My Fellow American

I have been asked by the My Fellow American project to share their short film about tolerance towards Muslims. As they explain,

My Fellow American is a film project in the United States devoted to recognizing that Muslims are our neighbors. I am reaching out to you because you addressed the recent events in Oslo, Norway, on Eivind Berge's Blog and I am hoping you will share this message of tolerance with your readers. We’ve put together a 2 minute film that I believe you will be interested in sharing, watching, and discussing.

Unlike Anders Behring Breivik, or Fjordman for that matter, I don't have a problem with mulitculturalism in principle. In fact, I think of Muslims as potential allies against feminism. Even Sharia law is probably better for men than the current feminist utopia, if Islamization should ever progress that far. So this is a message I can get behind.

More Evidence for Female Erotic Capital and the Male Sex-Deficit

Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital is a new book by Catherine Hakim that should probably be required reading for anyone still in denial of the fact that sex is a female resource. Since I haven't yet read it, I will rely on this review for now:

According to her, while young women may possess considerable charms, men's desire for them always vastly outstrips supply. The reverse is simply not the case: men are both less attractive to women, and markedly less desired by them, especially as those women grow older. What Hakim terms "the male sex-deficit" underlies both the ubiquity of female sexual imagery – as pornography, as marketing adjunct – and the persistent unwillingness of society at large to "valorise" women's good looks. It is, quite simply, not in the interests of all those priapic patriarchs to allow women to actualise their erotic capital, for to do so would seismically alter the balance of power between the sexes.

Ah, but feminism is precisely about valorizing women's good looks. The balance of power between the sexes is already seismically altered because women now have (or soon will have) equality in every way and then all their sexual power on top of that. To make things worse, Norwegian men are even criminalized for purchasing sex while women can legally sell.

That the religiously dogmatic and the merely male chauvinist should have both demonised – and, paradoxically, diminished – the impact of female sexuality from time out of mind, is, following Hakim, only to be expected. In Anglo Saxon societies, such as our own, the net result is, she avers, that we have less sex overall than they do in steamier, less puritanical climes, while our sexual relations are mediated by a tiresome push-me, pull-you interaction: men wanting sex, women refusing it. According to Hakim, Christian monogamy is, quite simply, a "political strategy" devised by the patriarchy in order to ensure that even the least attractive/wealthy/powerful men gain at least one sexual partner.

Indeed, to ensure that most men get a partner is exactly why I believe we should return to Christian monogamy. Whether there is more sex overall in "steamier, less puritanical climes" is beside the point, because it isn't evenly distributed. When women get more freedom to choose, they reject more men, and these men will tend to act as a destabilizing force against civilization, as I know from personal experience.

I may not agree with Hakim's conclusion, which apparently is a call for further female empowerment through prostitution, but it looks like this book is a good resource for debunking the feminist lie that there are no essential sex differences in sexual motivation, as it is said to be "complete with rather leaden prose, extensive annotation, reams of statistical evidence, appendices and tedious repetitions" all pointing to the fact that sexuality is a resource that belongs to women.

Hakim's view is that the myth of "equality of desire" is endorsed by feminists, and that this leads to what she terms the "medicalisation of low desire", whereby therapists and counsellors try to convince women that their lack of sex-drive is a function of psychopathology rather than hormones. She anticipates being criticised by feminists as an "essentialist", who defines men and women by biological characteristic, but rejoins – I think fairly – that the feminist position is equally so.

Yes, the feminist denial of sex differences also harms women in some ways. But these are just minor inconveniences compared to the huge benefit women reap from denying human nature. Because only by denying female erotic capital can feminists credibly sustain the illusion that women have been oppressed and thus justify all their coercive "equality."

Jeg tar avstand fra Breiviks handlinger

Jeg ser jeg har blitt omtalt i BT og selektivt sitert fra denne bloggen. Det er viktig for meg a understreke følgende. Jeg tar blank avstand fra Breiviks handlinger. Skytingen på Utøya og bomben i Oslo er forkastelige handlinger. Det er overhodet ikke forenlig med det jeg står for å ta uskyldige menneskeliv gjennom en terrorhandling. Det er helt fokasterlig og kan overhodet ikke forsvares av de anliggender jeg har i min blog.

