Case dropped

Exactly three months after Norway's Supreme Court ruled that my blogging is outside the purview of criminal law, the police have finally conceded that they have to drop their case against me. It still needs to be finally decided by the Attorney-General, but at least the cops have admitted they have no case.

The stage is now set for claiming compensation for wrongful prosecution, including the three weeks I spent in prison. I haven't discussed the details with my lawyer yet, but we expect to be reimbursed according to the usual rates for baseless prosecution and imprisonment. I have been treated and portrayed as a criminal, even though I broke no laws, so I am clearly entitled to compensation like any other falsely accused person. However unpopular my opinions may be should have no bearing on this. And if the state refuses to settle for a reasonable amount, then we shall sue them.

Antifeminism in Norwegian

I can possibly thank the editors of Kuiper magazine for my freedom right now. This spring, they invited me to write an article (in Norwegian) on gender issues for their literary magazine, and so I did. It was supposed to appear alongside articles by feminists who were also invited to contribute. But as it turned out, the feminists didn't complete their work, and the editors did not want to publish my article on its own without any arguments from the opposing side. This is the excuse I received for not publishing my article:

Vi har nå bestemt hva som skal være med i Kuiper-nummeret, og har dessverre ikke funnet plass til din tekst likevel.
Det er det to grunner til: Da vi ba deg om å skrive en tekst, var tanken at vi skulle ha en debatt-seksjon i dette nummeret, hvor vi la skjønnlitteraturen til side og skrev om mannen i samfunnet. De to andre tekstene vi hadde tenkt at skulle stå til din tekst, blir heller ikke trykket. Den ene var for dårlig, og den andre ble aldri levert. Slik er det noen ganger når man lager et tidsskrift uten penger til å betale bidragsyterne våre for arbeidet de skal gjøre.
Vi vurderte å trykke din artikkel på egen hånd, men flere i redaksjonen var motvillige til å gjøre det på grunn av innholdet - og da særlig når din artikkel fikk stå uimotsagt, uten det motsatte perspektivet. Jeg beklager at det ble slik.

All because Kuiper declined to publish my piece on the gender war, or more accurately because some feminists couldn't be bothered (or were unable) to write decent articles, I am at large today and free to pursue more activism. So it all works out for the best, even though I was somewhat disappointed at the time.

Now I am traveling to Oslo to be on a TV show (Trygdekontoret) to debate feminists. Since this program tends to be more a comedy show than serious debate, and there is only so much you can say on a 40-minute TV production with several participants anyway, I thought this was a good time to promote my unpublished article before it is criminalized. Interested Norwegian-speakers can hereby read my article "Mannskamp" for a succinct overview of what men's rights activism is all about.

This article may or may not constitute criminal incitement if it were published in print media. The cops certainly believe it does, as they included it in the case documents in their attempt to prosecute me, and the lowest court (and only the lowest court) agreed with the cops and found probable cause sufficient for pretrial detention. But at any rate, as the Supreme Court has ruled, whether it would fit the criminal definition of incitement by §140 or not, everything I have written is legal for now as long as it is only published on the Internet. And thanks to Kuiper, I haven't published anything in print. The medium, rather than the content, makes all the difference and keeps me out of jail. So here is the link again for those interested in more than the satirical treatment of my views they may get on TV: "Mannskamp."

Comments are welcome on both the article and my appearance on TV, which will air on Wednesday, October 17 at NRK.

Lex Berge

After Norway's Supreme Court decided my blog is legal, a chorus of feminist pundits opined that the law needs to be changed in order to punish me and other bloggers who express opinions online that would be defined as criminal incitement under the Penal Code of 1902 §140 if they were expressed in print media. The cops went so far as claiming they may charge me again under the new law unless I delete whatever offensive statements from my blog they tried and failed to prosecute me for already. It is still unclear exactly which statements that might be, as the case was thrown out on the technicality that blogging isn't covered by the law because the Internet isn't defined as "public," which is a requirement for incitement to be a crime. Thus the courts never got around to deciding whether my blog actually would be illegal if the medium itself were covered by the law against incitement. While I see this as free speech appropriate for the Internet, totalitarian politicians interpret it as a loophole in the law exposed by my case which needs to be closed promptly, so as to be able to put bloggers like me in jail for promoting men's rights activism and other crimes they don't like.

