identity and heresy extremely offensive.
On the heresy scale this gets a 5. She IS a heretic with regard to her own son and others in the exact same situation but it sadly stops there.
If you bit a pedohunter would that count? Or are they not "low enough" in the hierarchy? Is there a way to make them below you?
Well, pedohunters certainly believe they are above everyone they hunt. I do believe that a reverse sting reverses this situation, so in that sense you can poetically say that I fit the same pattern, sure :)
Her friend with that death penalty was even worse.
In fact I am not sure if it's not a fiction (however it may be perfectly real story-knowing social mores of 90's USA). But I think it may be fiction to describe mind of suburban (female) "cattle" living in society of never-ending spiral of "something must be dones" and "zero tolerances" of which her family itself became victim. And her good suburban girl's conform mind is struggling with what she faces.
Also it highlights role of psycho-charlatanerie, which requires self-mortification* from it's involuntary clients, no matter how absurd it may become.
*search for mortification of self Erving Goffman
MH
I don't know how realistic it is for parents to attend therapy sessions with their "sex offender" teenage sons. Never heard of that before. But overall the story seems most likely true to me. It's rare for fiction to capture an actual hysteria so well. All the substantial details match what has certainly become real since then if it wasn't already in 1997.
Or better description would be, that they are stripped of their moral agency/ Egosyntonicity
MH
I am surprised it was already this bad in 1997,
Excerpt from Harmful to minors
I also met Brian Flynn, who
at fourteen in 1993 had been charged with lewd and lascivious
conduct and oral copulation with a minor, felonies punishable by
three- and eight-year terms of incarceration, respectively. His crime,
denied by both alleged participants, was asking—or, depending on
who told the story and when, allowing—his ten-year-old sister to
lick his penis. After much persuasion, Brian pled to the first count,
for which he spent more than two years in the state's punitive cus-
tody. When he went AWOL from one of his placements, the county
sent a SWAT team: half a dozen squad cars with loudspeakers
warning neighbors to beware of "a dangerous sex offender" and a
helicopter buzzing the scrubby backyards of his father's communi-
ty. Brian scrambled up a hill; an officer took chase and pulled a
gun. The fugitive jumped a fence into the night. His mother finally,
reluctantly, turned him in. "I was scared he was going to get himself
killed," she told me.
Interestingly, regarding the situation in the USA at that time, there seems to had been almost no critical coverage of such things in European media.
Maybe few exceptions in some alternative media like telepolis Some outrage about Raoul Wüthrich case, but not much .
On the other side when case Dutroux came to light, they smeared shit and parental paranoia with no limit, throughout whole Europe.
When I remember what was acceptable in TV, films, societal customs (as an example see anecdote in my comment and many other things I wouldn't dare even publish now )
At that time it should seem like two absolutely different worlds, how is that possible nobody saw this?
MH
Yeah, the 90s were insane. No question about it. And Europe was insane for not noticing or resisting our own descent into antisex hell.
New post on TOC:
https://heretictoc.com/2025/12/13/fictional-abuse-goes-through-the-roof/
Nothing really important, just more of the same lack of any organized resistance to the CSA panic.
Prostasia has closed itself down -- and won't be missed since it was a bullshit organization anyway masquerading as "pro-sex" while accepting all the hysteria -- and been replaced by an even blander, more milquetoast organization called Center for Online Safety and Liberty (COSL) whose only gripe with antisexual legislation is this:
The core finding of the Watchlist is the identification of a dangerous legislative trend: the blurring of the essential legal distinction between content that records or causes concrete harm to real children, and content that is purely fictional, artistic, or imaginative. By treating fictional works — such as drawings or stories that evoke taboo themes — the same as evidence of real abuse under the single umbrella term of CSAM, the global response is expanding state power and sacrificing core liberties.
This gets a big yawn from me. Who cares if wankers wank to "real" or fictional porn? Both are devoid of sex anyway, so it has nothing to do actual antisexual legislation. If this insignificant nonsense is the only thing you can come up with by taking a "critical" look at the sex laws of the entire world, it is better not to have an organization at all, because this just legitimizes the laws. It's just more grift for the abuse industry, with the chair grifter here being Jeremy Malcolm, described as "a savvy human rights lawyer branding himself as a respectable trust and safety consultant." He was behind Prostasia as well. So, just remember COSL is the same scam and don't think MAPs got a new organization.