Dette er det aller viktigste jeg har å si i denne situasjonen. Hvis det jeg har skrevet i min blog blir tatt til inntekt for slike handlinger, tar jeg sterk avstand fra det.

All annen diskusjon om det jeg har skrevet er irrelevant i forhold til dette anliggende, altså selve terrorhandlingene som Anders Breivik står bak.

Anders Breivik: Paleoconservative Activism Or Beta Rampage?

At the time I wrote my last blog post, I believed I would probably become Norway's first modern violent activist in peacetime. Celibacy enforced by a feminist regime had driven me to the point where I saw no other option. I would target the pigs who enforce feminist law, knowing I could realistically at least kill one of them before I would be captured or killed myself. Thus revenge would be assured and if I lived, my reputation as a violent criminal would make me attractive to some women. But then in the nick of time this blog attracted a lovely girl commenting as "Emma." It turns out her real name is Nataliya and she is now my girlfriend. No actual violence was necessary, and it looked like Norway would be a peaceful place for now. I knew things are seriously amiss around here and that neither feminism nor multiculturalism is sustainable in the long run, but I had no idea a formidable activist named Anders Behring Breivik was already years into meticulously planning an attack that would show the entire world what Vikings are made of.

On July 22, 2011 the social democratic regime in Oslo was struck by violence so spectacular it took us all by surprise. The ruling class of a country has never, as far as I know, been so systematically and viciously assaulted by a single individual. The bombing of government offices was impressive enough, but the shooting spree which followed was mind-bogglingly effective, literally decimating the crème de la crème of aspiring young politicians for the ruling Labor Party. The ethics of shooting defenseless teenagers at summer camp can be questioned, to say the least, but it sure was a brilliant way to strike at the core of the Norwegian political elite. These are the next generation of political leaders, and what better way to terrorize the parents – the current top holders of political office – than going after their kids? As Glenn Beck has observed, the AUF youth at Utøya are reminiscent of Hitler-Jugend. Utøya is where leftist kids come to be indoctrinated every summer, steeping themselves in liberal propaganda and listening to inspirational speeches by current and former social democratic leaders such as Gro Harlem Brundtland. In retrospect, it was extremely thoughtless by the ruling class not to post a single armed guard at this event. Politics is serious business after all, and such a hotbed of recruitment concentrated on an island with no easy escape is an obvious target for political enemies, if you think about it. I guess they were still under the illusion that Norway is an idyllic place which somehow does not foster violent malcontents no matter how downtrodden we get.

Indeed, the perpetrators of the evils against men I've chronicled on my blog are the direct maleficiaries of Breivik's aggression. While I am as prone to feeling sympathy for innocent-looking kids as the next guy, and I too feel this atrocity was a bit excessive, then the ugly face of the scumbag Knut Storberget keeps appearing in the news to remind me that this was not an attack against the innocent. Storberget is the main poster boy for feminist corruption of justice, and there is no fucking way his presence can evoke anything but hatred. The corrupt nature of the Norwegian justice system hits home also when, as Breivik appeared at the hearing Monday, the court closed its doors and conducted its business in complete secrecy, admitting neither the public nor the press. They shamelessly did this by request of the cops in order to prevent Breivik from addressing the public. And Storberget is already starting to exploit the situation by agitating for a stronger police state.

Fortunately, Breivik was able to release a manifesto which is now so widely disseminated that they have no hope of censoring it. It could be better, marred by plagiarism as well as lack of proofreading (for obvious reasons, this could not be outsourced), but overall, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence is fairly decent and contains much truth. While I cannot get behind Breivik’s entire program (for one thing, as a libertarian, I strongly support freedom of religion, though I acknowledge the problems associated with Islam gaining influence in Europe), he does, at least, understand sexual politics:

Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. European women, in light of the feminist revolution, are now considerably more influential than men due to the sum of all forms of capital. (p. 1180)

From this follows also the fact that rape is equality, as I have pointed out, though it is unclear if Breivik has yet to grasp this point. He seems lamentably politically correct in some ways and at times spouts feminist drivel of the worst kind, such as, “Ethical dilemmas which involve sex can often appear in situations where there is a significant power difference or where there is a pre-existing professional relationship between the participants, or where consent is partial or uncertain” (p. 1173). This is the kind of feminist tripe used to legitimize the worst sex laws against men, and sadly he appears to have internalized it.