Now the proposal is ready for changing the law. Whoever spoke of Lex Berge got it right. I thought they might be bluffing, but the government really is trying to change the law in my honor. This is the direction they were headed anyway, but the process of legal reform is accelerated because of me. While it must feel good if you are a feminist or leftist to be able to jail me, keep in mind that this law will at least in theory be applicable to a vast number of feminists as well. My statements are not particularly violent compared to some mainstream feminist writing, not to mention leftist revolutionary tracts. How do you think something like the SCUM Manifesto, for example, would hold up against this law? Do you really want to risk several years in prison for expressing yourself like that if you feel like it? And making the law retroactively applicable to old archives means you can suddenly be arrested for something you don't even remember writing. It is really outrageous if you think about it and I suspect many supporters of this law are blinded by the fact that I am an antifeminist and libertarian. You may feel safe under a leftist regime, but that may change and you never know if your opinions will be the politically correct ones in the future. So I would urge everyone to support freedom of speech no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. I hope the Norwegian people will now stand up against the government and resist this new law. Let us make it clear that we do not want this new law because it represents an unreasonable limitation of free speech. Here is how to respond to the proposed law:

Departementet ber om høringsinstansenes syn på forslagene. Høringsfristen er 26. oktober 2012. Høringsuttalelser sendes til Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet, Lovavdelingen, postboks 8005 Dep, 0030 Oslo. Vi ber om å få høringsuttalelsene elektronisk i tillegg til i ordinært brev. E-post kan sendes til lovavdelingen@jd.dep.no.

While I agree that much of the Internet including this blog is public, I do not agree that §140 should be kept. It is an intrinsically undemocratic law which proscribes a lot of honest and natural expression going on online. We already know the "glorification" of crime part of §140 is null and void and contrary to human rights, so that part of the prosecution's case is sure to be lost from the outset. What remains is the promotion of criminal acts as ethically right, which also ought to be within free speech. A public debate about the ethics of cop-killing or whatever is unduly hampered if the "wrong" conclusion will land you in jail. Or what do y'all think? I think the proposed legal reform is evil and unrealistic and don't plan to delete anything from my archives. I already said I will focus on promoting other, less illegal avenues of men's rights activism than cop-killing in the future, and that should be enough.

Renaissance or resistance?

As the case is falling apart for the police, they have started giving me my stuff back. My words are legal and so are my belongings.

So far I got one cactus back. This cactus isn't even psychoactive, and in any case the alkaloid content does not matter because there is no such thing as an illegal cactus in Norway, when kept as a living decorative house plant as I was doing. While mescaline is a controlled substance, live cactus is not. I also had specimens of Lophopora williamsii (peyote) and Trichocereus pachanoi (San Pedro), which are still in police custody. These will also have to be returned to me because as much as the cops would like to destroy them and charge me with drug crimes, there is no law criminalizing live cacti at this point. You have to prepare them in some way for consumption or extract the mescaline before it becomes illegal, and I am not into that. I really mean it when I say they are only for decoration. I have been a psychonaut, to be sure, but that was many years ago and I have no interest in tripping anymore (or using any other recreational drugs including alcohol for that matter). My attitude to psychedelic drugs and the entheogens can now be summarized by this quote by Alan Watts: "When you get the message, hang up the phone." Been there, done that. I've been to both Heaven and Hell and am in no hurry to return, to say the least. These drugs are called entheogens because they generate God within. Whether the mystical experiences they unleash have any spiritual validity I cannot tell. Perhaps they are just mind states like any other. But then that applies to spiritual insights obtained by other routes also, such as meditation. I remain skeptical and agnostic, as ever. I do know that I want to live in the material world and make the most of it here and now. Eternal things can wait until they inevitably confront us (or not), and meanwhile I just want to have some pretty flowers in my living room, which is perfectly legal and harmless. This is what my peyote looks like when it flowers:

Articles about the Harlem Renaissance are apparently very suspicious and require police attention.

This is how it was presented in the case documents: "The Harlem Resisstance" [sic].

This is what your bookshelf looks like after the cops have searched through everything:

Even regular books are suspicious to the Bergen police. This is an ex-library book purchased used via Amazon Marketplace. Seized by cops because if you read about rape you must be a criminal, right?

I learned from this case that we only have as much privacy as we make, which is to say you pretty much need to keep everything digital and encrypted if you care about privacy and the cops should decide to investigate you. This calendar, for example, was analyzed to the extent of looking up my friends whose numbers were in it and discussing their criminal records in the case documents.