Prostasia was always joke.
When someone is defending possession/viewing laws (of anything),
then fuck 'em
State should have no business into what data someone stores or is viewing in private(from principle).
MH
Well I can see a kind of iterative approach as making sense in a way. It's more about velocity of change than what the goal is. Right now things are moving in a direction towards more criminalisation, more insanity. So I guess any organisation - whatever rubbish they spout - that can start to block these moves and actually change laws is a win. If COSL do succeed in legalising fictional porn then I suspect their activists will end up then going further and saying "well, now we need to look at why is real child porn higher than the age of consent?" and then they might say "why is the age of consent so high?" and so on...
But the million dollar question is what kind of organisation can actually succeed in reversing some of the legislative creep? One option is COSL which is lightly pushing back in some areas - another option is the radical MAP activism - and another option is men's rights activism whereby it is pointed out that "paedophilia" is basically normal male sexuality. The latter of which never managed to gain serious traction as an idea (even in terms of being attacked - unlike MAP activism which has been widely attacked). So the jury is out on whether or not it would work.
At least COSL seem to have a small number of people joining their org. Another organisation that lightly pushes back is National RSOL though they have a different approach and I guess their membership comes from people directly screwed by the sex offender laws but they have also succeeded getting a small number of other human rights activists onboard as well.
Yet another update on Amos Yee he's now apparently the only person from Singapore listed on Trump's new "worst of the worst" criminal aliens website: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/worst-worst-convicted-child-sex-080500236.html?guccounter=1
I mean what a total joke. All he did was shared sexy texts and nudes with a narcissistic 14 year old who was clearly more than willing to exchange such texts - but then decided to report him to the police because the relationship soured. And now he's apparently the "worst of the worst" (!). Joke!
Well in our attempts to understate the cause of this paedohysteria I found this paper that I thought was somewhat interesting:
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1882&context=ublr
It basically says that sex offender hysteria is not a moral panic in the traditional sense because, as we all know, it's gone on an incredibly long time and shows no signs of stopping. Normally moral panics do not last as long and fizzle out. So what the authors suggest seem to suggest is it's kind of a combination of a moral panic and what they call the "risk society" where (if I understand correctly) modern technological changes have happened so fast people have a lot of anxieties around risk created from that. Things like the environment and worries about harm caused to it is part of the risk society but for sex offenders everything converges nicely as unlike the environment where there's no clear "scapegoat" to blame for sex offenders they can find a scapegoat to blame for sexual abuse (that's the moral panic aspect). In addition then there is also an obsession with risk hence double punishing a sex offender both for what they have done but also the supposed "risk" they pose.
The best I can think of this whole thing is what's happened is:
1. The general public have anxieties around risk of something bad happening and perhaps technological change has created that as things have changed so much in a short space of time
2. The occasional child disappearing or being murdered increases these anxieties and mass media makes it explode
3. As all this started happening "feminism" was gaining traction as a theory and they were gaining power.
4. Feminists exploited this by saying they had the answer and started to blame men for sexually abusing children
5. The public took what they said hook, line and sinker
6. A feedback loop was then created and more stories emerged in the media, the feminists provided explanations and proposed new laws, the public sucked in the dogma constantly fearing new risks... Slowly over decades public attitudes changed. Most men and women are not really feminists but they were so over exposed to the dogma they just regurgitate it. And sometimes men can be worse than women as they have secret desires to hide (!).
Or something like that...
Hi Eivind, what do you about the last video of former PNVD member Norbert de Jonge, "Child-Adult Sex is Wonderful"?
If you are interested in this, I would recommend you book by P.Jenkins:
Moral Panic(if you didn't already read it) and Pedophiles on parade by David Sonenschein....cough cough..libgen.li ..aaarrghr
I see,that Jenkins is mentioned in that work as source.
MH
Thanks for that article on pedohysteria which I haven't had time to read in full yet. Perhaps "risk society" is a better conceptualization than moral panic, but I need to think about this more.