Nonetheless, Breivik was sufficiently angered by the Norwegian feminist/Marxist regime to attack it with the utmost vengeance. As was I before I got a girlfriend; the difference being my relative lack of conscientiousness and restraint in expressing my views. As a very public MRA already on the radar for intending violence, there would be no way I could purchase the ingredients to make a bomb without arousing suspicion; and even if I could, I would be unlikely to have the patience and diligence to complete a clandestine project on such a scale. But I would still be able to make a bloody nuisance of myself.

Breivik is being called insane right now for fancying himself at war with the establishment, and apparently regarding some newly founded incarnation of the Knights Templar as the legitimate authority in Europe. While that does seem a bit grandiose and perhaps fictitious, we must not forget that his perspective spans more than 60 years. By 2083, it is entirely possible, I think, that we may go through a civil war in Europe, the outcome of which is uncertain. I will not be surprised if Breivik turns out to be a greater hero in the long run to more people than the Marxist “traitors” he executed. Now he will surely gain a bevy of female admirers, as well.

Being born just one year apart, we grew up under similar circumstances. Norway today is a society sick to the core. It is a place which breeds monsters out of the betas and omegas in a sexual market increasingly skewed against males. I am not sure Breivik is properly considered just another beta going on a rampage out of sexual frustration (Breivik seems to me so idealistic his actions transcend sexuality, but then again it is usually a mistake to think men do anything at all for any reason other than to get laid), as fellow Roissysphere blogger Whiskey contends, but I know how close I was to such a rampage myself, and undoubtedly we will see increasing violence if feminist sexual politics is allowed to continue. I don’t particularly have a dog in the Christian vs. Islam fight (maybe this shows bad character, but I would not be averse to convert to Islam if that was the way to get laid), and now that I have a girlfriend I am not out in the front lines attacking feminists, either, but I remain politically aware, and recent events have been a step in the right direction insofar as they demonstrate a willingness among conservative men to revolt against the heretofore completely dominant left.

The Futility of Anonymity

Italian police requested information from their Norwegian colleagues about two bloggers who were using a service hosted on servers in Norway to maintain their anonymity. It's bad enough that servers can get compromised so easily whenever the authorities want to look into someone, but it gets much worse. In a move completely characteristic of Norwegian cops' arrogance and utter disregard for rights, piggies copied an entire hard drive, thus securing identifying information on 7000 political activists.

While I support the right to be anonymous on the Internet, stories like this go to show it is pointless, really. Personally, I chose to blog under my full name not only because anonymity is futile but because I believe activism is more effective that way and I am in no way ashamed of my opinions. So I engage in open hostility against feminists and their enforcers. I have nothing to lose and nothing to fear. I don't have to watch my back because I currently do nothing illegal (even took the above picture myself, so no copyright infringement in this post), and I am positively itching for a lethal confrontation anyway, seething with rage and profound hatred against pigs as my life is destroyed by feminism.

These days a new Orwellian law is being pushed through in Norway (Datalagringsdirektivet), granting the police tremendously increased power to pry into our lives. Information on all email, web browsing and telecommunications of the entire populace is to be stored for the convenience of cops. Note that everyone is presumed guilty and subject to surveillance by default; this is not a matter of keeping an eye on suspects. While this is of course appalling and incompatible with any notion of a free society, I don't fear Datalagringsdirektivet, either. A transparent society suits me just fine and is bound to be a net positive for men. In stark contrast to the pigs, I take the moral high ground. Since a cornerstone of police method is deception, openness is going to hurt law enforcement a great deal more than it will hurt morally upstanding citizens (and besides, anyone who actually knows how to use a computer can easily get around the new surveillance anyway if the need should arise). Pigs have been known to engage in their usual lies and sneaky behavior on social media, but at least one major service has made it clear that this is unacceptable.

Facebook was the only company to make clear that its strict policies against fake accounts apply to law enforcement as well. In its 2008 and 2009 guides it notes that it will disable all accounts that provide false or misleading information, including police accounts, and in its 2010 guide it notes that it will “always disable accounts that supply false or misleading profile information or attempt to technically or socially circumvent site privacy measures.”