The police even managed to spill a jar of old coins, some of which fell into the subwoofer of my Harman Kardon Soundsticks III.

The coins are impossible to get out without breaking the subwoofer, as far as I can tell, and as long as they are there the sound is horrible.

My computer equipment has been returned. These are some of the seized hard drives. But they broke my laptop, evidently while circumventing the BIOS password protection. I expect to be reimbursed for this as well.

My explosives manuals originating from my military service are also perfectly legal, of course, and I could have demanded them back. However, when the cops asked if I could give them up as a favor, I agreed because I don't particularly need them anyway.

Supreme Court victory

I am delighted to report that Norway's Supreme Court ruled in my favor today. My blog is legal after all. The police had no lawful basis for pursuing criminal charges against me. This means the case has collapsed for the prosecution and I will be entitled to compensation for the three weeks I spent in prison. I was arrested and jailed for speech which the Supreme Court has ruled is legal, so obviously the entire prosecution was utterly baseless. The cops now also have to give me my computers and other seized property back, including my cactuses, which are also not illegal. They even have to delete my DNA. A lot of people wanted to see me punished, but justice prevailed today nonetheless. Kudos to the Supreme Court for upholding the law even though it meant reaching a verdict unpalatable to feminists and the police.

I am relieved and happy to be free, and proud of the impact my case has had on the public discourse regarding feminism and antifeminism in Norway. Being a political prisoner provided a welcome boost to my activism. Which should surprise no one, because suppressing speech generally tends to be counterproductive. The entire process has been tremendously empowering for the Men's Rights Movement. This spectacular prosecution of an MRA sparked debate and demonstrated to the horror of the feminist establishment that there are more antifeminists out there than they knew. I am not some kind of extremist easily dismissed, even though some of my writings may appear somewhat ungenteel. While my kind of violent rhetoric is legal, it is no longer needed. We are strong enough to fight feminism in more elegant and subtle ways now.

Out of prison

Three weeks ago I was arrested while jogging and charged with incitement based on opinions expressed on this blog. I was imprisoned and faced up to 8 years. However, now an appellate court (Gulating lagmannsrett) has ruled that my blog is actually legal, so assuming the Supreme Court upholds this decision next week, the entire case stands to collapse for the prosecution and I am completely exonerated. Some of my utterances may have been infelicitous (and won't be repeated), but they are not illegal under current law.

It has been quite an adventure being treated as an extremely dangerous enemy of the state, and I will have lots more to say about my prison experience later. Now I must try to piece my life back together, which is difficult because the cops stole all my computers and storage media etc. and made a mess of all the rest of my belongings. Of course, with my controversial opinions I know better than having anything illegal at home, but that does not stop the cops from dreaming up conspiracy theories based on whatever everyday items they find. Among the things seized are normal books bought at Amazon, notebooks, calendars and papers, even printouts of newspaper articles. They also later returned and stole all my perfectly legal cactuses, which amounts to sheer bullying. They impounded a folder labeled "The Harlem Renaissance," which contained my notes and articles (from when I was a grad student in English in 2002-4) about that literary movement. In the documents provided to my lawyer this has become "The Harlem Resistance." Apparently they think this is evidence of terrorist plans or whatever. Textbooks about explosives handed to me by the Army when I was conscripted back in 1997 were also presented by the cops to the courts and media as evidence that I am seriously dangerous and need to be imprisoned. When this nonsense was exposed, they started attacking my mental health, portraying me as mentally unstable before I talked to a psychiatrist who reached the opposite conclusion and found me sane. These are just some examples of the incredible turns of events in this case. And if it doesn't end in the Supreme Court next week, I have a hell of a trial to look forward to, which I will take full advantage of as a pulpit for men's rights activism.