Meanwhile here is a pretty good article on Tim Ballard and the "Net Nanny" stings as far as the sting aspect goes, though it is written by a normie named Kevin Light-Roth who believes these men would be predators if the girls were real or less manipulative as opposed to invading adult-only spaces with blatant scams to entrap:
https://theappeal.org/net-nanny-washington-state-police-stings/
Ezra Wright was 20 years old when he was arrested during a Net Nanny operation in 2016. The circumstances surrounding his arrest were typical of the stings. He responded to a “casual encounter” ad posted by an undercover Washington State Police (WSP) officer identifying himself as an adult woman on a website that was supposed to be exclusively adult.
“It was more of a scam” than it was detective work, Dan Wright, Ezra’s father, told The Appeal. Wright says the undercover operative approached his son with “a very fast-paced” solicitation, “heavily steering the conversation” toward an in-person hookup. Convinced that the person he exchanged messages with was a grown woman engaged in elaborate role-play, Ezra Wright took the bait. He drove to the address he was given and knocked on the door. In the next moment, Washington State Patrol officers ordered him to the ground at gunpoint...
Most recently, Jackson County, Oregon carried out a Net Nanny operation on March 13, 2024 arresting six people. In Washington alone, Net Nanny stings have sent nearly 300 people to prison. More than 100 of them remain in custody. Hundreds of others are out of confinement, but bear the lifelong stigma of a sex crime conviction.
Failing a formal inquiry, Aracely Yates is urging journalists and others to “keep digging” into the Net Nanny stings. He believes that sufficient scrutiny will expose corrupt law enforcement practices and allow those who were wrongfully convicted to be “released, cleared and compensated for what they have been put through.”
Dan Wright is skeptical that any reckoning will ever take place. Wright’s son received a nearly four year prison sentence after his Net Nanny arrest, and although he filed a successful appeal that overturned his class-A felony and reduced his parole term from life to a year, he will continue to be listed on sex offender registries until 2031. His family wants an investigation and clings to a small hope that one could happen...
Many others abandoned hope entirely. Since the Net Nanny operations began, nine of the people arrested have died by suicide.
For what it's worth I think saying "risk society" is too nice. When someone clings to delusional, harmful ideas we don't call them risk-averse we call them insane. The CSA hoax is insane. A system which upholds the kind of scam described in the last comment as "justice" is insane, not risk-averse.
But sure, there are moral panics on top of a baseline delusional belief and these come and go with varying intensity and even get resisted by normies when they go too far, as we have just seen. Just like particularly bad witch-hunts were moral panics on top of a belief in witches which remained stable for 500 years. Belief in the CSA hoax now appears to have stabilized much like people used to believe in that other witchcraft.
Notice that Kevin Light-Roth does not express the slightest objection to belief in the CSA hoax, only to how it is exploited by Tim Ballard's egregiously scammy methods. We are dealing with a stable superstition and then moral panics of varying intensity on top of that with grifters and violent goons exploiting it for all it's worth. Some of those waves will be tamped down by the courts but there is no end to the superstition in sight.
I would say that MORAL CRUSADE is right word.
Google or Chatgpt: moral crusade vs moral panic
MH
I agree moral crusade is a good term for it. Also, John Michael Greer's blog post this week opened my eyes to thinking about it in therms of COGNITIVE COLLAPSE, by analogy to the model collapse suffered by LLMs:
https://www.ecosophia.net/cognitive-collapse-a-first-reconnaissance/
Much of the political strife in today’s industrial states, in fact, is driven by a conflict between two competing forms of cognitive collapse. In one corner of the boxing ring, we have the defending champion, cognitive collapse driven by mass media, in which everyone is bombarded by, and expected to believe, the same false statements promoted by authoritative voices, and so most people go crazy in the same way at more or less the same time. In the other corner we have cognitive collapse driven by social media, in which each little subculture generates its own private echo chamber and broadcasts its own unique set of false statements that members are expected to believe, and so different groups go crazy in different ways at different times.
It's worth asking ourselves from time to time whether we have joined a subculture which has gone crazy in its own way, but then we have the studies of Bruce Rind and such to prove that we are indeed grounded in reality and it is the normies who refuse to do reality-testing.