Kudos to Facebook for holding cops to the same standards as everyone else. As feminism and its enforcement cannot stand the light of day, the powers that be are only hastening their own demise be escalating surveillance. The truth will set us free.

Alpha of the Year: Keith MacDonald

Keith MacDonald is Alpha of the Year for 2010, hands down. No one else I've heard of even comes close. Keith has sired ten children with ten different women by age 25. Even more impressive, he has done so on a budget of £40 a week that he doesn't even have to work for since his back hurts, and only £5 a week is deducted from his incapacity benefit, earning him the accolade "Incapacity Casanova." Moreover, he does not appear to have needed to be criminal or violent in order to attract all these women, and unlike certain other famous philanderers, he has even avoided rape accusations. I also bet he never spent a penny on any PUA material or coaching. And to remove the last shred of doubt, it is clear that the women he gets are hot.

Taxpayers are understandably upset for having to foot the £2million bill for supporting Keith's ten children until they are 18, but Keith is a winner. Boy, is he ha winner!

Macdonald says he first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women – claiming to be “a sex god on £40 a week.”

He fathered his first child at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 32, gave birth to a daughter, Jamie Leigh, who is now 10. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 25, who had a daughter, Kady, now eight.

Macdonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son, Angelis, who is seven.

June Garrick, now 26, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 – a month after Angelis was born. In 2006, he met 17-year-old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son, Matt, three. Then he started dating Ms Barker, now 22, who gave birth to Emily, now two.

His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 22, who gave birth to Clio, also two. His eighth offspring was Ms Bryant’s daughter, Paige, born five months ago.

So how can a jobless, "feckless" layabout accomplish this? (Obviously, he is anything but feckless. Keith is smarter than all of us.) I wish I knew. Clearly he is a natural, and I doubt this level of game can be taught. Most men would need to be billionaires or world rulers to have anywhere near this kind of success with women.

Keith is in an altogether different league than even the best PUAs. Roissy, for example, for all his knowledge about pickup, is missing something essential. Roissy does not want children. Not wanting marriage is understandable. I don't think I would want to get married either under conditions of marriage 2.0 if I were the kind of man women want. But not wanting to impregnate women is a sentiment I can only shake my head at. It is all very well to get to fuck all those women, of course, but in the end, isn't it halfway pointless if you subvert the actual fundamental reason for having sex? Keith Macdonald has understood it. The last laugh will be his.

Just to get an idea of how much sex it takes to father that many children:

Given that the probability of conception per coital act is estimated to be about .03, a man must have 33 extrapair copulation partners (with whom he has sex once each) in order to be able to expect to produce one child (number of potential conception = .99).  A man can produce roughly the same number of children with one sexual partner with whom he has regular sex (twice a week) (number of potential conception = .96).

And that's assuming they don't use contraception. You would have to fuck 330 women once each to have ten kids, or ten women 33 times. This is what Keith has been doing, all in ten years from he was 15 to 25 while stupid betas have to work and pay. Great for him, not so good for society. I would certainly never stoop so low as to be a net taxpayer and work to pay for another man's spawn, but I am magnanimous enough to congratulate Keith Macdonald on his magnificent success in life.

MRAs Need To Take an Etic View of Rape, Denounce Feminist Emic Rape

Julian Assange's rape case has made the emic/etic distinction highly relevant in this day and age. Before rushing to pronounce rape allegations true or false, it is important to make clear where we are coming from. This would help clear up a great deal of confusion. As Wikipedia puts it,

• An "emic" account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.
• An "etic" account is a description of a behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be "culturally neutral."

Within the framework of radical feminism and Swedish law, these charges against Assange would indeed make him a rapist if found by guilty by one of their kangaroo courts (which do not even allow a jury of peers):

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A [Anna Ardin], said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W [Sofia Wilén], on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

In Sweden, as well as Norway for ten years now and I'm sure a lot of jurisdictions corrupted by feminism, having sex with a sleeping woman is rape (Norway is even one step ahead of Sweden and just increased the minimum punishment from two to three years). Even a woman one is already sleeping with and who will not even realize she has been "raped" until days or weeks later when she has her regrets for some reason, like the man not calling or sleeping with someone else, and often not until a lawyer versed in feminist law has explained to her that it is rape. I was amused to see this delay referred to as "rape latency" on a Swedish blog; this is just one of the absurdities one has to posit in order to prop up the feminist concept of rape and make it internally consistent.