Thoughts on the trial

Breivik's obsession with Islamization is (I hope) but a tiny footnote to the history of the coming civil war between MRAs and manginas over feminist sex law. The lack of attention to men's rights issues in the trial so far is somewhat disappointing. Breivik at his worst has even embraced and amplified pieces of feminist dogma, most notably when he claims Muslim men have raped 90,000 Norwegian women since 1960. This is doubtless true if you use the feminist (and now legal) definition of rape, but if rape instead is reasonably defined as intercourse resisted by the woman to the best of her ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury, the claim becomes untenable. Nonetheless, some auspicious developments for men have emerged from the trial so far. Breivik is at his best when he takes on psychiatry. The spectacle of court-appointed psychiatrists exposing themselves as charlatans is pleasing to behold. Indeed the most positive upshot of Breivik's activism and judicial process, in my view, is making it more difficult to declare future activists insane. Breivik has thus served to habilitate Western terrorism. Since "treatment" in a mental asylum is the most barbaric and inhumane sanction society can legally impose on an individual (arguably worse than the death penalty), such punishment is understandably wished upon perpetrators of extraordinarily heinous crimes. However, psychiatry is inherently pseudoscientific and coercive enough without being brazenly applied towards political ends. Thus when activists are defined as "psychotic" and "schizophrenic" and held unaccountable merely because their political views deviate from whatever is politically correct, the charade becomes so obvious that it backfires on their entire profession and the psychiatrists are so widely discredited that their efforts work to the terrorist's advantage. If Breivik is subjected to chemical torture, it will be obvious that the system is corrupt and does not follow its own ostensible ethics which require a valid diagnosis. Pretending he is insane when he is obviously a rational warrior would turn him into a martyr and bolster any resistance movement against the current regime. It is possible to disagree with a political regime and decide to fight it even unto death without being delusional. You may not agree with the ideals behind that decision, but defining such activists as insane only serves to obliterate your own credibility and hence undermine the legitimacy of the regime you represent. This realization has evidently hit the Norwegian forensic psychiatric community like a ton of bricks and they are now engaged in damage control, trying to save face by having Breivik declared competent after all, which is the maximum victory he can gain from the trial under the circumstances and what now appears to be the most likely outcome.

Unlike Breivik, I don't mind living in a multicultural society. Freedom of religion and migration are self-evident rights to a libertarian like me, and racism is anathema. But I do not want to live in a society with sex laws based on misandry. The feminist police state is so morally repugnant that I cannot in good conscience stand by complacently as it escalates, even if I am not directly punished by feminist law myself. An activist for men is still such a rara avis that we must at least to some extent laud any adversary of the feminist state, even if he is unsavory in some ways. MRAs are few because sadly, most people lack the moral development to see beyond positive law. They fail to comprehend the concept of natural law, which would tell them feminist sex law is a travesty upon earth. The problem with most people is they are too law-abiding. Hence they are easy to oppress, and easily persuaded to hurt others in the name of authority. Most people just blindly follow authority. I differ from the hoi polloi most significantly insofar as I realize the authorities are full of shit, particularly in regard to sex crimes, and so I do not respect them. I fully discern what hateful scumbags are the feminists in the abuse industry who came up with our contemporary sex laws, and I understand the nature of the lies they use to justify them all too well to fall for their propaganda.

Excessive respect for authorities is even found in the Men's Movement. Hence you have the syndrome among the more simpleminded MRAs that the only antidote to untrammeled criminalization of male sexuality they can see is to apply these same absurd laws to women equally. They regard it as a victory when hateful laws are applied to women as well as men, partly because they are brainwashed by feminists to believe the sexes are equal and also because they cannot conceive of nullifying laws because their moral development appears to be lacking. They think the law is the highest authority. Thus they tend to applaud when the feminist state hurts women too, for example by imprisoning a mother for three years and requiring her to register as a sex offender because her 17-year-old daughter decided to work as a stripper. Yes, the feminist state has once again outdone itself in hateful absurdity. At this point we can dispense with any notion that the state exists to protect women and see it for the behemoth inflictor of maximal damage to all people that it really is. But two wrongs do not make a right. We need to cut the crap and attack the madness of feminist anti-sex hatred at its core.

I base my morality on basic universal (libertarian) principles, and I disrespect positive law when it egregiously contravenes what I believe is right. This means I reject at least 95% of current sexual legislation, which I see for the misandry it is. Bluntly put, I consider myself a political sex offender, which is not a popular position to take, but to me it is more important to do the right thing than to be tolerated by polite society.

What are the limits to misandry? Experience tells me there is literally no limit. Misandry can proceed arbitrarily far. To illustrate, age of consent and statutory rape laws are openly based on nothing but legal fictions with no basis in fact whatsoever, yet they enjoy wide support. The very word "statutory" candidly signifies that these crimes are created by statute rather than reality. Yet droves of "men" (and I use that term loosely) are primitive enough to internalize the hatred against themselves codified by these laws. They are simpletons and impressionable fools, to be sure, but that is how it is. Moreover, an entire industry (that we MRAs contemptuously call the abuse industry) has sprung up to reify the legal fictions represented by these laws, brainwashing girls and, perversely, even sometimes boys so as to feel "raped" or "abused" after harmless, consensual sex. Every time I read about men (and sometimes women) falling victim to these laws -- which is daily -- my hatred against feminism grows.