Perhaps this connection with mass media is why large-scale witch-hunts didn't get underway until modern times after the invention of the printing press, and the middle ages were relatively benign. When you have to copy every manuscript by hand or retell a story verbally there is more room for reality-checking. But we are stuck with mass media and social media for now that amplify insanity while the truth about something like CSA is just a tiny subculture which can't even compete with the alternative conspiracy theories offered on social media, much less the mainstream narrative.
Epstein Angles
https://www.heretical.com/sgs-2019/e-angles.html
It occurs to me why it is so impossible to get people to compare their political views to reality. Believing in a certain ideology or religion does not have survival value except in relation to your social group. And the main selection pressure from the group is to believe the same thing as everyone else or be ostracized or punished. There is no reward for believing in a better ideology, more enlightened theory of human nature and justice and so on unless you can find a group who will practice it, which you probably won't and then there are only downsides for you. Hence people really do go insane at the same time as the group demands. My tolerance to being ostracized because I refuse to go insane along with the normies is evidently at the five sigma level -- and ONLY with regard to "sexual abuse" -- I don't bother with other panics.
so what about Norbert de Jonge's video? have you seen it?
I listened to some of Norbert's speech when it was linked here in the spring. What I heard was good.
A better question, did he reach anyone besides preaching to the choir?
As John Michael Greer also says in that blog post, communication is only possible between equals. This holds for power structures but also political views. I would love to be proven wrong and find that Norbert has more success than I have.
Eivind look! The perp is an 18 year old now. 17 year olds are children. 18 year olds are monsters.
https://local12.com/news/nation-world/rafael-oreilly-lerner-high-school-student-accused-of-raping-strangling-multiple-girls-after-being-denied-sex-cincinnati-domestic-battery-incident-allegations-court-case-voyerism-crime-criminal-activity-victims-suspect-law-enforcement-false-imprisonment
Oh and would you look at that? Florida! The hellish of all hellholes. I suppose the Julia Tuttle Causeway wasn’t the last we’ve heard of the state.
Let's break this article down from the mainstream USA feminist newspeak into plain English.
"Lerner also allegedly threatened to leak photos and videos of the girl if she did not engage in sexual acts with him, with those threats also being sent over text messages, the report states. During other alleged encounters, the suspect allegedly physically assaulted the victim, spoke to her in a degrading manner, and raped and strangled her when she refused to participate in sexual acts a second time."
Interesting, so the girl produced "child pornography" of herself and willingly sent it to this violent man. Then, after supposedly being "raped" once, she just couldn't find a way to not be next to this man and naked again, while accepting the violent man's penis. Sounds like true rape to me! Especially because he "spoke to her in a degrading manner" LOL.
"there are several other victims "who have been too afraid to come forward.""
Really? So this violent man, who clearly has a reputation, managed to have sex with several girls despite that reputation. So those girls were not afraid to suck his cock, yet they're too afraid of him now that he's in jail?
"he threatens them with exposing those videos and photos publicly and to their parents."
Ohh, so the girls who were more than happy to suck off Mr. Violence don't want their parents to find out because the parents would have a problem, yet the man is evil and not the parents/society that stigmatizes sexual encounters?
"Our detectives believe he’s a predator"
This is just silly feminist language that literally means nothing. Imagine claiming to be a real man like these conservatives, and then using womanly language to shame another man for banging a teen girl? Pathetic and gay.
Basically, this article reads like a hysterical woman writing a rape fantasy dream story while diddling her wet pussy. Which is literally exactly the audience it's intended for, like all media coverage now in USA radfem land, especially in the so called "conservative" areas.
Now let's go to the comments:
"He's doing this at such a young age...he should be locked up for life. "
"I wonder if that feet first wood chipper is still for sale on here"
"They gonna love him when he goes away. He gonna know what he been doin."
So much for youth protection these feminists and cucks love to talk about! Women want to put Mr. Violence in prison to be raped, so the next Mr. Violence can be even more attractive to women because he's willing to break the law and ignore previous examples in order to fuck them.
Oh, and also, any man who is not as attractive as Mr. Violence, aka 99.9% of civilized men that women see on a daily basis, will be completely subordinate to and controlled by women due to feminist laws and culture created "to contain Mr. Violence."
No lies here, though.
anon69
Post a Comment