But all of this is merely emic rape, intelligible solely within a radical feminist framework. This point cannot be underlined enough. No reasonable man or even reasonable woman will consider this rape and nor should we respect this law or have any sympathy for the "rape victims" it defines into existence. We need only acknowledge that this definition can be used at a woman's whim to mobilize a gang of blue thugs against men, even internationally, as we have seen -- and then we need to fight it. I certainly advocate defending yourself against thugs with brutal violence, but it is equally important for men to subscribe to an etic definition of rape. Resistance to feminism thus starts in your head, and the etic view of rape would be the one used by evolutionary psychology. Etic rape is sexual intercourse resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she is threatened by death or serious injury. It requires a kicking, screaming victim; so if Sofia Wilén woke up and did nothing to resist, she was not raped. This also corresponds closely to the common-law definition ("carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force and against her will") and the definition used by most jurisdictions until very recent feminist corruption of justice. Norway, for example, used a definition of rape I can agree with until the year 2000. Feminist rape law reform has spawned terms such as "rape-rape" to distinguish feminist rape from real rape, indicating that people don't truly buy it and deep down maintain the etic view.

Allow me now to quote our great Western literary canon. This is a from a sex scene in The Crying of Lot 49 (p. 29):

She awoke at last to find herself getting laid; she'd come in on a sexual crescendo in progress, like a cut to a scene where the camera's already moving.

If Thomas Pynchon was a feminist, he should have written that Oedipa "awoke at last to find herself getting raped." Or at least she ought to realize she'd been raped by the end of the book, and it ought to end with a rape trial rather than a stamp auction. Now, I know a great many feminists have read this story, and other accounts like it. Do they really think of rape when they hear something like this? No, it is only when convenient in order to bring down state violence on a man that they reinterpret ordinary sex as rape. I don't recall any discussion or mention of rape when we read Lot 49 for class as a graduate student in English, and that is because it does not occur to women unless they have an ulterior motive that this can be rape. They don't really want to reinterpret the canon to find rape everywhere or even act like the feminist definition is valid in their own lives -- unless they have a specific axe to grind.

Men do everything we do in order to get laid. That is why men do great things. Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks so that he could have young, beautiful groupies and fuck them. And he did. He is quite alpha, yet he is vulnerable to feminist sex law because that is how far it has gone. No one is safe. All men need the men's rights movement to stand up for the nullification of feminist rape law. The fact that Assange is incidentally involved in other controversial business and is wanted by the USA is a red herring here. These ridiculous rape charges can easily stand on their own and get men locked up. It happens all the time. I am glad this is finally starting to sink in, and rape accusers relying on the feminist, emic definition will hopefully face a great deal of derision from now on. Needless to say, it is equally ludicrous to call sex without a condom "sexual molestation." It makes sense emically within a bizarrely sex-hostile feminist setting, but men should refuse to stand for it anymore. Nor do we accept that there is anything wrong with "using our body weight to hold a woman down in a sexual manner." This is what's otherwise known as the missionary position, presumably, and it is perfectly respectable.

Assange has yet to prove his chops as an MRA and I don't know if he is one. Now is the time for him to come out as an anti-feminist or MRA. If he is one of us, he will not deny the charges, but rather attack the Swedish law itself. He has done nothing wrong even if the charges are true -- nothing that can even tarnish his reputation -- so it would only make him look like a foolish feminist to deny them. The rest of the world has already caught onto the fact that feminism is what's on trial here. A rape trial will expose emic feminist rape to a level of scrutiny it cannot survive. The cat will be out of the bag for the feminist rape industry, and scorn will shift to their alleged victims. I think we have reached the point of critical mass with this case, and at the very least women won't be able to accuse rape so smugly any longer when there is no etic rape. Sweden is making a mockery of itself here, which is well-deserved, but many countries are not that far behind. Now I hope the entire climate of opinion will change so that our legal systems can be reformed throughout the Western world. Imagine how many men are imprisoned due to feminist emic rape. It will occur to us that miscarriage of justice has occurred on a grand scale and the backlash against women will be cataclysmic -- I hope.