No matter how far the feminist state escalates, the majority of men will support it. Politics is simply a competition of who can be the biggest mangina and hurt men the most to the advantage of women, and the cops will enforce any law you tell them to no matter how unreasonable and hateful. History has shown that if you (or even an invading army) tell Norwegian cops to round up all the Jews and ship them off to death camps after confiscating all their property, for example, they will happily oblige. There is no reason they won't do the same with sex offenders, and feminists get to define "sex offender" exactly they way they want. The only people who deserve to be targeted by feminist sex laws are the politicians themselves. Amusingly, male politicians are frequently hoist by the hateful laws they helped pass, but even then they will never speak up against the law itself. They will merely defend themselves within the framework of the law (claiming they "didn't do it") rather than seek jury nullification like a proper MRA would do, and they will continue to support any misandrist law the feminists can conceive of, at least as long as women can vote. Women are Team Women and so are most men. If the feminist state tomorrow declared, say, that sex with women with brown eyes is always rape, I have no doubt manginas would support this law and the entire justice system would unflinchingly enforce it, because many laws already on the books are every bit as absurd. As we keep seeing time and again, the cops are unabashed scum of the earth who blatantly single out the most misandristic laws for the highest priority of enforcement. I have followed feminist escalation long enough to be disillusioned of any limits to misandry, because clearly none exist.

However, as the feminist police state escalates, even as most men support it or are complacent, the few MRAs who do oppose it will get more militant. The current political milieu is tremendously radicalizing for those of us who pay attention. Opposition must rise from the grassroots in order to perturb such a regime. With asymmetric warfare, we can inflict significant damage and perhaps influence policies and laws. There is precedent for activism at the group level influencing authorities. Look to the African-Americans for one example. Los Angeles burned in 1992 because blacks were angry about a court verdict, triggering a new verdict with a fairer outcome (not that I condone double jeopardy, but the point is blacks are admirably capable of group activism, unlike men). Now Zimmerman must be lynched in order to avoid race riots, because blacks are race-conscious. Unfortunately, men are still low on gender-consciousness, so the feminist state can pretty much do as it pleases for now. Men ought to emulate the black sense of racial identity applied to gender, and we need more belligerent leaders to incite the masses like they have MLK, Jesse Jackson and so on. My dream is for the Men's Rights Movement to grow strong enough to at least hurt the state at a comparable level to what American blacks can, eventually making the authorities too scared to fight their war on male sexuality. If we trudge on, we can achieve this. Let us set aside racial and religious differences and each of us from the humblest blogger to the deadliest activist do what we can to fight feminism. Let us all get along and direct all our animosity squarely at the feminist state and its enforcers.

How dare men think yes means yes?

"For you boys and men I want to ask: If the girl has been drinking at all, do you really dare take the chance that she actually means 'yes'?"

This is the latest threat from the police in Oslo, uttered by spokescunt for sex crimes Hanne Kristin Rohde. In other words the pigs are eager to arrest and prosecute you for rape if a woman regrets sex after a single drink -- even if she said "yes" -- and thanks to feminist rape law reform which introduced the concept of "negligent rape" back in 2000, they can. Women are officially to be regarded as such delicate flowers that the slightest amount of intoxication will invalidate their consent. Which would seem somewhat insulting and contrary to any notion that women are equal, perhaps, but also tremendously empowering. Alcohol instantly confers on women a blank check to accuse men of rape in case they have any regrets whatsoever. Meanwhile men are always held responsible for our actions no matter how much we imbibe, of course. I feel like I am back in freshman orientation again, except by now the most hateful feminist policies have been realized on a societal scale.

Thus the feminist utopia is taken to the next level. However, a criminal trial is currently underway in Oslo to remind us that not all men are happy about the feminist regime. You reap as you sow, feminists, and insurrection is looking more compelling for Norwegian men every day as you escalate the misandry.

Let me repeat that quote again in the original:

- Til dere gutter og menn vil jeg spørre: Hvis jenta i det hele tatt har drukket, tar du virkelig sjansen på at hun faktisk mener «ja»?