Thus it is possible for rape accusations to be both true and false at the same time. The accusations against Assange are quite possibly true within their emic setting. But they are decidedly false in an etic, culturally neutral sense even if the women are telling the truth. So the question becomes not whom to believe, but whose side are you on? Men have the power to decide this in our favor. Let us now toss the feminist definition of rape in the trash bin of history.

Sofia Wilén

false etic rape accuser

(probably) true emic rape accuser

 

Anna Ardin
all-round feminist bitch

Julian Assange: A Case Study of Feminist Corruption of Justice

I am pleased that the Swedish feminist justice system is making a fool of itself in the eyes of the entire world as we speak. The hubris of feminist prosecutors relying on feminist sex law knows no bounds, but they are setting themselves up for a fall.

It is important to understand that the persecution of Assange is not some kind of aberration. It is not a conspiracy having to do with international politics. Nor are the accusations technically false. What we are witnessing is simply the normal workings of a feminist justice system. In Sweden as well as Norway, women routinely accuse men in this fashion in order to bring down upon them the violence of the state. Thanks to a succession of feminist rape law reform, women don't have to make up some sort of story about being forced to have sex in order to have a man prosecuted for "rape." All a woman has to do is show up at a police station, state that she has had sex and is unhappy about it for some reason, and the cops will gleefully trump up rape charges; or if they won't, feminists higher up in the system will make them proceed with the case. Finally, the cases they lose or are forced to drop because the accusations are too absurd even in Scandinavia are portrayed in the media as men getting away with rape and a relentless campaign is waged to further extend the scope of sex law and preferably even abolish the jury in order to convict more men.

What is so heartening about the Assange debacle is the refusal of the rest of the world to buy into the victimology of the accusers (Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén). This finally shows the limits of feminist sex law. There comes a point when the definition of rape is so diluted that it is plain for all but the most radical feminists that the real villain is the legal system itself. I am glad this is getting so much publicity, because it will hurt women and benefit men in the long run to expose the nature of a typical Scandinavian rape prosecution. Our feminists are smart enough to shroud these cases in secrecy and will usually not name even convicted rapists publicly, but now they can't help but receiving full scrutiny.

Cognitive Liberty

I have previously expressed my heartfelt appreciation for the killing of policeman Olav Kildal. This was truly a breath of fresh air in an escalating police state. Now the trial has taken place and our hero has been sentenced to more psychiatric "treatment." Of course, he was already subjected to this and had no cognitive liberty even when sitting peacefully in his own home, which is why he had to defend himself against invading thugs sent by the state in the first place, so the conviction hardly makes much difference. Anyone can be a victim of psychiatry and lose his physical and cognitive liberty at the whim of doctors. In this connection I want to make my stance on psychiatry and cognitive liberty known for the record, as well as the consequences if I should ever have my cognitive liberty infringed on.

Cognitive liberty, which I fully support, is the freedom to the sovereignty of one's own consciousness. This sounds like a really obvious, basic human right, but in practice there is no such thing as self-ownership of our own minds. In fact, the state acts like it owns our consciousness and sadly there is surprisingly little opposition to this (it is telling that the Wikipedia entry on cognitive liberty is a stub shorter than this blog post). The war on drugs is bad enough. While I personally can't be bothered to use recreational/entheogenic drugs or alcohol anymore, I believe that of course anybody should be free to alter the state of their consciousness by any method. Far more crucial, however, is the freedom from being forced into a different state of consciousness against your will. Psychiatry's right to police your consciousness and indeed your entire personality is a major social problem. The swine Olav Kildal died while trying to enforce our lack of cognitive liberty. This was a defensive, much deserved killing that cheered me up. Now the court has ruled that we are not allowed to defend ourselves against psychiatry by killing cops, which means judges are just as guilty as cops in violating our cognitive liberty and deserving of the same public contempt and violence.

A common misconception used to justify force in psychiatry is the idea that the "patients" are dangerous. But in fact, only 6% are considered dangerous. The vast majority of force is used to coerce compliance with "treatment"; in other words, solely to change people's consciousness. And even when people are dangerous, forcible psychiatric "treatment" is always wrong, as is preemptively locking someone up. Insanity does not exist and should have no bearing on criminal cases, either. Psychiatric treatment, like other forms of torture, is never an acceptable punishment in a civilized state and of course it is equally ludicrous to plead innocence by reason of insanity. Like Thomas Szasz I reject the concept of mental illness, but even if you believe in it, forcible treatment is wrong. It is such a serious violation of your integrity that lethal self-defense is always justified. If ever a victim of psychiatry, here is what I would do. I would first attempt to kill the cops or whoever tried to apprehend me. Failing that, I would feign docility in order to get out as soon as possible and then kill a representative of the industry as revenge. Your life is over anyway when you are trapped in that system and the state is lording it over your innermost feelings. If only people working in the vast infrastructure responsible for this oppression risked more frequent violence and malicious revenge wherever they go, maybe they would reconsider if it is really worth it.

The anti-psychiatry movement is unfortunately tainted with Scientology. I appreciate Scientology's work against psychiatry, but I only wish it would be possible to foot a resistance without bringing in some equally deranged bullshit.

Finally, here is how anti-psychiatry ties in with men's rights. While resisting psychiatry is a human rights issue, killing cops is also very much a men's issue. Every pig killed is also a blow against feminism, so men should be doubly elated whenever an officer goes down in the line of encroaching on our cognitive liberty.

Why has the men's movement failed to Darwinize?

A category error (or category mistake) is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing or group which could not possibly have that property. Imputing culpability for sexual abuse or rape of boys to women is such a mistake. The lie that women can rape or sexually abuse males is I think the most preposterous and egregiously offensive category error imaginable. I have addressed this topic numerous times, but it cannot be emphasized enough that the notion of a female sexual abuser is a complete and utter falsehood. Since sex is a female resource, any male is only lucky to get sex from women regardless of whether he is underage, forced or whatever.

The lie that boys can be raped by women was invented by feminists during the latter part of the twentieth century. At no time previously in no culture during the entire history of civilization did the notion exist that boys can be harmed by pussy the same way girls can be raped by men. As these were mostly patriarchal times according to the feminists themselves, surely it would have occurred to society that boys can be sexually preyed on by women if indeed this is a problem, and we wouldn't need to wait thousands of years for feminists to identify the "problem" and pass gender-neutral sex laws in order to punish female sexual "predators." Only a gullible fool can buy this official narrative and think feminists had the best interests of boys in mind when they decided there is no difference between the sexuality of boys and girls and therefore boys are just as vulnerable to sexual abuse by women as girls are to men. In fact, this lie is merely instrumental to the greater charade of social constructionism and war against male sexuality. I do not think the top feminist ideologues are such drooling retards that they actually believe boys are "abused" by pussy rather than lucky. They merely sputter this tripe of political correctness in order to further the feminist agenda because otherwise more men would catch on to the relentless persecution of male sexuality that is going on.

Crudely speaking, access to women's bodies is the core of men's liberation and should be pursued as vigorously and violently as the feminists have attacked men to the point where I quite literally can't have sex without being a criminal anywhere in the world at the moment. At least this is my vision of what the men's movement should be, and needless to say, any notion of female rapists is diametrically opposed to the aim of the men's movement. I am therefore infuriated by supposed MRAs playing the part of useful idiots for the feminists in promoting the lie that women can be sexual abusers, and this is now happening alarmingly often. Just witness Paul Elam at A Voice for Men:

What about all the men in those classes who have already been sexually abused and victimized by female teachers in the elementary schools, middle schools and high schools they attended prior to attending Hamilton? The fact is that there is an all but silent epidemic of female teachers in America that are sexually abusing, raping, young male students.  And they are getting away with it, either at the hands of a judicial system that seldom delivers more than a slap on the wrist to the perpetrators, or the media that is as likely to play the “hot for teacher” angle as it is to covering it like the crime it is. This, and much worse is fostered by an indifferent and misandric culture that ultimately either finds blame with the male victim, or sees him as just another guy who got lucky, or both.

This is the speech of a blithering idiot. It is time for some patricide in the men's movement. If esteemed "MRAs" hold views like this, I need to distance myself from the movement and pick another label. Anyone who fails to comprehend that these boys are lucky -- so lucky that I am consumed by jealousy and would have killed for that kind of experience myself -- is not someone I want to be associated with even though I agree with just about everything else they stand for and even the overall point of the article just quoted. The Spearhead similarly reads like a cesspool of feminist dross and I have mostly given up commenting there because they never get it.