Gentlemen, this is how much your country hates you, and all the players in the justice system openly admit that this is how they want it. Now I suggest you reflect a little on what you want to contribute back to a society which is prepared to ruin your life on such a flimsy pretext because that's how much of a piece of shit a man offically is compared to a female.

The Misandry of Politics

If you join the gang of violent misandrist thugs known as the police, don't be surprised if they turn on you as soon as you act like a man. Albert Covarrubias learned the hard way how men are treated by feminist law enforcers. The 29-year-old officer was shot by his fellow pigs as soon as they got wind of his relationship with a 17-year-old girl.

Police said he had to be arrested immediately on suspicion of illegal sex with a teenage minor early Saturday because of the seriousness of the evidence and allegations against him.
The officer physically resisted the arrest and fired his gun before another officer fatally shot him at a DUI checkpoint where he'd been working, police said. No one else was injured.

Since his job was to hurt people, I can contain my sympathy for this dead feminist enforcer. But his premature death wasn't right either, and it should serve as a warning for other men trying to decide what to do with their lives. Gentlemen, this is how much our society loathes us just for being men. It behooves us to reflect on our worthlessness as defined by our culture, because it has bearing on what our contribution back to this society should be. Feminist sex law formally codifies the relative worth of the sexes, and make no mistake about it, a man is a worthless piece of shit. What happened to Albert Covarrubias was not an anomaly. Our culture thinks nothing of throwing the life of any man away for the slightest sexual insult to a woman. Whether it is real or based on nothing but statutory fiction or even false altogether is of little consequence. The bottom line is men are despised for embodying anything resembling manliness, and all our institutions exist to serve women at the expense of men. Astonishingly, they even expect men to serve and uphold the system while treating us as pariahs at the same time.

So, too, in politics. The high-profile rape accusation against Helge Solum Larsen is now exposing not only the nature of feminist rape law, which lets women regret sex and bring rape charges regardless of the circumstances, but also the wider misandry endemic to our entire political system. It is as revealing as it is ugly. This scandal has really brought out the worst in the party Venstre and other political commentators. Their hateful feminist values now shine through for all to see. When sex with young nubile women is regarded as an automatic "breach of trust" on the part of male leaders, it is clear that Norwegian politics is a culture which caters only to women. Men may become leaders, but they are not supposed to reap the fruits of their efforts. The depth of anti-male bias in Norwegian politics is perhaps best summed up in this hateful statement by Anders Giæver: "Ikke noe politisk parti kan leve med at en av lederne har seksuell omgang med en beruset 17 år gammel partifelle på et partiarrangement, uavhengig av andre omstendigheter." So there you have it. An earnest feminist scumbag lies down the law for all the manginas to follow. Regardless of the circumstances, rape or not, sex with drunk 17-year-old girls at party events is incompatible with a political career. Why would any man in his right mind sign up for a career in such a system? What is in it for men, if they have to abnegate their sexuality in order to be in politics? Are our male politicians really that stupid? Am I the only one who thinks it's time to start a pro-male party?

Men are only tolerated in our society as long as they behave like eunuchs. When men act like men, we are criminals and when famous men act like men it is also a "scandal." But in truth, the law is the scandal and so is the culture of misandry. Helge Solum Larsen simply did what any normal man would do. This type of situation still goes on regularly despite the hypocritical feminist affirmations of our male politicians; but in this case, the girl had her regrets and since this is a feminist state, it is taken seriously as rape and exposed all over the news. As the details now stand, there is still a tiny possibility that it was in fact rape (and by that I mean the girl was forced to have intercourse despite resisting to the best of her ability). But by defining rape so ludicrously that real rape is drowned out by all the phony feminist-defined rape, it has gotten exceedingly difficult to spot a real rape. The presumption must be that this is not real rape even if it legally is. We are so used to drunk women getting away with calling sex rape simply because they regret it that if a real rape should occur in a nachspiel setting, it requires extraordinary evidence. Feminist rape law reform has done even more than false accusations to destroy the credibility of the accuser. Paradoxically, by taking rape too seriously, feminists have achieved a climate where rape allegations cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable observer until we pretty much get to see it with our own eyes.

Also, can somebody please tell me the identity of Solum's accuser, if you know who she is? I'd like to publish her name and it seems the mainstream news media are conspiring to shield her. I know this is common practice with sex allegations, but it is wrong. All parties should be named and everything should be out in the open.

No Accuser Needed For Feminist Rape Trial

The feminist police state has once again outdone itself. You would think that no matter how ludicrously rape was defined, it would at least require an accuser. Not so in this hateful feminist utopia. All it takes to charge you with rape is footage of nude, apparently unconscious women on your hard drive. Such is the zeal of feminist rape prosecution that no woman ever needs to come forward and accuse you, or even be identified. Man charged with raping three unknown women:

Politiet mener opptakene er gjort i 2010 og at noen av mannens møbler synes på filmene. De har siktet ham for voldtekt av de tre kvinnene.
Mannen har forklart at bildene ikke sier ham noe, men at han ser at trekket på sofaen ligner og kan være hans.
...
Politiet mener filmene uansett holder til domfellelse.

This is even more absurd than the trial we saw last month where a man got 4.5 years for a supposed rape attempt which nobody remembers. That case at least had a woman involved who felt violated, even though she couldn't remember what happened because she had been drinking to blackout. Yet even an oblivious accuser is superfluous to feminist justice. This case has no accuser, only the feminist machine seeking to destroy a man's life for its own sake.

I regret expressing misgivings about my initial joyous reaction to Breivik's activism at Utøya. The contrition wasn't heartfelt, and recent escalations of the feminist police state make me feel so sheepish for vacillating that I hereby retract my disclaimer. The feminist state is so flagrantly out of control that it and its abettors most assuredly deserve anything they can get.

Nonviolent Resistance: FIJA

There are ways to fight tyrannical laws without resorting to violent insurrection. We don't even necessarily need to get unjust laws repealed in order to protect ourselves. As long as the right to a jury trial is respected, the people can defend citizens from the worst abuses of government. It is called jury nullification, which is a peaceful way to tell the government to fuck off. If I ever find myself on the jury of a criminal trial involving, say, statutory or feminist-defined rape or nonviolent drug offenses, I would vote to acquit in any event as a matter of principle, regardless of the evidence, because I fundamentally disagree with the laws in question. Convicting anybody for such bogus, victimless crimes would be contrary to my core libertarian moral values. Moreover, it would be my right and duty as a juror to judge the law as much as the person, and refuse to convict when I find the law morally repulsive. Sadly many jurors fail to realize this, and instead think they are supposed to uphold the law no matter how much they disagree with it. Today I was delighted to come across an organization working to inform potential jurors of their proper role. FIJA is the Fully Informed Jury Association, and here is finally a charity I can get behind! As they put it,

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if the government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works to:
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto--juror nullification--is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

This goes for Norway too, with some caveats. In some ways we have less rights and a more oppressive state. We have (at least) triple jeopardy. Double jeopardy is built into the system as a matter of course. Our jury system, which was instituted in 1887, works roughly like this. Defendants are first tried in Tingretten, which is a sort of kangaroo court with one judge and two semi-professional laymen who vote and produce a verdict which isn't taken very seriously by anyone (it scarcely even counts as jeopardy). Then if either party appeals, which is extremely common, the real trial is in Lagmannsretten with 10 jurors and 3 judges. At this point, a certain level of flagrant disrespect for jury nullification is built into the system. The matter of guilt is up to the jury of 10 peers, but if they vote to acquit and the 3 professional judges disagree (if they find it obvious that the defendant is technically guilty but the jury has decided to disregard the law -- the very definition of jury nullification), they can quash the verdict and order a new trial, subjecting the defendant to triple jeopardy. In the new trial there are only four laymen in addition to another three professional judges, and even here I am not sure if an acquittal is necessarily final. Thus there are some serious structural obstacles to jury nullification in Norway. Nonetheless, our jury system is still pretty strong, and it is important that we keep it that way. Ideally we should strengthen it, of course. The buck should stop with an acquittal in Lagmannsretten, after which there should be no way the defendant can be retried for the same crime. This only happens occasionally, however, so with respect to appeals and multiple jeopardy, I am about 70% pleased with the way it works now. We should also guarantee the right to a jury trial for all crimes, and not just crimes punishable by more than 6 years. We might also debate whether just 7 votes out of 10 jurors should really be sufficient to convict. (In the American system, all 12 have to agree. But on the other hand, their system has many other shortcomings including the governmental extortion that is plea bargaining, all kinds of unfair restrictions on what evidence is admissible including rape shield laws, and even ways to get around the double jeopardy rule simply by picking another name for the same alleged crime -- so I am not saying their system is better overall.)