The view expressed by Paul Elam above is so absurdly detached from human experience that he downright fails the Turing test and must be a zombie. Not a philosophical zombie -- that would be too nice -- but a traditional one who blatantly lacks any trace of humanity. I don't think Paul is conscious, because it really doesn't seem like he has any inkling at all of what it is like to grow up as a heterosexual boy even though he purports to be a man. Youth is not a fun time for boys, because your sexuality is worthless and women are infinitely desirable and unattainable at the same time. Sexual frustration is all I can recall from my youth, overshadowing everything else until I paid to lose my virginity at 21. Anyone suggesting that too much sex is a problem for boys is not just a moron but so offensive I want to stave his face in with a rock. The commonest insult women use is "you can't get laid." This is hurtful because it is generally true. How do you surpass that? By saying you can't get laid even at 32, but there is an epidemic of young schoolboys getting laid and we have to use your tax money to prosecute and incarcerate these women to "protect" these male "victims." This is the ne plus ultra of feminism, folks. Intimacy between the sexes is now so ferociously criminalized thanks to feminism that a woman in Nevada got life in prison merely for letting a boy touch her breasts (so much for the lie that women "are getting away with it," Paul). The feminist utopia has arrived. And "MRAs" are cheering them on, pretending the deleterious effects of involuntary celibacy don't exist and the greatest thing is to imprison women for bogus sex crimes as much as we do with men. I renounce this movement as long as you all are just an extension of feminism. We need to make it perfectly clear that women are never culpable in any way for having sex with underage boys or "raping" males, and make it a priority to fight the laws feminists have passed criminalizing women for being nice to boys. Until then, we don't belong to the same movement.

Boardroom quota failure

Since 2008, Norwegian publicly traded companies have been required to have 40% women on their board of directors, or else be forcibly dissolved. Despite simply relying on brute force, this law has been praised as a paragon of equality; a great advancement for women that should be looked up to and imitated worldwide. If you believe in forcible equality of outcome, we are on the right track.

Or so it seemed. Now it turns out that roughly half the companies affected by the quota have changed their organization to avoid it. By opting no longer to be publicly listed, they can avoid having to appoint so many women to directorships. Finding qualified women is often problematic, it means you have to fire more highly qualified men, and in any case companies dislike this kind of government infringement on their autonomy. 31% of CEOs surveyed say they reorganized the company in order to circumvent the quota.

So not only has this attempt to coerce equality stirred up discontent and provided grist to the mill for MRAs who, as I do, advocate sexual coercion in response to feminism based on the feminists' own violent logic -- it has actually been counterproductive. In absolute numbers, because there are now fewer directorships to fill, representation of women in the boardrooms is now back nearly to the level of 2007, before the law went into effect, and declining.

Doubtless feminists will propose more stringent laws to close this loophole. Which will in turn stir up more hatred and more morally legitimate use of force for the advancement of equality for men as well. It is by now abundantly clear that equality is not achievable without violence (or at least threat of violence), and even rather drastic measures are largely ineffectual. As the use of coercion to promote women's equality escalates and becomes more accepted, the case for sexual coercion against women to even the score in that supremely important and unequal arena will inevitably be strengthened.

Escalation

Norwegian feminists have once more escalated the war on male sexuality. For example, the minimum sentence for rape has been increased by 50%, from two to three years. An overview of all the changes now in effect can be found here, and here is the official document attempting to justify them. Penalties for real violence such as murder have also been toughened somewhat (about 30%), but sentencing guidelines for sexual crimes -- most of them entirely bogus, based on nothing but misandry -- are now even more absurdly out of proportion, conveying the unmistakable moral that as far as Norwegian justice is concerned, the sanctity of a woman's vagina is worth more than her life. Based on possible jail time, it is far less serious to drive drunk and kill a girl (up to 6 years) than to have consensual drunken sex with the same girl which she later regrets (up to 8 years). The latter act would be so-called negligent rape, which Norwegian feminists introduced ten years ago, abolishing mens rea in order to convict more innocent men. This time they have left the definitions alone and merely ramped up sentencing, since rape and other sex crimes are already so loosely and preposterously defined as to be meaningless.

Needless to say, my seething anti-feminist hatred has just increased accordingly. I am now a good 50% more enraged.