In rape trials based on feminist corruption of the legal definition, jury nullification is in fact already happening. It just isn't recognized as such. The official propaganda has it that some flaws in the system must be preventing justice from being served. We are constantly told that the system needs to be reformed in various ways to convict more men, from the supposedly careless way rape accusations are initially handled by police to the pesky problem of juries refusing to get with the feminist program and convict. But indeed, the low conviction rate (or "high attrition rate," as feminists put it) in rape trials is proof that the system is working, at least to some extent. There is still some vestige of justice and sanity left. The people is protesting corrupt laws and odious feminist prosecutors by refusing to convict in many cases. And ironically, women jurors vote to acquit accused rapists more often than men do, according to one study. Yes, on rape juries, manginas run more rampant than feminists! The problem from an MRA perspective is state feminism, corrupt laws and the disrespect for the citizenry embodied by the weak position of the jury. And it keeps getting worse. Feminists are lobbying to abolish the jury altogether in rape trials, citing what is in fact jury nullification (and should be respected as such -- the proper course of action is to back off and reverse feminist rape law reform) as evidence that only professional feminist lawyercunts and manginas are fit to decide who is guilty of rape. When that happens, we won't have any nonviolent recourse against tyrannical feminist prosecutions, but we still do as of today, and we should avail ourselves of this opportunity for nonviolent activism while it lasts. If you ever serve on a jury, please don't let the feminists with their laws and judges cow you into voting for a guilty verdict if it goes against your conscience.

Which Men Does MRA Serve? Alphas or Betas?

Is the Men's Rights Movement only for betas? An article signed by four "masculinists" (of Maskulinist.no) in Morgenbladet, where I am also cited, raises the question of which group constitutes the Men's Movement, and I suppose it is easy to get the impression from a cursory look at MRA sites that we are all about betas. I guess I haven't been clear as to exactly who is included in our movement as I see it, so perhaps it is time to define MRA.

Men's Rights Activism is a backlash against feminism. Feminism is basically about restricting men’s access to women’s bodies by means of the police state, all while forcibly reaping the fruits of men's labor without having to put out any more than they feel like. MRA is the opposite. Succinctly put, MRActivism addresses how to get laid and what happens when you do. The former is perhaps best summed up in my “Rape is equality” post, and the latter includes criminal (and civil) sex accusations as well as anything to do with divorce, paternity fraud, child support and custody, etc. While how to get laid is by definition a beta and omega issue, what happens when you do is also highly applicable to alphas. Feminist corruption of justice has made sex extremely risky no matter how alpha you are. Alpha victims of feminist sex laws include Julian Assange, DSK, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, and Israeli ex-president Moshe Katshav, who is now in prison for false rape and sexual harassment. And that’s just to name a few recent examples off the top of my head. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore almost ran afoul of feminist sex law, so clearly no man is too powerful to be a victim. There is also a plethora of recent examples here in Norway, where thousands of men criminalized by the new law against buying sex now are exposed by hackers after the media dug into a website where prostitutes advertise and found, unsurprisingly, that men in all kinds of positions were customers. I am linking to the complete user database including all phone numbers (but not the text messages between hookers and johns, which I do not possess because the hackers were too chickenshit to share them) in order to show all these men that the feminist police state is a very real personal threat against which we should all band together. This material alone could be used to at least triple the Norwegian prison population for a year if feminist prosecutors used it for all it is worth, but I guess it was too overwhelming to charge some 20,000 men all at once...

Of course, men always compete for women, with each man preferring to keep all the pussy for himself. Alphas and betas are not natural allies, and so far, hardly any alphas have come out in support of MRA. They probably don’t feel the need to yet. Life is generally good for alphas under feminism, but all it takes to ruin your life is a woman’s word. I believe all men ought to conspire against the feminist police state out of solidarity but also for their own good, and when that happens, feminism won't stand a chance. The hard part is convincing the alphas that supporting feminism is a bad idea, as most of them seem to be incapable of realizing this until it is too late. But they should. Even when I was most sexually frustrated, feminist sex laws and rape reform in particular always remained at the forefront of my mind and I was seething with hatred and murderous rage against the cops who enforce all the freshly minted feminist sex laws against men who do easily get laid. We are in this together, alphas and betas alike, and it is high time to fight the feminist police state. In fact, oppugning feminist jurisprudence is arguably more important than promoting sexual egalitarianism, since at the very least, men would be able to pay for sex without persecution.